Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02232/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02232-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 03-02232 JF (RS)

ORDER RE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 4/5/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SYSTEMS AMERICA, INC., et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

ROCKWELL SOFTWARE, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 03-02232 JF (RS)

ORDER RE APPLICATION FOR 1

ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

[re: docket no. 108, 109]

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC.,

 Third Party Plaintiff,

 v.

VERSANT CORPORATION,

 Third Party Defendant.

On April 2, 2007, Attorney Naikang Tsao (“Tsao”), a member of the bars of California

and Wisconsin, applied for admission pro hac vice to the bar of this Court. The proposed order

was signed by the Court on April 3, 2007 and filed on April 4, 2007. After the order was signed,

but prior to its filing, the Court received objections to the application by telephone and in the

Case 5:03-cv-02232-JF Document 111 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case No. C 03-02232 JF (RS)

ORDER RE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

(JFLC1)

form of papers filed by Systems America, Inc (“SAI”). SAI argues that Tsao’s application for

admission pro hac vice is improper because Tsao practices law regularly in California and is thus

disqualified from seeking admission pro hac vice under Civ. L.R. 11-3(b). SAI contends that

Tsao must seek full admission to the bar of this Court under Civil Local Rule 11-1(c).

Civ. L.R. 11-3 provides as follows:

(a) Application. An attorney who is not a member of the bar of this Court may

apply to appear pro hac vice in a particular action in this district by filing a written

application on oath certifying the following:

(1) That he or she is an active member in good standing of the bar of a

United States Court or of the highest court of another State or the District

of Columbia, specifying such bar;

(2) That he or she agrees to abide by the Standards of Professional

Conduct set forth in Civil L.R. 11-4, and to become familiar with the

Local Rules and Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs of this Court;

(3) That an attorney, identified by name, who is a member ofthe bar of

this Court in good standing and who maintains an office within the State

of California, is designated as co-counsel. 

(b) Disqualification from pro hac vice appearance. Unless authorized by an

Act of Congress or by an order of the assigned judge, an applicant is not eligible

for permission to practice pro hac vice if the applicant: (i) resides in the State of

California; or (ii) is regularly engaged in the practice of law in the State of

California. This disqualification shall not be applicable if the pro hac vice

applicant (i) has been a resident of California for less than one year; (ii) has

registered with, and completed all required applications for admission to, the State

Bar of California; and (iii) has officially registered to take or is awaiting his or her

results from the California State Bar exam.

(c) Approval. The Clerk shall present the application to the assigned judge for

approval. The assigned judge shall have discretion to accept or reject the application. 

Having considered Tsao’s application and the objections filed by SAI, and in the absence of any

meaningful prejudice to SAI, the Court concludes that, assuming that Tsao is regularly engaged

in the practice of law in the State of California, the Court should exercise the discretion expressly

granted to it by the local rule and accept the application. See Civ. L.R. 11-3(b) (“Unless

authorized by an Act of Congress or by an order of the assigned judge . . . .”) (emphasis added);

Id. at 11-3(c) (“The assigned judge shall have discretion to accept or reject the application). 

Accordingly, the Court reaffirms its order admitting Tsao. Any remaining disputes pertaining to

the recent deposition at which Tsao appeared, as well as any future discovery disputes, are hereby

referred to Magistrate Judge Seeborg. 

Case 5:03-cv-02232-JF Document 111 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C 03-02232 JF (RS)

ORDER RE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

(JFLC1)

DATED: April 5, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-02232-JF Document 111 Filed 04/05/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case No. C 03-02232 JF (RS)

ORDER RE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Alexander L. Brainerd alexander.brainerd@hellerehrman.com,

robin.ramirez@hellerehrman.com 

Rodger R. Cole rcole@fenwick.com, vpieretti@fenwick.com 

Kimberly K. Dodd kdodd@foley.com, rbarcena@foley.com 

Daniel L. Feder danfeder@pacbell.net 

Nancy J. Geenen ngeenen@foleylaw.com, rbarcena@foleylaw.com 

Annette L. Hurst annette.hurst@hellerehrman.com, mawilliams@hewm.com;

patti.johnsen@hellerehrman.com; brett.stone@hellerehrman.com 

Christopher A. Keele ckeele@twtlaw.com, gbeasley@twtlaw.com; rsnipes@twtlaw.com 

Aaron Kyle Perzanowski aperzanowski@fenwick.com, mbehen@fenwick.com 

Saundra McClendon Riley sriley@fenwick.com, mbehen@fenwick.com 

Rachael Gayza Samberg rsamberg@fenwick.com 

William M. Sloan, Esq wmsloan@stoel.com, 

Colbern C. Stuart, III cole.stuart@hellerehrman.com, trish.lawton@hellerehrman.com 

Molly A Terwilliger molly.terwilliger@hellerehrman.com,

malissa.tracey@hellerehrman.com 

Notice will be delivered by other means to:

Christopher G. Hanewicz 

Heller Ehrman LLP

One East Main Street

Suite 201

Madison, WI 53703-5118

Leslie Harvey 

Heller Ehrman LLP

333 Bush Street

San Francisco, CA 94104

Naikang Tsao 

Foley & Lardner, LLP

150 East Gilman Street

Madison, WI 53701-1497

Case 5:03-cv-02232-JF Document 111 Filed 04/05/07 Page 4 of 4