15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2016

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 15-3356 _____________ NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF MULTIJURISDICTION PRACTICE, (NAAMJP); ROBERT VEREB; BENJAMIN JOSEF DOSCHER, Appellants v. JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; MARY L. COOPER; JOEL A. PISANO; PETER G. SHERIDAN; MICHAEL SHIPP; ANNE E. THOMPSON; FREDA L. WOLFSON; RENEE MARIE BUMB; NOEL L. HILLMAN; JOSEPH E. IRENAS; ROBERT B. KUGLER; JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ; KAREN M. WILLIAMS; DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH; CLAIRE C. CECCHI; STANLEY R. CHESLER; DICKINSON R. DEBEVOISE; MICHAEL A. HAMMER; KATHARINE S. HAYDEN; FAITH S. HOCHBERG; JOSE L. LINARES; WILLIAM J. MARTINI; KEVIN MCNULTY; ESTHER SALAS; WILLIAM H. WALLS; SUSAN D. WIGENTON; ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 1-14-cv-3678) District Judge: Hon. Gerald A. McHugh _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 11, 2016 Before: SMITH, JORDAN, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: July 14, 2016) Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 _______________ OPINION _______________ JORDAN, Circuit Judge. By its own description, the National Association for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice (“NAAMJP”) advocates “throughout the United States for the purpose of improving the legal profession, by petitioning for admission on motion in the dwindling minority of jurisdictions that have not yet adopted … reciprocal admission for all lawyers.” (JA164.) In other words, the NAAMJP endeavors to reduce the barriers to entry to legal practice in the various state and federal courts across the country. Its view, which should tug at the heartstrings of any attorney, is that “one bar exam is more than enough.” (Opening Br. at 19.) With that end in mind, the NAAMJP has crisscrossed the United States, challenging local bar admission rules. See, e.g., NAAMJP v. Lynch, No. 15-1982, 2016 WL 3361558 (4th Cir. June 17, 2016); NAAMJP v. Berch, 773 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2374 (2015); see also Blye v. California Supreme Court, CV 11-5046, 2014 WL 229830, at *2 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) (collecting similar challenges involving plaintiffs’ counsel dating back to 1987).1 It does not appear This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Eventually, plaintiffs’ counsel filed so many “legally frivolous” claims regarding California attorney admission rules in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that he was enjoined “from filing any further actions, either as an attorney or a party, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, regarding admission to and the regulation of the practice of law in the State of California without first obtaining leave of the Chief Judge of th[at] court.” Paciulan v. 2 Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 that the NAAMJP or its counsel has ever succeeded in any of its efforts. Its challenges have twice reached this Court and twice been rejected. See NAAMJP v. Castille, 799 F.3d 216 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 558 (2015); NAAMJP v. Gonzales, 211 F. App’x 91 (3d Cir. 2006).2 This time is the same. In the present case, the NAAMJP and two of its members challenge the conditions placed on admission to the bar of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “District Court”). They allege that the District Court’s local rules, which generally incorporate New Jersey state admission rules by limiting federal admission to those licensed to practice by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, violate federal statutory and constitutional standards. The defendants – judges of the District Court and former Attorney General Eric Holder – moved to dismiss the NAAMJP’s complaint.3 In a thorough and thoughtful opinion, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss. We agree with the reasoning of the District Court in all respects, and will affirm. George, 38 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1146-47 (N.D. Cal. 1999), aff’d, 229 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). 2 In Gonzales, the District Court not only dismissed the complaint, but also enjoined the NAAMJP and its counsel “from filing any further papers with respect to the constitutionality of any jurisdiction’s local rules of admission, practice, or procedure in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania without prior leave of Court.” NAAMJP v. Bush, No. 05-cv-05081, slip op. at 9 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2006), aff’d sub nom. NAAMJP v. Gonzales, 211 F. App’x 91 (3d Cir. 2006). 3 The Honorable Gerald A. McHugh of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania sat by designation to avoid any potential conflict of interest. 3 Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 I. BACKGROUND The District Court’s Local Civil Rule 101.1 governs admission to the bar of that Court. The rule provides that “[a]ny attorney licensed to practice by the Supreme Court of New Jersey may be admitted” to the bar of the District Court. L.Civ.R. 101.1(b). It further provides that a New Jersey attorney who is deemed ineligible to practice in state court under certain circumstances will also not be permitted to practice before the District Court during the period of that ineligibility, and that an attorney who resigns from the New Jersey State bar will be considered to have resigned from the bar of the District Court. Id. In lieu of general admission to the bar of the District Court, attorneys not licensed in New Jersey who are members in good standing of another state or federal bar may apply for pro hac vice admission for each case in which they participate in the District Court and pay a $150 fee upon each admission. L.Civ.R. 101.1(c). The local rules also permit narrow categories of exceptions from the requirement of membership in the New Jersey State bar. For example, the rules allow those admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office to be admitted to the District Court bar so long as they have been members of the bar of any state or federal court for five years and have been engaged in the practice of patent law in New Jersey, with an office located in the state, for at least two years. L.Civ.R. 101.1(e). In addition, attorneys representing the United States need not be admitted to practice in New Jersey in order to appear in the District Court. See L.Civ.R. 101.1(f).4 4 Unsurprisingly, the Local Civil Rules “do[] not govern the appearance of attorneys representing defendants in criminal cases.” L.Civ.R. 101.1(j). 4 Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 On June 9, 2014, the NAAMJP and two of its members, Robert Vereb and Benjamin Josef Doscher,5 sued the district and magistrate judges of the District Court, as well as former Attorney General Eric Holder, claiming that the local rules wrongly prevent certain of NAAMJP’s members from joining the bar of the Court. Both Vereb and Doscher are admitted to practice in the state and federal courts of New York and “will apply for admission to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey bar if its admission rule is changed.” (JA165-166.) The complaint includes four causes of action, based on alleged violations of the following: (1) the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071-2072; (2) the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; (3) the First Amendment; and (4) principles of equal protection.6 As relief, the plaintiffs seek an order declaring the local rules unconstitutional and enjoining their enforcement, and an order “declaring that District Court Local Rules shall provide the opportunity for general bar admission privileges to all sister-state attorneys admitted to the highest court of any state.” (JA199.) The defendants moved to dismiss on two grounds. First, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), they challenged the standing of the individual plaintiffs and 5 The complaint also once refers to a plaintiff named “James A. Jackson” and lists his address. (JA160.) He is not included in the complaint’s caption, however, nor is he mentioned elsewhere in the rest of the complaint. 6 Because they challenge a federal rule, the plaintiffs brought their equal protection claim under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. “Although the fifth amendment contains no equal protection clause, the Due Process Clause forbids discrimination in a similar manner as the fourteenth amendment, and analysis of equal protection claims is often the same under both.” In re Roberts, 682 F.2d 105, 108 (3d Cir. 1982) (per curiam). 5 Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 the NAAMJP. They argued that the plaintiffs had failed to allege that they suffered any injury by operation of the District Court’s bar admission rules because “[t]hey have not alleged … that they have taken steps to gain admission to the District of New Jersey,” nor have they alleged “that they have clients that they wish to represent in the District of New Jersey” or “even that they would attempt to develop a practice in the District of New Jersey if admitted.” (Answering Br.
Recommended publications
  • (“ERISA”) Decisions As They Were Reported on Westlaw Between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016
    DRAFT * This document is a case summary compilation of select Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) decisions as they were reported on Westlaw between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016. Nothing in this document constitutes legal advice. Case summaries prepared by Michelle L. Roberts, Partner, Roberts Bartolic LLP, 1050 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 105, Alameda, CA 94501. © Roberts Bartolic LLP I. Attorneys’ Fees .................................................................................................................. 11 A. First Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 11 B. Second Circuit ................................................................................................................................. 11 C. Third Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 14 D. Fourth Circuit .................................................................................................................................. 14 E. Fifth Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 15 F. Sixth Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 16 G. Seventh Circuit ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • * This Document Is a Case Summary Compilation of Select Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) Decisions
    * This document is a case summary compilation of select Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) decisions as they were reported on Westlaw between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016. Nothing in this document constitutes legal advice. Case summaries prepared by Michelle L. Roberts, Partner, Roberts Bartolic LLP, 1050 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 105, Alameda, CA 94501. © Roberts Bartolic LLP I. Attorneys’ Fees .................................................................................................................... 9 A. First Circuit ........................................................................................................................................ 9 B. Second Circuit ................................................................................................................................... 9 C. Third Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 12 D. Fourth Circuit .................................................................................................................................. 12 E. Fifth Circuit ...................................................................................................................................... 13 F. Sixth Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 14 G. Seventh Circuit ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit As of 10/8/2020
    Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Jeffrey R. Howard 0 Kermit Victor Lipez (Snr) Sandra L. Lynch Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby (Snr) 0 Jon David Levy George Z. Singal (Snr) Nancy Torresen John A. Woodcock, Jr. (Snr) United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs 0 Denise Jefferson Casper Timothy S. Hillman Mark G. Mastroianni George A. O'Toole, Jr. (Snr) Michael A. Ponsor (Snr) Patti B. Saris F. Dennis Saylor Leo T. Sorokin Richard G. Stearns Indira Talwani Mark L. Wolf (Snr) Douglas P. Woodlock (Snr) William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Paul J. Barbadoro 0 Joseph N. Laplante Steven J. McAuliffe (Snr) Landya B. McCafferty Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Francisco Augusto Besosa 0 Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez Daniel R. Dominguez (Snr) Jay A. Garcia-Gregory (Snr) Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez (Snr) United States District Court District of Rhode Island Mary M. Lisi (Snr) 0 John J. McConnell, Jr. William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Jose A. Cabranes 0 Guido Calabresi (Snr) Denny Chin Christopher F. Droney (Ret) Peter W. Hall Pierre N. Leval (Snr) Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Gerard E. Lynch (Snr) Jon O. Newman (Snr) Barrington D. Parker, Jr. (Snr) Reena Raggi (Snr) Robert D. Sack (Snr) John M.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and Appellate Update Powerpoint
    SUPREME COURT AND THIRD CIRCUIT CASE HIGHLIGHTS 2015 (also Sentencing Guidelines 2015 amendments and proposed amendments) BY THE RESEARCH AND WRITING ATTORNEYS OF THE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER (D.N.J.) Case digests are already posted and this presentation will soon be posted on http://nj.fd.org/content/cja-resources Third Circuit Judges 2015 Theodore A. McKee (Chief) Thomas L. Ambro Julio M. Fuentes D. Brooks Smith D. Michael Fisher Michael Chagares Kent A. Jordan Thomas M. Hardima Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. Thomas I. Vanaskie Patty Schwartz Cheryl Ann Krause SENIOR STATUS Leonard I. Garth Walter K. Stapleton Morton I. Greenberg Robert E. Cowen Richard L. Nygaard Jane R. Roth Maryanne Trump Barry Franklin S. Van Antwerpen Dolores K. Sloviter Marjorie O. Rendell Anthony J. Scirica D.N.J. Judges 2015 Chief: Jerome B. Simandle Newark District: Madeline Cox Arleo, Claire C. Cecchi, Stanley R. Chesler, Katharine S. Hayden, Jose L. Linares, William J. Martini, Kevin McNulty, Esther Salas, William H. Walls, Susan D. Wigenton, John Michael Vazquez Magistrate: James B. Clark, III, Joseph A. Dickson, Mark Falk, Michael A. Hammer, Steven C. Mannion, Cathy L. Waldor, Leda Dunn Wettre Camden District: Renee Marie Bumb, Noel L. Hillman, Robert B. Kugler, Joseph H. Rodriguez Magistrate: Ann Marie Donio, Joel Schneider, Karen M Williams Trenton District: Mary L. Cooper, Peter G. Sheridan, Michael Shipp, Anne E. Thompson, Freda L. Wolfson Magistrate: Douglas E. Arpert, TonianneJ. Bongiovanni, Lois H. Goodman OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION 1.Open questions (cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court) 2.Fourth Amendment cases 3.Fifth Amendment cases 4.Sixth Amendment cases 5.Miscellaneous cases 6.Sentencing cases 7.2015 Guidelines amendments (eff.
    [Show full text]
  • DNJ 2020 Newark NJ Arleo Posted on OSCAR Online
    Full_Name Court Next Clerkship Opening City State Last_Name Accepting Applications Now? Mail, Email or OSCAR? Post Grad Experience? Notes Madeline Cox Arleo DNJ 2020 Newark NJ Arleo posted on OSCAR online Renee Marie Bumb DNJ 2020 Camden NJ Bumb online preferred Claire C. Cecchi DNJ 2019 Newark NJ Cecchi posted on OSCAR online, paper Stanley R. Chesler DNJ 2020 Newark NJ Chesler preferred Katharine S. Hayden DNJ 2020 Newark NJ Hayden will post on OSCAR preferred Noel Lawrence Hillman DNJ 2022 Camden NJ Hillman mail preferred Robert B. Kugler DNJ 2020 Camden NJ Kugler posted on OSCAR online, paper Jose L. Linares DNJ 2020? Newark NJ Linares no longer hiring clerks - is retiring n/a William J. Martini DNJ 2020 (2 year) Newark NJ Martini will post on OSCAR this fall online requires two years post-grad Brian R. Martinotti DNJ posted 2/1/19 not hiring at this time Newark NJ Martinotti email Kevin McNulty DNJ 2020 Newark NJ McNulty posted on OSCAR online Joseph H. Rodriguez DNJ 2019 Camden NJ Rodriguez mail Esther Salas DNJ no openings Newark NJ Salas preferred Peter G. Sheridan DNJ 2021 Trenton NJ Sheridan paper preferred Michael A. Shipp DNJ 2021 Trenton NJ Shipp mail requires two years post-grad Jerome B. Simandle DNJ 2020 (2 year) Camden NJ Simandle will post on OSCAR online Anne E. Thompson DNJ 2020 Trenton NJ Thompson will post on OSCAR paper John Michael Vazquez DNJ 2021 Newark NJ Vazquez paper plans to interview in Jan 2020 William H. Walls DNJ no openings Newark NJ Walls will post on OSCAR when hiring online, paper requires one year post-grad Susan D.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Directory of Judicial Officers United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
    PUBLISHERS APPENDICES 1. DIRECTORY OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY HONORABLE MADELINE COX ARLEO United States District Judge King Fed. Bldg. & United States Courthouse 50 Walnut St., P.O. Box 999 Newark, New Jersey 07101-0999 973-297-4903 Courtroom Deputy Clerk: Amy Andersonn Court Reporter: Charles McGuire, 215-840-7030 HONORABLE DOUGLAS E. ARPERT United States Magistrate Judge Clarkson S. Fisher Fed. Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse 402 East State Street Trenton, New Jersey 08608 609-989-2144 Courtroom Deputy Clerk: Elizabeth Beres Court Reporter: (None Regularly Assigned) HONORABLE TONIANNE J. BONGIOVANNI United States Magistrate Judge Clarkson S. Fisher Fed. Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse 402 East State Street Trenton, New Jersey 08608 609-989-2040 Courtroom Deputy Clerk: Mark Morelli Court Reporter: (None Regularly Assigned) HONORABLE RENÉE MARIE BUMB United States District Judge United States Courthouse & Post Office Mitchell H. Cohen U.S. Courthouse 1 John F. Gerry Plaza, P.O. Box 1029 Camden, New Jersey 08101 856-757-5020 Judicial Assistant: Roberta Costigan Courtroom Deputy Clerk: Art Roney, 856-757-5014 Court Reporter: Theodore Formaroli, 856-635-9054 APPENDIX 1 HONORABLE CLAIRE C. CECCHI United States District Judge King Fed. Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse 50 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 999 Newark, New Jersey 07101 973-645-6664 Courtroom Deputy Clerk: Jacqueline Lambiase Court Reporter: Walter Perelli, 973-645-2514 HONORABLE STANLEY R. CHESLER United States District Judge U.S. Post Office and Courthouse Mailing Address: 50 Walnut Street Newark, New Jersey 07101-0999 973-645-3136 Courtroom Deputy Clerk: Theresa Trivino, 973-645-4705 Court Reporter: Phyllis T.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the EASTERN DISTRICT of PENNSYLVANIA BRIAN RICHARDSON, Et Al., Individually and on Behal
    Case 5:15-cv-06325-WB Document 137-2 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 149 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BRIAN RICHARDSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, No.: 5:15-cv-06325-WB Plaintiffs, v. VERDE ENERGY USA, INC., Defendant. DECLARATION OF LANE L. VINES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARD FOR PLAINTIFFS; AND PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT I, Lane L. Vines, hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the following is true and correct: 1. I am a member in good standing of the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and I am admitted to this Court. 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Service Award for Plaintiffs; and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The following is based on my personal knowledge, and if called upon to do so, I would competently testify thereto. 3. I am a Senior Counsel of Berger Montague PC (“Berger Montague”). Berger Montague, along with our co-counsel in this matter, Hughes Ellzey LLP (“Hughes Ellzey”), Bursor & Fisher, P.A. (“Bursor & Fisher”), and Marcus & Zelman, LLC (“Marcus & Zelman”) (together, “Plaintiffs’ Counsel”1), are counsel for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class in this Action. 1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined have the meaning set forth in the Parties’ Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 19, 2019 (the “Settlement Agreement” or “Settlement”) filed previously with the Court.
    [Show full text]