Opinion
23-cv-00010-LJC
01-18-2023
MCCONNELL & MALEK ENTERPRISES, Plaintiff, v. PROOF MARK, INC, Defendant.
ORDER VACATING ALL DEADLINES AND STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE APPEARANCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT
LISA J. CISNEROS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On January 3, 2023, Defendant removed this case from the Superior Court of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Dkt. 1. Defendant has been represented by Stuart N. Wilson who is neither a member of the State Bar of California nor the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 17, 2023, this Court ordered Wilson to apply to appear pro hac vice in this district by January 27, 2023. Dkt. 6. Later that day, Wilson filed Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction without an application to appear pro hac vice. Dkt. 7.
This Court will not consider a motion to dismiss that has been filed by an attorney who is unauthorized to appear in this district. All proceedings in this matter are stayed, and all deadlines are vacated except for Plaintiff's deadline for consent or declination of magistrate jurisdiction. As noted above, Defense counsel Stuart N. Wilson must file an application to appear pro hac vice in this district by January 27, 2023 in order to proceed.
In the event that Defense counsel's pro hac vice application is granted, or Defendant retains other counsel admitted to practice in this district and that counsel files a notice of appearance, the stay shall be lifted and the following briefing schedule will apply. Plaintiff will have fourteen days to file its opposition from the date that defense counsel's pro hac vice application is granted or new defense counsel files a notice of appearance. Defendant's reply will be due seven days from the opposition deadline. If defense counsel is not admitted to appear pro hac vice or if Defendant fails to retain counsel that is authorized to appear in this district by February 10, 2023, the Court may strike Defendant's motion to dismiss as being improperly filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.