Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05240/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05240-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAIME LOPEZ PAEZ,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF,

Defendant. /

No. C07-05240 MJJ

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC

VICE FOR JEFFREY GRIFFITHS

Before the Court is an application for attorney admission pro hac vice by Jeffrey Griffiths, who

represents that he is an active member in good standing with the bar of the Indiana Supreme Court.

(Docket No. 3.) Defendants oppose the application. 

On November 5, 2007, the Court ordered Mr. Griffiths to submit a declaration stating facts that

would demonstrate why he is qualified for admission pro hac vice under the requirements of Civil

Local Rule 11-3(b). The Court has reviewed Mr. Griffiths’ sworn declaration. (Docket No. 6.) In it,

Mr. Griffiths states that he resides within the state of California (¶ 3), and also that he has applied for

pro hac vice admission in approximately ten different cases before the Northern District of California

in the past year (¶ 10). Mr. Griffiths did not disclose either of these salient facts in his original

application.

The Court finds that Mr. Griffiths does not satisfy the requirements of Civil Local Rule 11-3(b)

for pro hac vice admission. Civil Local Rule 11-3(b) expressly states that Mr. Griffiths is not eligible

for permission to practice pro hac vice if he resides in the state of California. Civil Local Rule 11-3(b)

Case 3:07-cv-05240-MJJ Document 7 Filed 12/12/07 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

also states that Mr. Griffiths is not eligible for permission to practice pro hac vice if he is “regularly

engaged in the practice of law in the State of California.” Mr. Griffith’s numerous applications for pro

hac vice admission over the past year raise a concern that he is engaging in the regular practice of law

in California. Mr. Griffiths’ declaration does not set forth any facts that would allow him to fall within

the exceptions recognized by Civil Local Rule 11-3(b).

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-3(b), the Court DENIES Mr. Griffiths’ application for pro hac

vice admission. Moreover, in the interests of ensuring that the Judges of this Court are able to consider

future pro hac vice applications from Mr. Griffiths based on a full record, Mr. Griffiths is further

ORDERED to file a copy of this Order together with any pro hac vice applications that he submits,

from this date forward, in any matter before the United States District Court for the Northern District

of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05240-MJJ Document 7 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 2