1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 SAMUEL KATZ, Case No. 22-cv-05680-VKD

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRO

10 v. HAC VICE APPLICATION

11 CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 8 Defendant. 12

13 14 On October 4, 2022, Anthony Paronich filed an application for leave to appear pro hac vice 15 on behalf of plaintiff Samuel Katz.1 Dkt. No. 8. Mr. Paronich’s application indicates that he is an 16 active member of the bar of Massachusetts. Id. The application further states that Mr. Paronich 17 has been granted pro hac vice admission in the Northern District of California 9 times in the 12 18 months preceding his present application. Id. The Court’s independent search of its records 19 indicates that he has also appeared in over 30 cases in this district in the past six years, including 20 the present action. 21 Admission to appear pro hac vice in an action pending in the Northern District of 22 California is governed by Civil Local Rule 11-3. That rule provides that “[u]nless authorized by 23 an Act of Congress or by an order of the assigned Judge, an applicant is not eligible for permission 24 to practice pro hac vice if the applicant: (1) [r]esides in the State of California; or (2) [i]s regularly 25 engaged in the practice of law in the State of California.” Civil L.R. 11-3(c). Disqualification 26 under Civil Local Rule 11-3(c) does not apply only where the applicant has (1) been a resident of 27 1 California for less than one year; (2) registered with, and completed all required applications for 2 admission to, the State Bar of California; and (3) officially registered to take or is awaiting results 3 || from the California State Bar exam. Jd. 4 Based on Mr. Paronich’s pending application, it is not apparent that he resides in 5 || California. However, he is directed to file a response to this order, showing cause why his 6 application for pro hac vice should be granted in view of the prohibition against such an 7 appearance for applicants who are “regularly engaged in the practice of law in the State of 8 California.” Civil L.R. 11-3(c)(2); see also Nalan v. Access Finance, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02785- 9 EJD, 2020 WL 12863495 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2020) (revoking pro hac vice admission of attorney 10 || who regularly engaged in the practice of law in California, including by signing documents filed 11 with the court and making appearances on behalf of his clients). Mr. Paronich’s response should 12 || also indicate whether any of the exceptions to disqualification in Civil Local Rule 11-3 apply. Mr. 5 13 || Paronich’s response shall be filed no later than October 18, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 15 Dated: October 11, 2022 16

8 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28