Matthew v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
- 3:25-cv-07535
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Matthew E. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, the court granted Karra J. Porter’s application to practice pro hac vice for plaintiffs.
Karra J. Porter was permitted to represent the plaintiffs in this case on a pro hac vice basis, subject to the court’s local rules; the order also designated Gregory K. Nelson as local co-counsel for notice and communications.
What happened
Matthew E. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company concerns Karra J. Porter’s request to represent the plaintiffs in the case even though she is not identified as a member of the Northern District of California bar. The application identified Porter as a member of the Utah bar and identified Gregory K. Nelson as local co-counsel.
Porter stated that she was in good standing, provided information about her prior pro hac vice admissions, and agreed to follow the court’s local rules and professional-conduct standards. The application also included a Utah Supreme Court certificate confirming her bar membership and good standing.
The court granted Porter’s application on September 29, 2025, subject to the court’s local rules. The order requires filings by Porter to identify her pro hac vice appearance and states that service on, and communication with, Nelson will constitute notice to the party. The opinion text does not clearly identify the individual judge by name.
The detailed version
- Matthew v. Aetna Life Insurance Company · No. 3:25-cv-07535
- Sept. 29, 2025
Background
Karra J. Porter applied for admission to practice pro hac vice, meaning temporary permission for an attorney who is not a member of the court’s bar to participate in a particular case. The application stated that Porter was an active member in good standing of the Utah bar and sought to represent the plaintiffs in Matthew E. v. Aetna Life Insurance Company. It identified Gregory K. Nelson as local co-counsel and stated that he was a member in good standing of the Northern District of California bar and maintained an office in California.
Application
Porter stated that she had been admitted pro hac vice by the court two times during the preceding 12 months. She agreed to follow the court’s local rules, including its professional-conduct standards and alternative-dispute-resolution rules. The application included a certificate from the Supreme Court of Utah stating that Porter had been admitted to practice in Utah and was a member of that bar in good standing.
Ruling
The court granted Porter’s application for admission pro hac vice, subject to Civil Local Rule 11-3. The order requires papers filed by Porter to indicate her pro hac vice appearance. It also states that service of papers on, and communication with, Nelson will constitute notice to the party. The opinion text does not clearly identify the individual judge by name; the signature is legible only as a magistrate-judge designation with an unclear name.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.