Katz v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-05680
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Katz v. Caliber Home Loans, Judge Demarchi required a lawyer to explain why he should be allowed to represent Katz temporarily in California federal court.
Attorney Anthony Paronich’s request to appear temporarily for plaintiff Samuel Katz was affected; the order required him to respond before the court decided the request.
What happened
In Katz v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., attorney Anthony Paronich asked for permission to represent Samuel Katz temporarily in the Northern District of California. Paronich stated that he was an active Massachusetts lawyer and had received this court’s permission to appear in nine cases during the previous 12 months.
The court’s records showed that Paronich had appeared in more than 30 cases in the district during the previous six years, including this case. Local rules generally bar temporary admission for a lawyer who regularly practices law in California, although the rules list limited exceptions. The court said it was not clear whether Paronich lived in California, but it focused on whether he regularly practiced there.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered Paronich to explain why his application should be granted and to state whether any exception applied. His response was due October 18, 2022. The order did not grant or deny the application.
The detailed version
- Katz v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. · No. 4:22-cv-05680
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 11, 2022
Background
On October 4, 2022, Anthony Paronich filed an application to appear temporarily on behalf of plaintiff Samuel Katz in the Northern District of California. The application stated that Paronich was an active member of the Massachusetts bar and had been granted permission to appear temporarily in the district nine times during the preceding 12 months. The court’s own records showed that he had appeared in more than 30 cases in the district during the preceding six years, including this action.
Applicable rule and concern
Civil Local Rule 11-3 generally makes a lawyer ineligible for temporary admission if the lawyer lives in California or regularly practices law in California, unless an exception applies. The court stated that Paronich’s application did not make it apparent that he lived in California. The court nevertheless required an explanation concerning the rule barring temporary admission for lawyers who regularly practice in California. The order also referred to limited exceptions for certain lawyers who have lived in California for less than one year, completed required California bar-admission applications, and registered to take or awaited results from the California bar examination.
Order
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered Paronich to show cause—meaning to explain—why his application should be granted despite the local rule. The response also had to state whether any exception to disqualification applied. The response was due no later than October 18, 2022. The opinion did not state that the application was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.