Lime Green Lighting, LLC v. Brilliant NextGen Inc.
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:25-cv-00950
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lime Green Lighting v. Brilliant NextGen, Judge DeMarchi ordered William P. Ramey, III to explain repeated errors before deciding his pro hac vice application.
William P. Ramey, III and Lime Green Lighting, LLC, whose request for Mr. Ramey to practice in this case remains subject to the court’s order to show cause.
What happened
Lime Green Lighting, LLC v. Brilliant NextGen Inc. concerns attorney William P. Ramey, III’s request to represent Lime Green Lighting, LLC in this case. His first application incorrectly said he had not been admitted to practice in this district in the previous 12 months, although court records showed five such admissions.
Mr. Ramey filed two corrected applications. The first still contained the incorrect statement and lacked a required certificate of good standing. The second stated the correct number, included the certificate, and attributed the earlier errors to a paralegal’s oversight.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered Mr. Ramey to explain why his application should not be denied, considering the repeated errors and a prior sanctions order that found certain lawyers, including Mr. Ramey, regularly practiced law in California. His response is due May 5, 2025; failure to respond on time will result in denial of the application.
The detailed version
- Lime Green Lighting, LLC v. Brilliant NextGen Inc. · No. 5:25-cv-00950
- Virginia Demarchi
- Apr. 25, 2025
Background
William P. Ramey, III filed an application for permission to practice in this case even though he is not shown as a member of the court’s bar. The first application, filed April 14, 2025, stated that he had received zero pro hac vice admissions in the preceding 12 months. The court’s electronic docket showed five admissions during that period.
Mr. Ramey filed a corrected application on April 16. The court stated that this application continued to make the incorrect statement and did not include a certificate of good standing. The court also noted that the application attached orders related to a recent sanctions order issued in another case. On April 17, Mr. Ramey filed a second corrected application stating that he had received five admissions in the preceding 12 months and attaching the cited orders and a certificate of good standing. A declaration attributed the earlier errors to a paralegal’s oversight.
Order to Show Cause
Because of the repeated inaccurate applications, the court questioned whether Mr. Ramey was eligible for admission to practice pro hac vice. The court cited a prior sanctions order’s finding that certain attorneys, including Mr. Ramey, “do, in fact, regularly practice law in California.” The court also cited the local rule stating that an applicant is not eligible for pro hac vice admission if the applicant is regularly engaged in practicing law in California. The opinion stated that at least two other judges had questioned Mr. Ramey’s eligibility for admission in this district.
Disposition
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered Mr. Ramey to show cause—meaning to explain—why his application should not be denied. His response must be filed by May 5, 2025, and he may not rely only on staff members; he must personally attest that he reviewed the matters in the response and verified their accuracy. The order states that failure to timely respond will result in denial of his pro hac vice application. The opinion does not state that the application had already been denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.