Opinion
1:22-cv-00502-DAD-BAK (BAM)
06-21-2022
SHAMSHER SINGH, Plaintiff, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING SAAD AHMAD'S PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION (DOC. 7)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Shamsher Singh (“Plaintiff') initiated this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedures Act on April 27, 2022. (Doc. 1.) On June 3, 2022, Saad Ahmad filed an application to appear and participate pro hac vice in this action. (Doc. 7.)
Local Rule 180 governs the admission of attorneys to practice pro hac vice in this Court. Pursuant to Local Rule 180(b)(2),
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 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 activities in California.E.D. Cal. L.R. 180(b)(2).
According to the application, despite not being admitted to practice in California, Counsel Ahmad maintains a law firm, Saad Ahmad and Associates, located at 39111 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite 217, in Fremont, California. (Doc. 7 at 2.) Accordingly, on June 6, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the admission pro hac vice should not be denied on the basis that counsel either resides in California, is regularly employed in California, or is regularly engaged in professional activities in California. The Court directed counsel to file a written response within fourteen days. (Doc. 8.)
On June 20, 2022, Counsel Ahmad filed a written response to the show cause order. (See Docs. 9, 10.) The response indicates that counsel is an immigration law practitioner in Northern California, handles complex immigration related matters, and has litigated may significant immigration cases in various federal courts around the country. Counsel indicates that he will assist Ms. Noorzad, the attorney of record in this case, and his presence would greatly benefit the Plaintiff and assist the Court in resolving this case. (Doc. 9 at 2.)
The Court does not doubt counsel's assertions or that his presence in this action may be beneficial. However, counsel's curriculum vitae, Exhibit A to his show cause response, affirms the following: (1) counsel is admitted to practice in Massachusetts, not California; (2) counsel's business address is Saad Ahmad & Associates, 39111 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite 217, Fremont, California; (3) counsel was founding member of Saad Ahmad & Associates, in Fremont, California beginning in June 2002, and he continues his practice there; and (4) counsel managed a case load at a law firm in San Jose, California from June 2001-June 2003. (Doc. 10-1.) In short, counsel's response confirms that he is either regularly employed in California or is regularly engaged in professional activities in California, or both. Counsel, therefore, is not eligible to participate pro hac vice in this action pursuant to Local Rule 180(b)(2), and his pending application is HEREBY DENIED. (Doc. 7.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.