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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

GRANT BIRCHMEIER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., et

al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 12 C 4069

Chicago, Illinois

February 7, 2017

10:20 o'clock a.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - MOTION

BEFORE THE HONORABLE MATTHEW F. KENNELLY

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs: LOEVY AND LOEVY

BY: MR. SCOTT R. RAUSCHER

311 North Aberdeen Street, 3rd Floor

Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 243-5900

EDELSON PC

BY: MR. JAY EDELSON

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60654

(312) 589-6370

Court Reporter: MS. CAROLYN R. COX, CSR, RPR, CRR, FCRR

Official Court Reporter

219 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2102

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 435-5639

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 613 Filed: 03/20/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:13902
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

2

APPEARANCES CONTINUED:

For Freedom Home BANDAS LAW FIRM, P.C.

Care, Inc.: BY: MR. CHRISTOPHER A. BANDAS

ROBERT W. CLORE

500 North Shoreline Boulevard

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

(361) 558-3527

JONATHAN NOVOSELSKY, P.C.

BY: MR. JONATHAN P. NOVOSELSKY

303 West Madison, 22nd Floor

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 286-8429

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 613 Filed: 03/20/17 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:13903
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

3

(The following proceedings were had in open court:)

THE CLERK: Case No. 12 C 4069, Birchmeier v.

Caribbean Cruise Line.

MR. EDELSON: Good morning, your Honor. Jay Edelson

for the class.

MR. RAUSCHER: Scott Rauscher also for the class.

MR. BANDAS: Good morning, your Honor. Chris Bandas,

I am the movant.

MR. NOVOSELSKY: Good morning, your Honor. Jon

Novoselsky, local counsel for movant.

THE COURT: So you've -- Mr. Edelson or Mr. Rauscher,

you have seen the reply that was filed. What else do you want

to tell me?

MR. EDELSON: We can go through it. Your Honor, you

have discretion --

THE COURT: I am just asking what else you want to

tell me.

MR. EDELSON: We don't have anything to add unless

you have questions. We disagree with their characterizations,

but we think the record is clear.

THE COURT: What is it that you disagree with?

MR. EDELSON: We can --

THE COURT: Which characterization?

MR. EDELSON: Well, first of all, they -- we

explained how they didn't tell Judge Zagel that they -- that

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 613 Filed: 03/20/17 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:13904
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

4

there was a contempt finding, and then their explanation --

THE COURT: That's not something that's false about

the current pro hac vice application, is it?

MR. EDELSON: It's not.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. EDELSON: No, but I think it bears on it.

THE COURT: Yeah, the proposition that somebody may

have withheld something from somebody else at some other point

in time I would not consider to be a basis for denying the pro

hac vice application.

MR. EDELSON: Okay. I think that they were not

honest with the Court about what's happening in the baseball

case.

THE COURT: This is the one out in New York?

MR. EDELSON: Yes.

THE COURT: So it boils down to whether what happened

-- so what was the order -- was there an order that the judge

-- this is called the Garber (phonetic) case. Was there an

order that the judge entered that led to the hearing that was

held on -- you have given me this transcript here -- it was

held on July the 14th of last year.

MR. EDELSON: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: What was the order?

MR. EDELSON: It was a sua sponte order rule to show

cause for why Mr. Bandas should not be held in contempt.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 613 Filed: 03/20/17 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:13905
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

5

THE COURT: You agree or disagree with that,

Mr. Bandas?

MR. BANDAS: That is correct. That is the order that

Judge Caproni entered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Give me just a second here. Let me

unshuffle some of these papers.

And it's still pending as far as you know, the judge

hasn't ruled on it?

MR. BANDAS: She has not entered one way or another,

your Honor.

THE COURT: Tell me why it is that you think -- I'm

looking at your pro hac vice application, and question -- the

question -- the relevant question says, Has the applicant ever

been or is the applicant currently subject of an investigation

of the applicant's professional conduct. So tell me why it is

that you think an order to show cause from a judge doesn't

count?

MR. BANDAS: It certainly does count, your Honor.

THE COURT: Count as a yes answer to that question?

MR. BANDAS: No, your Honor. The issue in filling

out that application that I focused on was whether or not it

was currently pending. That hearing took place some six

months ago and the Court did not issue any findings against

me.

THE COURT: Hand this to Mr. Bandas.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 613 Filed: 03/20/17 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:13906
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

6

I am handing you your pro hac vice application, page

2. Look at the first line on the page and read it to me, the

very first line up at the top of the page. It starts with the

word "has."

MR. BANDAS: Has the applicant ever been.

THE COURT: And then go down to question 2 where it

says "or."

MR. BANDAS: Or is the applicant currently the

subject of an investigation of the applicant's --

THE COURT: So your answer is that you didn't think

it was current because you thought it was in the past, the

thing in New York, right?

MR. BANDAS: With respect to that one, yes, your

Honor.

THE COURT: So why wouldn't it fall under the lead-in

language Has the applicant ever been?

MR. BANDAS: I see the Court's point. I did not read

it that way when I was filling out the application, your

Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. If it's still pending, though, why

wouldn't it even fall under the current version of it which is

the way you say you read it?

MR. BANDAS: Because it's been six months and there

have been other orders in the case bringing the case --

THE COURT: The judge just -- she decided without

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 613 Filed: 03/20/17 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:13907
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

7

deciding just to let it die?

MR. BANDAS: That seems to be the case, your Honor.

THE COURT: So if you have a motion to dismiss that's

on file in a case and the judge hasn't ruled on it for six

months and you haven't heard anything, you assume that the

motion to dismiss is no longer live? There is only one way

you are going to be able to answer that question.

MR. BANDAS: I would not make that assumption with

respect to the motion to dismiss.

THE COURT: Why would you make it with regard to an

order to show cause that's directed at you personally?

MR. BANDAS: That was the conclusion I made, your

Honor.

THE COURT: Well, you kind of screwed up on that one.

What about the rest of it, Mr. Edelson?

MR. EDELSON: Your Honor, the only thing I would add

is Mr. Bandas also claims that he is general counsel for this

company.

THE COURT: It's a manner of speaking. I mean,

seriously, so maybe you can add that to your complaint with

the ARDC if that's what you choose to do if you think he's

engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Illinois. The

way I understood that is that he's representing -- the way I

understood it and the way I understand it is that he is

representing the objector for purposes of this case.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 613 Filed: 03/20/17 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:13908
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

8

Mr. Novoselsky is maybe the point person, Mr. Bandas is

whatever you would call the person who is not the point

person. That didn't strike me as in any way problematic. I

mean, I might have phrased it differently if I was advising

Mr. Bandas how to phrase it, but I don't see that as a

problem.

MR. EDELSON: We have nothing more to add, other than

the transcript makes it very clear that the Court was taking

it seriously that in the New York case, the Court explained

its comments does not have the ring of truth.

THE COURT: I understand. I guess just -- you know,

as somebody who has occasion and sometimes has to chew lawyers

out, I guess I would be really concerned about a construction

of, you know, the pro hac vice application that basically

says -- that it basically requires somebody to list on there

every time they've gotten chewed out by a judge, because for

most lawyers, that would end up being a pretty long list, and

I don't think that's really the thrust of it.

I don't think that's what's going on in the New York

case. That's an order to show cause. It's something that

fits under either one or both of the halves of question number

two on the form, and so the question is what should I do about

it and should I use that as a basis to deny Mr. Bandas' pro

hac vice status?

Let me ask another question or two about this. I

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 613 Filed: 03/20/17 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:13909
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

9

just want to look at one thing here.

So I guess the way I look at this is I don't really

think that Mr. Bandas was trying to hide that. He I think

made what I would call a relatively crabbed reading,

c-r-a-b-b-e-d, reading of the question, but I don't think he

was trying to hide it, so I am not going to use that as a

basis to deny a pro hac vice status. The motion to appear pro

hac vice is granted.

Here is the deal, Mr. Bandas. And this is all going

to be on the record too. You are going to be filing other

applications like this. That's either a was or an is on that

thing in New York. You are going to have to disclose that to

people. Here's what's going to happen when you don't, because

you are standing in front of me nodding when I say that. What

happens when you don't is Mr. Edleson or somebody else like

Mr. Edleson is going to get this transcript and they are going

to put that in front of a judge, and you are going to have

somebody saying that a federal judge in Chicago told this guy

he had to disclose this thing and here he didn't, so maybe

this time he is hiding it. So now you have been warned.

Have a nice day.

MR. EDELSON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. NOVOSELSKY: Thank you, Judge.

Your Honor, may I indulge on a different matter?

THE COURT: No.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 613 Filed: 03/20/17 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:13910
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

10

MR. NOVOSELSKY: I apologize.

(Which were all the proceedings had in the above-entitled

cause on the day and date aforesaid.)

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from

the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

Carolyn R. Cox Date

Official Court Reporter

Northern District of Illinois

/s/Carolyn R. Cox, CSR, RPR, CRR, FCRR

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 613 Filed: 03/20/17 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:13911