Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01896/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01896-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS H. PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT M. MOORE, ET AL.,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

No. C 08-01896 PJH

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO

PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF 

SCOTT M. MOORE

The Court has received an Objection to Pro Hac Vice Admission of Scott M. Moore (the

“objection”) as counsel for Defendants. Defendants filed a response to the objection. The objection

was referred to the undersigned for resolution.

Civil Local Rule 11 – 3 (b) bars the admission pro hac vice, without order of the assigned

judge, of an attorney, who “is regularly engaged in the practice of law in the State of California.” 

Plaintiff asserts that Scott Michael Moore, who was admitted pro hac vice by order of this Court,

“regularly engages” in the practice of law in the State of California. The only basis for this

contention is the allegations contained in the complaint in this matter that Moore, without a license,

represented the Plaintiff in connection with a particular matter, and did so within the State of

California.

In response, Mr. Moore filed a declaration swearing that he is not engaged in the practice of

law in California. Mr. Moore also indicates that he has not maintained an office in California since

before the date on which the complaint in this matter was filed, March 14, 2008.

The objection is not well taken and is overruled. Civil local rule 11 – 3 only bars admission

pro hac vice of attorneys who “regularly” engage in practice of law in California. The record in this

matter does not disclose that Mr. Moore “regularly” practices in the state. First, the allegations of

the complaint are just that – – allegations. They have not been proven at this point in the litigation. 

Case 4:08-cv-01896-PJH Document 31 Filed 05/27/08 Page 1 of 2
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

Second, the complaint alleges that Mr. Moore represented the Plaintiff on one particular matter. The

fact of representation of a particular client with respect to a particular matter in California does not

establish that the attorney “regularly” practices in the state.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2008

__________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:08-cv-01896-PJH Document 31 Filed 05/27/08 Page 2 of 2