From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McMaster v. U.S.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 7, 2011
2:10-cv-00881-GEB-EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011)

Opinion

2:10-cv-00881-GEB-EFB.

October 7, 2011


ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY'S REQUEST FOR A REFUND OF HIS PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION FEE


On September 28, 2011 Plaintiffs' attorney, Steven J. Lechner, filed a "Request for a Refund of [his] Pro Hac [Vice] Application Fee" since Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC") was dismissed with prejudice and therefore, the Court "never ruled on [the pending] application for the admission of Steven J. Lechner pro hac vice." (ECF No. 43.)

On March 23, 2011 Lechner filed an application for admission to practice pro hac vice and paid the Clerk of the Court $180.00, as required by Local Rule 180(b)(2). (ECF No. 38.) This application had not been ruled upon when Plaintiffs' FAC was dismissed with prejudice and judgment entered in favor on Defendants on September 2, 2011. (ECF Nos. 40, 41.)

Local Rule 180(b)(2)(iii) prescribes: "If the pro hac vice application is denied, the Court may refund any or all of the fee or assessment paid by the attorney." Since Lechner's pro hac vice application was not granted, Steven J. Lechner shall be refunded the $180.00 fee paid to the Clerk of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2011


Summaries of

McMaster v. U.S.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 7, 2011
2:10-cv-00881-GEB-EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011)
Case details for

McMaster v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:KEN McMASTER, MAUREEN E. GALITZ, and STEVEN E. FAWL, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 7, 2011

Citations

2:10-cv-00881-GEB-EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011)