Vasquez v. Leprino Foods Company ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM on behalf of al other similarly situated 12 individuals, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PHILIP A. Plaintiffs, DOWNEY’S PRO HAC VICE STATUS SHOULD 13 NOT BE REVOKED 14 v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, et al., 15 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 16 Defendants. 17 18 On June 12, 2017, this matter was removed to this Court from the Superior Court of 19 California for the County of Kings. (Doc. No. 1.) On December 20, 2018, Philip A. Downey, 20 counsel for Plaintiffs Isaias Vasquez and Linda Hefke, was admitted to appear and participate in 21 this case pro hac vice. (Doc. No. 33.) 22 Local Rule 180 governs the admission of attorneys to practice pro hac vice in this Court. 23 Pursuant to Local Rule 180(b)(2), 24 “Unless authorized by the Constitution of the United States or an Act of Congress, an attorney is not eligible to practice [pro hac vice] if any one or more of the 25 following apply: (i) the attorney resides in California, (ii) the attorney is regularly employed in California, or (iii) the attorney is regularly engaged in professional 26 activities in California.” 27 L.R. 180(b)(2). Local Rule 110 further provides that counsel or a party’s failure to comply with 28 the Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition of any and all 1 sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court. Id. at 110; see 2 also id. at 180(d); see also Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 299 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005) (Court may 3 revoke pro hac vice status following notice and an opportunity to respond); Curtis v. BCI Coca- 4 Cola Enterprises Bottling Companies, 2014 WL 4417741, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2014) (Court 5 has discretion to revoke pro hac vice status). 6 According to the Court’s records, Mr. Downey has made pro hac vice applications to the 7 Court in the following matters, all of which have been granted: (1) Salcido, et al. v. Cargill 8 Meat Solutions Corp., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01347-LJO-GSA; (2) Franco, et al. v. Ruiz Food 9 Products, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-02354-SKO; Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., Case 10 No. 1:11-cv-00275; (3) Aguilar v. Wawona Frozen Foods, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00093- 11 DAD-EPG; (4) Talavera v. Leprino Foods Company, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00105-AWI- 12 BAM; (5) Brewer v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01373-DAD-EPG; 13 (6) Vasquez, et al. v. Leprino Foods Company, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM; and 14 (7) Pena, et al. v. Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01282. 15 Additionally, Mr. Downey appears to have been admitted pro hac vice by other District 16 Courts in California in at least the following matters: (1) Rodriguez, et al. v. Western Mesquite 17 Mines, Inc., et al., Case No. 11CV0330 MMA (POR), before the United States District Court for 18 the Southern District of California; (2) Bonilla, et al. v. Fresh Express Incorporated, et al., Case 19 No. 5:12-cv-00783-PSG, before the United States District Court for the Northern District of 20 California; and (3) Alvarez, et al. v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-013141-FMO- 21 AJW, before the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 22 Frequent applications for admission pro hac vice may indicate that an attorney is regularly 23 engaged in professional activities in California in violation of Local Rule 180(b)(2). See, e.g., 24 Guguni v. Chertoff, 2008 WL 2080788 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Mendoza v. Golden West Sav. Ass’n 25 Services Co., 2009 WL 2050486 (C.D. Cal. 2009); Ang v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., 2015 WL 26 1474866 (N.D. Cal. 2015). It therefore appears Mr. Downey may be considered to have regularly 27 engaged in professional activities in California and therefore be ineligible for admission pro hac 28 vice. 1 Accordingly, Philip A. Downey is HEREBY ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why his 2 admission pro hac vice should not be revoked on the basis that he is regularly engaged in 3 professional activities in California. Mr. Downey shall file a written response to this order to 4 show cause within fourteen (14) days of service of this order. 5 Failure to respond to this order to show cause will result in revocation of Mr. 6 Downey’s pro hac vice status and/or imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to 7 monetary sanctions. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: September 5, 2019 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28