Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02263/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02263-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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

COBALT PARTNERS, LP, COBALT

PARTNERS II, LP, COBALT OFFSHORE

MASTER FUND, LP AND COBALT KC

PARTNERS, LP,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SUNEDISON, INC., AHMAD CHATILA,

BRIAN WUEBBELS, MARTIN TRUONG,

ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ,

EMMANUEL HERNANDEZ, ANTONIO R.

ALVAREZ, PETER BLACKMORE,

CLAYTON DALEY JR., GEORGANNE

PROCTOR, STEVEN TESORIERE, JAMES

B. WILLIAMS, RANDY H. ZWIRN,

GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., J.P.

MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN

STANLEY & CO. LLC, MERRILL

LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH

INCORPORATED, DEUTSCHE BANK

SECURITIES INC., MACQUARIE

CAPITAL (USA), INC., MCS CAPITAL

MARKETS LLC and DOES 1- 25, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-03988 WHA

ORDER DENYING PRO HAC

VICE APPLICATIONS OF

ATTORNEYS MICHAEL

BONGIORNO AND TIMOTHY

PERLA

The pro hac vice applications of Attorneys Michael Bongiorno and Timothy Perla (Dkt.

Nos. 15–16) 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-02263-WHA Document 32 Filed 05/12/16 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: May 12, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-02263-WHA Document 32 Filed 05/12/16 Page 2 of 2