Mula v. Mula-Stouky

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 PAUL MULA, JR., Case No. 21-cv-04540-BLF

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 10 v. MOTION TO REVOKE PRO HAC VICE STATUS OF GERALD NORTH 11 HELENE MULA-STOUKY, et al., [Re: ECF 87] 12 Defendants.

13 14

15 16 This order addresses the Stouky Defendants’ motion to revoke the pro hac vice status of 17 Plaintiff Paul Mula, Jr.’s counsel, Gerald North, which is joined by Defendants Terry Campbell 18 Wallace and Kristofer Biorn. The motion is opposed by Plaintiff. The Court previously vacated 19 the hearing on the motion that had been scheduled for July 21, 2022. See Order Submitting Mot., 20 ECF 149. The motion is DENIED for the reasons discussed below. 21 Under this Court’s Civil Local Rules, the judge assigned to the case has discretion to 22 accept or reject an attorney’s application for admission pro hac vice. See Civ. L.R. 11-3(d). The 23 judge may grant pro hac vice status to an attorney who is not a member of the bar of this court if 24 the attorney “is an active member in good standing of the bar of a United States Court or of the 25 highest court of another state or the District of Columbia,” and the attorney submits a sworn 26 statement containing certain required information. Civ. L.R. 11-3(a). The information that must 27 be included in the sworn statement includes the attorney’s agreement to abide by the applicable 1 attorney has been granted pro hac vice admission in the district within the twelve months 2 || preceding the application. See id. An attorney is disqualified from pro hac vice admission if the 3 attorney resides in California or is regularly engaged in the practice of law in California, absent 4 authorization by an Act of Congress or court order. See Civ. L.R. 11-3(c). 5 Mr. North was granted pro hac vice status by this Court after he submitted an application 6 satisfying the above requirements, along with a Certificate of Good Standing to practice in the 7 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Order Granting Applic., ECF 83. 8 || Defendants urge the Court to exercise its discretion to revoke Mr. North’s pro hac vice admission 9 || based on his record of discipline, suspension, and inactive state bar membership. Defendants cite 10 || the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bundy, which holds that “[w]here an out-of-state attorney suggests 11 through his behavior that he will not abide by the court’s rules and practices, the district court may 12 || reject his pro hac vice application.” In re Bundy, 840 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). In 5 13 response, Mr. North represents that the disciplinary proceedings referenced by Defendants 14 || terminated in 2001 and 2005. Having considered the parties’ submissions, and performed an 3 15 independent search of Mr. North’s bar records in the state of Iowa, the Court declines to revoke 16 Mr. North’s pro hac vice status. 3 17 Defendants’ motion to revoke the pro hac vice status of Mr. North is DENIED.

19 Dated: August 15, 2022 00 hh Lye aomeens ETH LABSON FREEMAN 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28