Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2801 Petroleum Marketing Practices Act

---

1

12cv665 JLS (JLB) Lead Case

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC,

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,

v.

CROSSROAD PETROLEUM, INC., ET 

AL.,

Defendants and Counter-Claimants.

AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED 

ACTIONS

Case No.: 12cv665 JLS (JLB) Lead Case

ORDER REVOKING PRO HAC 

VICE STATUS

(ECF No. 544)

The Court held a Trial Format Setting Status Hearing on July 21, 2016, at which 

David A. Schiller, who has represented a group of defendants/counter-claimants in this 

action referred to as the Schiller Defendants, did not appear. At that conference, counsel 

for plaintiff/counter-defendant BP, along with counsel for several defendants/counterclaimants, notified the Court that they believed Mr. Schiller, who was previously licensed 

to practice law by the State Bar of Texas, had been disbarred. The website for the State 

Bar of Texas indicated—and still indicates—that Mr. Schiller was disbarred on June 20, 

2016. Mr. Schiller appeared in person before the Court on June 29, 2016 for a hearing on 

BP’s motions for partial summary judgment, but failed to notify the Court of his 

disbarment. 

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 546 Filed 07/29/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

12cv665 JLS (JLB) Lead Case

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

Following the July 21, 2016 Trial Format Status hearing, the Court issued an Order 

to Show Cause why the Court should not take judicial notice of Mr. Schiller’s June 20, 

2016 disbarment as indicated on the website for the State Bar of Texas. (See Order, ECF 

No. 542.) Mr. Schiller filed a declaration on July 28, 2016, explaining that he has been in 

bad health, with very high blood pressure and complications therefrom. (Schiller Decl., 

ECF No. 544.) 

Mr. Schiller attended an evidentiary hearing for Texas State Bar proceedings on May 

18, 2016, and participated in the presentation of a witness and identified witnesses and 

exhibits to be presented at a later hearing. (Id. at ¶ 2.) He states under oath that he was 

unable to attend the June 15, 2016 evidentiary hearing in those proceedings because of his 

health condition, which led to a default judgment of disbarment. (Id. at ¶ 8.) He has filed 

a motion for a new trial in those proceedings. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Mr. Schiller states that, given 

the pendency of his motion, the judgment of disbarment is not final. (Id.) Mr. Schiller 

nonetheless concedes that he may not be able to travel given his medical condition, and 

that Ms. Lacey, who is co-counsel for the Schiller Defendants, should assume the role of 

lead counsel. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Mr. Schiller indicates that he is willing to submit his medical 

records for in camera review. (Id.) 

Civil Local Rule 83.3(c)(4) provides:

An attorney not eligible for admission under [the Civil Local Rule pertaining 

to attorneys licensed by the State Bar of California], but who is a member in 

good standing of, and eligible to practice before, the bar of any United States 

court or of the highest court of any state or of any territory or insular 

possession of the United States, who is of good moral character, and who has 

been retained to appear in this court, may, upon written application and in the 

discretion of the court, be permitted to appear and participate in a particular 

case.

The Court notes that, by Mr. Schiller’s own admission, the State Bar of Texas has 

entered judgment of disbarment against him. (Schiller Decl. ¶ 8.) Further, the Court takes 

judicial notice of Mr. Schiller’s June 20, 2016 disbarment as indicated on the website for 

the State Bar of Texas. See attorney search function at www.texasbar.com; see also Singh 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 546 Filed 07/29/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

12cv665 JLS (JLB) Lead Case

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

v. Gonzales, 231 F. App’x 648, 650 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (taking judicial notice of an 

attorney’s disbarment pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201); Forsythe v. Brown, 281 F.R.D. 577, 

582 (D. Nev. 2012) (same). Irrespective of Mr. Schiller’s pending motion for a new trial 

in the State Bar Proceedings, Mr. Schiller is not currently “a member in good standing of, 

and eligible to practice before, the bar of any United States court or of the highest court of 

any state.” See CivLR 83.3(c)(4). He is therefore no longer eligible for pro hac vice status 

in this matter. 

Further, pro hac vice status under Civil Local Rule 83.3(c)(4) is subject to “the 

discretion of the court.” In addition to finding that Mr. Schiller is not in good standing 

with the State Bar of Texas, the Court exercises its discretion to revoke Mr. Schiller’s pro 

hac vice status. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court SHALL revoke Mr. Schiller’s pro hac 

vice status and terminate him from this case. 

Civil Local Rule 83.3(h) authorizes the court to “order any person who practices 

before it in violation of Civil Local Rule 83.3 to pay an appropriate penalty,” which would 

then be credited to the “court library or pro bono fund.” Although the Court finds that Mr. 

Schiller has violated Civil Local Rule 83.3, the Court declines at this time to order Mr. 

Schiller to pay a penalty. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 29, 2016

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 546 Filed 07/29/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3