Opinion
ORDER
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
On May 20, 2009, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the complaint (Doc. # 1). On June 9, 2009, attorney Marc J. Randazza was admitted to appear on behalf of Plaintiff pro hac vice (Doc. # 4). On July 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed the Ex Parte Motion for Permission to Continue as Co-Counsel Pro Hac Vice (Doc. # 6). Plaintiff contends that Randazza is an attorney licensed and in good standing with the bars of Massachusetts and Florida. Plaintiff contends that Randazza became General Counsel for Plaintiff's parent company, which is headquartered in San Diego, California. Plaintiff contends that Randazza is registered as in-house attorney under California Rules of Court, Rule 9.46, and that Randazza has applied for admission to the State Bar of California. Plaintiff requests that the Court take notice of Randazza's change in status, and permit Randazza to remain as counsel for Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that no prejudice would come to either party if Randazza remains counsel pro hac vice. Plaintiff contends that, "[o]n the other hand, Plaintiff could be prejudiced if Randazza is forced to withdraw because local co-counsel is far less experienced in litigating the type of claims asserted by Plaintiff." Ex Parte Motion, p. 4. On August 6, 2009, this Court issued an order which provided that Defendants may file a response to the Ex Parte Application on or before August 12, 2009 (Doc. #7). Defendants have not filed a response to the Ex Parte Application.
Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for permitting Randazza to remain as counsel in this case. Defendants have not filed any objection to Plaintiff's request. In light of the foregoing, the Court grants the Ex Parte Application.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex Parte Application for Permission to Continue as Co-Counsel Pro Hac Vice (Doc. # 6) is GRANTED.