Mula v. Mula-Stouky
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-04540
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Mula v. Mula-Stouky, Judge Freeman denied defendants’ motion to revoke attorney Gerald North’s out-of-state admission.
Gerald North’s permission to represent Plaintiff Paul Mula, Jr. in this case was left in place; the motion was brought by the Stouky Defendants and joined by Terry Campbell Wallace and Kristofer Biorn.
What happened
Mula v. Mula-Stouky concerns defendants’ request to revoke Gerald North’s permission to represent Plaintiff Paul Mula, Jr. in this court. The permission, called admission “pro hac vice,” allows an out-of-state lawyer to practice in a particular case.
Defendants argued that Mr. North’s disciplinary record, suspension, and inactive state bar membership justified revoking his permission. Mr. North responded that the disciplinary proceedings identified by defendants ended in 2001 and 2005. The court also independently searched his Iowa bar records.
Judge Freeman denied the motion. The court declined to revoke Mr. North’s permission to practice in the case.
The detailed version
- Mula v. Mula-Stouky · No. 5:21-cv-04540
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 15, 2022
Background
The order addresses the Stouky Defendants’ motion to revoke Gerald North’s pro hac vice status, meaning his permission to practice in this case even though he is not a member of this district court’s bar. Defendants Terry Campbell Wallace and Kristofer Biorn joined the motion. Plaintiff opposed it.
The court had previously granted Mr. North pro hac vice status after he submitted an application that satisfied the court’s requirements and provided a Certificate of Good Standing to practice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court’s local rules give the assigned judge discretion to accept or reject such an application. They require, among other things, that the attorney be an active member in good standing of a qualifying bar and submit a sworn statement with specified information. The rules also generally disqualify an attorney who resides in California or regularly practices law in California, unless authorized by Congress or court order.
Arguments
Defendants asked the court to use its discretion to revoke Mr. North’s admission based on his record of discipline, suspension, and inactive state bar membership. They relied on a Ninth Circuit decision stating that a district court may reject an out-of-state attorney’s application when the attorney’s behavior suggests that he will not follow the court’s rules and practices.
Mr. North represented that the disciplinary proceedings cited by defendants ended in 2001 and 2005. The court considered the parties’ submissions and independently searched Mr. North’s bar records in Iowa.
Ruling
The court declined to revoke Mr. North’s pro hac vice status. It therefore denied defendants’ motion to revoke his status. The opinion does not state that the court made a final determination on the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Disposition
Defendants’ motion to revoke Gerald North’s pro hac vice status was DENIED.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.