Sabol v. PayPal Holdings, Inc.
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-05100
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sabol v. PayPal, Judge White denied Steve W. Berman’s application to appear for plaintiffs because he regularly practices law in California.
Steve W. Berman, whose application to appear temporarily for the plaintiffs was denied.
What happened
In Sabol v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., Steve W. Berman asked to temporarily appear as a lawyer for the plaintiffs. He had reported receiving one temporary admission in the previous 12 months, but the court’s records showed he was or had been an attorney in 277 cases in the district.
The court asked for more information about whether he regularly practiced law in California. Mr. Berman described his work on cases and submitted additional records. The court noted that he had been active in several California cases and had signed filings involving case-management conferences, discovery, an amended complaint, and opposition to a motion to dismiss.
Judge Jeffrey White concluded that Mr. Berman was regularly practicing law in California rather than appearing only occasionally. The court therefore denied his application to appear temporarily in this case.
The detailed version
- Sabol v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. · No. 4:23-cv-05100
- Jeffrey White
- Dec. 13, 2023
Background
Steve W. Berman applied for permission to appear temporarily for the plaintiffs. This type of permission is commonly called admission pro hac vice. In his application, Berman stated that he had received that permission once during the previous 12 months.
The court searched its electronic filing system and found that Berman was or had been an attorney in 277 cases in the Northern District of California. The court requested supplemental information to determine whether he was “regularly engaged in the practice of law in the State of California,” which would make him ineligible for temporary admission under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 11-3(c), unless an exception applied.
Berman stated that his class-action work often involved evaluating potential matters with other lawyers and that colleagues frequently handled the day-to-day litigation. He also provided additional information about the cases in the court’s records.
Analysis
The court explained that whether an attorney regularly practices law in California may depend on factors including whether the attorney appears in cases, communicates with clients, serves as sole or primary counsel, contacts opposing counsel, signs court filings, or argues cases.
The court found that Berman was active in several cases pending in the Northern or Central District of California and had signed filings in four cases. Those filings included case-management conference statements, an opposition to a motion to stay discovery, a notice of intent to file an amended complaint, and an opposition to a motion to dismiss an amended complaint. The court also considered information from a prior Northern District decision involving Berman and found that decision’s reasoning persuasive.
Considering the additional information Berman submitted, the court concluded that the scope of his California practice could not be characterized as “one time or occasional.” Instead, it supported the conclusion that he was regularly engaged in practicing law in California.
Disposition
The court denied Steve W. Berman’s application to appear pro hac vice for the plaintiffs. Judge Jeffrey White issued the order on December 13, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.