Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02264/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02264-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COBALT PARTNERS, LP, COBALT

PARTNERS II, LP, COBALT OFFSHORE

MASTER FUND, LP AND COBALT KC

PARTNERS, LP,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SUNEDISON, INC., AHMAD CHATILA, BRIAN

WUEBBELS, MARTIN TRUONG, ALEJANDRO

HERNANDEZ, EMMANUEL HERNANDEZ,

ANTONIO R. ALVAREZ, PETER BLACKMORE,

CLAYTON DALEY JR., GEORGANNE

PROCTOR, STEVEN TESORIERE, JAMES B.

WILLIAMS, RANDY H. ZWIRN, GOLDMAN,

SACHS & CO., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,

MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, MERRILL

LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH

INCORPORATED, DEUTSCHE BANK

SECURITIES INC., MACQUARIE CAPITAL

(USA), INC., MCS CAPITAL MARKETS LLC and

DOES 1- 25, inclusive,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED CASES.

 /

No. C 16-02263 WHA

Related Cases:

Case No. 3:16-cv-02264-WHA 

Case No. 3:16-cv-02265-WHA 

Case No. 3:16-cv-02268-WHA

ORDER DENYING PRO

HAC VICE APPLICATION

The pro hac vice applications of Rhiannon A. Campbell and James L. Tuxbury are

DENIED for failing to comply with Civil Local Rule 11–3. The local rule requires that an

applicant certify 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

Case 3:16-cv-02264-WHA Document 74 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

bar” (emphasis added). An application that only identifies the state of bar membership — such

as “the bar of Texas” — is inadequate under the local rule because it fails to identify a specific

court (such as the Supreme Court of Texas). While the application fees do not need to be paid

again, the application cannot be processed until a corrected form or application is submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-02264-WHA Document 74 Filed 07/19/16 Page 2 of 2