Penning v. Brookdale Senior Living Inc.

Issue and background

Attorney Hines applied for permission to appear in the case pro hac vice, meaning under a special admission procedure for an attorney who is not regularly admitted in the district. Attorney Rutner was identified as the local co-counsel sponsoring the application. The court’s Civil Local Rule 7-11(a)(3) requires sponsoring local co-counsel to be an attorney who maintains an office within California.

The court examined Rutner’s docket listing, California State Bar registration, and law-firm website. Those sources listed her office or work locations in Fort Lauderdale and Miami, Florida, rather than California. The court also rejected the idea that a non-local attorney could satisfy the rule merely by designating a California office as a mailing or contact location. The court stated that Rutner’s membership in the court’s bar, by itself, did not make her qualified local counsel for this application.

Ruling

The court exercised its discretion and denied without prejudice Attorney Hines’s application to appear pro hac vice. The order states that a corrected application may be filed addressing the identified problems and notes that Hines’s firm website lists fifteen lawyers located in San Francisco.

The court also ordered Attorney Rutner to serve a copy of the order on the managing groups in her firm’s West Coast offices and on the firm’s Association General Counsel for Professional Responsibility, whom the website identified as working in the firm’s San Francisco office.

Effect of the order

The order concerns Hines’s ability to appear through the requested special admission process and Rutner’s eligibility to sponsor that request as local co-counsel. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims between Stacy Penning and Brookdale Senior Living Inc.