(SS) Tyson v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Tyson v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 29, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-00688·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 GLORIA D. TYSON, No. 1:21-cv-00688-BAM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DAVID F. CHERMOL’S PRO HAC VICE STATUS 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE DENIED SECURITY, 15 Defendant. FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 17

18 Plaintiff Gloria D. Tyson initiated this action seeking review of a final decision of the 19 Social Security Administration on April 26, 2021. (Doc. 1.) On April 26, 2021, David F. 20 Chermol filed an application to appear and participate pro hac vice in this action on behalf of 21 Plaintiff. (Doc. 4.) 22 Local Rule 180 governs the admission of attorneys to practice pro hac vice in this Court. 23 Pursuant to Local Rule 180(b)(2),

24 Unless authorized by the Constitution of the United States or an Act of Congress, an attorney is not eligible to practice [pro hac vice] if any one or more of the 25 following apply: (i) the attorney resides in California, (ii) the attorney is regularly employed in California, or (iii) the attorney is regularly engaged in professional 26 activities in California. 27 L.R. 180(b)(2). 28 1 According to the application, Mr. Chermol submitted and was granted pro hac vice status 2 within the preceding year in the following matters in this district: 3 (1) Rania v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2:20-cv-01541-MCE-CKD (granted 8/2020); 4 (2) Kent v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2:21-cv-00425-JDP (granted 3/2021); 5 (3) Magana v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 1:21-cv-00425-SKO (granted 3/2021); 6 (4) Kinney v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 1:21-cv-00554-GSA (granted 4/2021); 7 (5) Plascencia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 1:21-cv-00624-HBK (granted 4/20211). 8 (Doc. 4 at 2.) 9 Frequent applications for admission pro hac vice may indicate that an attorney is regularly 10 engaged in professional activities in California in violation of Local Rule 180(b)(2). See, e.g., 11 Guguni v. Chertoff, 2008 WL 2080788, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Mendoza v. Golden West Sav. 12 Ass’n Services Co., 2009 WL 2050486, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2009); Ang v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., 13 2015 WL 1474866 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 14 Accordingly, David F. Chermol is HEREBY ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why his 15 admission pro hac vice should not be denied on the basis that he is regularly engaged in 16 professional activities in California. Mr. Chermol shall file a written response to this order to 17 show cause within fourteen (14) days of service of this order. 18 Failure to respond to this order to show cause may result in the imposition of 19 sanctions, including but not limited to monetary sanctions. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21

22 Dated: April 29, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23

25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 GLORIA D. TYSON, No. 1:21-cv-00688-BAM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DAVID F. CHERMOL’S PRO HAC VICE STATUS 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE DENIED SECURITY, 15 Defendant. FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 17

18 Plaintiff Gloria D. Tyson initiated this action seeking review of a final decision of the 19 Social Security Administration on April 26, 2021. (Doc. 1.) On April 26, 2021, David F. 20 Chermol filed an application to appear and participate pro hac vice in this action on behalf of 21 Plaintiff. (Doc. 4.) 22 Local Rule 180 governs the admission of attorneys to practice pro hac vice in this Court. 23 Pursuant to Local Rule 180(b)(2),

24 Unless authorized by the Constitution of the United States or an Act of Congress, an attorney is not eligible to practice [pro hac vice] if any one or more of the 25 following apply: (i) the attorney resides in California, (ii) the attorney is regularly employed in California, or (iii) the attorney is regularly engaged in professional 26 activities in California. 27 L.R. 180(b)(2). 28 1 According to the application, Mr. Chermol submitted and was granted pro hac vice status 2 within the preceding year in the following matters in this district: 3 (1) Rania v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2:20-cv-01541-MCE-CKD (granted 8/2020); 4 (2) Kent v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2:21-cv-00425-JDP (granted 3/2021); 5 (3) Magana v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 1:21-cv-00425-SKO (granted 3/2021); 6 (4) Kinney v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 1:21-cv-00554-GSA (granted 4/2021); 7 (5) Plascencia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 1:21-cv-00624-HBK (granted 4/20211). 8 (Doc. 4 at 2.) 9 Frequent applications for admission pro hac vice may indicate that an attorney is regularly 10 engaged in professional activities in California in violation of Local Rule 180(b)(2). See, e.g., 11 Guguni v. Chertoff, 2008 WL 2080788, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Mendoza v. Golden West Sav. 12 Ass’n Services Co., 2009 WL 2050486, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2009); Ang v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., 13 2015 WL 1474866 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 14 Accordingly, David F. Chermol is HEREBY ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why his 15 admission pro hac vice should not be denied on the basis that he is regularly engaged in 16 professional activities in California. Mr. Chermol shall file a written response to this order to 17 show cause within fourteen (14) days of service of this order. 18 Failure to respond to this order to show cause may result in the imposition of 19 sanctions, including but not limited to monetary sanctions. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21

22 Dated: April 29, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23

25 26 27 28

(SS) Tyson v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

(SS) Tyson v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Tyson v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.