1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK MACIAS, Case No. 2:24-cv-07853-FLA (Ex)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

13 v. PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S STATE

BAR SUSPENSION

14 OPTIV SECURITY INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On October 15, 2025, it came to the court’s attention that Plaintiff Mark 2 Macias’s counsel, Douglas Foster Galanter (SBN 93740, “Galanter”), was suspended 3 from the practice of law in California on July 1, 2025 (suspension for failure to pay 4 fees) and “[d]iscipline[d] [with] actual suspension” on October 3, 2025 (as listed on 5 the California State Bar website).1 This court’s rules require admission to the Bar of 6 this Court or permission to practice before it. Local Rule (“L.R.”) 83-2.1.1.3; see also 7 L.R. 83-2.1.2.1 (“Admission to and continuing membership in the Bar of this Court 8 are limited to persons of good moral character who are active members in good 9 standing of the State Bar of California. If an attorney admitted to the Bar of this Court 10 ceases to meet these criteria, the attorney will be subject to the disciplinary rules of the 11 Court ....”). 12 Galanter has not notified this court regarding his suspension. See L.R. 83-3.2 13 (“Upon receipt of reliable information that a member of the Bar of this Court … has 14 been suspended or disbarred from the practice of law … this Court shall issue an 15 Order to Show Cause why an order of suspension or disbarment should not be 16 imposed by this Court.”); L.R. 83-3.3 (“Any attorney previously admitted to the Bar 17 of this Court who no longer is enrolled as an active member of the Bar, Supreme 18 Court, or other governing authority of any State … shall not practice before this 19 Court.”). Although Galanter was suspended effective July 1, 2025, he filed on August 20 4, 2025, a declaration (“Declaration”) stating he was “an attorney, duly licensed to 21 practice in California” and was “a member of the bar of this court.” Dkt. 36 at 5. 22 Galanter made the Declaration under penalty of perjury. Id. at 6. 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26

27 1 The State Bar of California, available at 28 https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/93740. I Accordingly, Galanter is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, 2 || within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order: 3 1. Why he should not be suspended from the practice of law before this Court, 4 pursuant to Local Rule 83-3.2 et seq. 5 2. Why the Clerk of the Court should not report him to the California State Bar for 6 the unlicensed practice of law. 7 3. Why the court should not sanction him for his failure to report his suspension, 8 his unlicensed practice of law before the court, and the misrepresentation in his 9 Declaration. 10 A response to this Order must make the showing required in Local Rule 83-3.2 11 | et seg. In addition, at the time the response is filed, Galanter is ORDERED to produce 12 | acertified copy of the entire record regarding his suspension(s) from the California 13 | Bar and any other jurisdiction, or bear the burden of persuading the court that less than 14 | the entire record will suffice. See Local Rule 83-3.2.3. Galanter’s response shall be 15 | limited to ten (10) pages in length, excluding the record of his suspension. 16 If Galanter does not contest the imposition of a suspension from this court or 17 | does not contest this Order within the time specified, the court shall issue an order of 18 | suspension. Failure to file a timely response to this Order may result in the action 19 | being dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with court orders. 20 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962)). 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 | Dated: October 20, 2025 se) _ 2 FERNANDO L. AEN | LE-ROCHA 26 United States District Judge 27 28