Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00884/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00884-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

ANNE MARIE LYON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

W W GRAINGER INC,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-00884 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE DIRECTED

TO ATTORNEY

ERICA ROCUSH

After it was brought to the Court’s attention that one of the counsel for defendants,

Attorney Erica K. Rocush, was not on record as an attorney admitted to the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California, Attorney Rocush was ordered to file proof

of her admission no later than noon on April 15, 2010. The deadline has passed and no such

proof has been filed.

Additionally, Attorney Rocush filed a sworn declaration (Dkt. No. 16) to explain why

defendant did not file a timely opposition to plaintiff’s motion to remand this action. She stated

in part:

I had not received notice of the change in hearing date via email,

as I normally would in a case pending in the Northern District

Court. Therefore, I called the court clerk to inquire as to why I

had not received such notice. At this time, I was informed, much

to my surprise, that there was no record of me being admitted into

the District Court for the Northern District of California.

The clerk’s office has contacted the Court and disputed her statement. According to the

clerk’s office, it initiated contact with Attorney Rocush to notify her that she was not admitted

Case 3:10-cv-00884-WHA Document 26 Filed 04/23/10 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

to the District Court for the Northern District of California after it reviewed the pro hac vice

application of Attorney Henry Galatz (Dkt. No. 5).

No later than NOON ON MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2010, Attorney Rocush is ordered to

explain this discrepancy under oath in the form of a declaration. She also must show cause why

she failed to file proof of her admission as ordered and why she should not be sanctioned. She

is additionally ordered to appear at the hearing on plaintiff’s motion to remand on April 29,

2010, and should be prepared to address these issues at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00884-WHA Document 26 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 2