Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01150/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01150-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

B & R SUPERMARKET, INC.; GROVE

LIQUORS, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

VISA, INC.; VISA USA, INC.;

MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL,

INC.; AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY;

DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES; BANK

OF AMERICA, N.A.; BARCLAYS BANK

DELAWARE; CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL

CORPORATION; CHASE BANK USA, N.A.;

CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A.;

CITIBANK, N.A.; PNC BANK, N.A.; USAA

SAVINGS BANK; U.S. BANCORP, N.A.;

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; EMVCo, LLC;

JCB CO., LTD; and UNIONPAY, a Chinese

bank association,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-01150 WHA

ORDER DENYING PRO HAC

VICE APPLICATIONS OF

ATTORNEYS JOHN DEVINE,

NATALIE NOLEN, DANIEL

BOOKER, MICHELLE MANTINE,

ELIZABETH PAPEZ, PETER

GREENE, BORIS BERSHTEYN,

EVAN KREINER, ROBERT

SPERLING, HARRY KOULOS,

JOSEPH MOTTO, KENDALL

MILLARD, AND CRAIG BENSON 

The pro hac vice applications of Attorneys John Devine, Natalie Nolen, Daniel Booker,

Michelle Mantine, Elizabeth Papez, Peter Greene, Boris Bershteyn, Evan Kreiner, Robert

Sperling, Harry Koulos, Joseph Motto, Kendall Millard, and Craig Benson (Dkt. Nos. 49, 56,

63–70, 72–74) 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, 

Case 3:16-cv-01150-WHA Document 80 Filed 03/23/16 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

specifying such bar” (emphasis added). Filling out the pro hac vice form from the district court

website such that it 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

applications cannot be processed until corrected forms are submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-01150-WHA Document 80 Filed 03/23/16 Page 2 of 2