In re Gadda

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Miguel Gadda appeals the district court’s denial of a motion to reopen under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (“August 2004 Order”) and denial of a motion to reconsider (“October 2004 Order”) its order removing Gadda’s name from the roll of attorneys authorized to practice before the Northern District of California. Prior to issuing those orders, the district court had issued an order to show cause why such action should not be taken. No answer was filed with the court.

Any error in sending the August 2004 Order to a lawyer who had no involvement in the case and in referring to Gadda as “Michael Gadda” in the October *744 2004 Order was not material, and does not rise to the level of abuse of discretion. Similarly, although technically the California Supreme Court, and not the State Bar, has the authority to disbar an attorney, In re Rose, 22 Cal.4th 430 , 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 298 , 993 P.2d 956, 961-62 (2000), because the California Supreme Court ultimately disbarred Gadda, any misstatement by the district court was harmless.

Gadda’s argument that, pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 11 — 1(b), he is not required to be a member…