Paul M. Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security
This text of Paul M. Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security (Paul M. Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 PAUL M. SMITH, Case No. 1:26-cv-04917-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING JENNIFER L. DUNN 13 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PRO HAC VICE v. APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (ECF No. 4) 15 Defendant. 16 17 The Court has read and considered the application of Jennifer L. Dunn, attorney for 18 Petitioner, for admission to practice pro hac vice under the provisions of Rule 180(b)(2) of the 19 Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for this District. (ECF No. 2.) 20 Local Rule 180 provides in pertinent part: 21 Attorneys Pro Hac Vice. An attorney who is a member in good standing of, and eligible to practice before, the Bar of any United States Court or of the highest 22 Court of any State, or of any Territory or Insular Possession of the United States, and who has been retained to appear in this Court may, upon application and in 23 the discretion of the Court, be permitted to appear and participate in a particular case. Unless authorized by the Constitution of the United States or an Act of 24 Congress, an attorney is not eligible to practice pursuant to (b)(2) if any one or more of the following apply: (i) the attorney resides in California, (ii) the attorney 25 is regularly employed in California, or (iii) the attorney is regularly engaged in professional activities in California. 26 27 L.R. 180(b)(2). The Supreme Court has noted that pro hac vice attorneys are generally one-time or 1 | occasional practitioners. Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 647 (1987). The right to appear pro 2 | hac vice is not absolute and a court may deny the application by setting forth reasons for the 3 | denial. United States v. Ries, 100 F.3d 1469, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1996). In addressing whether an 4 | attorney has been regularly practicing in California, the Ninth Circuit has considered whether the 5 | attorney physically appeared before the district court, signed pleadings, and had contact with the 6 | plaintiffs, whether an attorney licensed in California remained the sole attorney responsible to 7 | the plaintiff, and whether the attorney rendered legal advice to the client. Winterrowd v. Am. 8 | Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 825 (9th Cir. 2009). 9 Attorney Dunn lists three other cases in which she has made an application to be admitted 10 | to practice pro hac vice in this District in the past year, (ECF No. 4 at 1), which, at the very least, 11 | begins to suggest regular engagement in professional activities in California. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven (7) days of the date of 13 | service of this order, Jennifer L. Dunn SHALL SHOW CAUSE in writing why the pro hac vice 14 | application should not be denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 180(b)(2). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 17 | Dated: _ June 29, 2026 : STANLEY A. BOONE 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Paul M. Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-m-smith-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2026.