Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03538/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03538-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin Philip Hull
Counter-defendant
Rothhammer International, Inc.
Counter-claimant
Zoomers
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

MARTIN PHILIP HULL, an individual, and

ZOOMERS, a sole proprietorship,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ROTHHAMMER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a

corporation,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-03538 WHA

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

AND REQUEST FOR RENEWAL

OF PRO HAC VICE

APPLICATIONS

Plaintiffs request clarification of Magistrate Judge Zimmerman’s December 9, 2005

order substituting in Daniel B. Schein, Ph.D. and James Cai as Rothhamer’s counsel. The Court

does not find the magistrate judge’s order ambiguous in anyway. These attorneys are

Rothhamer’s counsel. 

Plaintiffs also “respond” to the request for pro hac vice admission in this Court by

several attorneys licensed in Michigan and practicing with the firm of Brinks Hofer Gilson &

Leone, filed January 3, 2006. No ruling was made by the magistrate judge on these requests

prior to referral of this matter to the undersigned judge. For reasons other than those articulated

by plaintiffs, these applications are inadequate. They do comply with the local rules. The

applications merely indicate that the pro hac vice applicants are members of the bar of

Michigan, not a particular court within that state before which they are licensed to practice. The

Case 3:05-cv-03538-WHA Document 22 Filed 01/10/06 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

G:\WHAALL\2005Civ\05-03538 Hull\clarification and pro hac vice.wpd2

Court requests that the applicants resubmit their requests in compliance with the local rules by

JANUARY 19, 2006. Plaintiffs may raise any additional worries they have about defense counsel

during the case management conference set on January 26, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03538-WHA Document 22 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 2