1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 LIME GREEN LIGHTING, LLC, Case No. 25-cv-00950-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 10 v. APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE BY WILLIAM P. RAMEY, 11 BRILLIANT NEXTGEN INC., III 12 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 9, 10

13 14 On April 14, 2025, attorney William P. Ramey, III filed an application for admission pro 15 hac vice, representing plaintiff Lime Green Lighting, LLC. Dkt. No. 8. That application falsely 16 stated that Mr. Ramey had been granted pro hac vice admission “0 times in the 12 months 17 preceding this application.” Dkt. No. 8 at 1. The Court’s ECF docketing system indicates that 18 Mr. Ramey has been admitted pro hac vice five times in the past twelve months. See Case No. 24- 19 cv-8462, Dkt. No. 27 (March 4, 2025); Case No. 24-cv-6770, Dkt. No. 30 (February 24, 2025); 20 Case No. 24-cv-8891, Dkt. No. 10 (December 12, 2024); Case No. 23-cv-6725, Dkt. No. 38 21 (October 8, 2024); Case No. 24-cv-01144, Dkt. No. 57 (April 30, 2024). 22 On April 16, 2025, Mr. Ramey filed a “Corrected” pro hac vice application. Dkt. No. 9. 23 That “corrected” application appends certain orders pursuant to a sanctions order recently issued 24 by Magistrate Judge Kang in another case about two weeks before Mr. Ramey first sought 25 admission pro hac vice in the present action. See Koji IP, LLC v. Renesas Electronics America, 26 Inc., No. 24-cv-03089-PHK,

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2025). Mr. Ramey’s 27 “corrected” application continued to falsely state that he had been granted pro hac vice admission 1 did not submit a certificate of good standing with this “corrected” application. 2 On April 17, 2025, Mr. Ramey filed a second “Corrected” pro hac vice application. Dkt. 3 No. 10. This application now states that Mr. Ramey has been granted pro hac vice admission in 4 |} this District five times in the past twelve months, and appends copies of Judge Kang’s orders, as 5 || well as acertificate of good standing. See

With this April 17, 2025 “corrected” application, 6 || Mr. Ramey submits a declaration in which a paralegal reportedly employed by Mr. Ramey’s firm 7 states that the previous errors regarding the number of Mr. Ramey’s prior pro hac vice admissions 8 || was due to the paralegal’s oversight. See Dkt. No. 10-1. 9 In view of Mr. Ramey’s multiple repeated failures to file an accurate pro hac vice 10 application in this case, the Court questions whether he is entitled to pro hac vice admission. Mr. 11 Ramey is directed to show cause why his application should not be denied in view of the conduct 12 || described above and in Judge Kang’s March 26, 2025 “Order Regarding OSC and Imposing 5 13 Sanctions on Ramey Firm Lawyers,” including Judge Kang’s finding that certain attorneys, 14 || mcluding Mr. Ramey, “do, in fact, regularly practice law in California... .” Koji IP, LLC, 2025 15 || WL 917110 at *17; Civil L.R. 11-3(c) (pro hac vice “applicant is not eligible for permission to 16 || practice pro hac vice if the applicant . . . [i]s regularly engaged in the practice of law in the State of 3 17 California.”). Review of the Court’s online docketing system indicates that at least two other 18 || judges have questioned Mr. Ramey’s entitlement to admission pro hac vice in this District. See 19 Case No. 4:23-cv-06121-JST, Cyboenergy, Inc. v. N. Elec. Power Tech., Inc., Dkt. No. 46; Case 20 No. 3:25-cv-01842-LJC, Cooperative Entm’t, Inc. v. Alibaba Cloud US, LLC, Dkt. No. 15. 21 Mr. Ramey’s response to this order shall be filed by May 5, 2025. In his response, Mr. 22 || Ramey may not merely rely on staff members, and shall attest that he has personally reviewed the 23 || matters stated in his response and verified their accuracy. Mr. Ramey’s failure to timely file a 24 || response to this order will result in the denial of his pro hac vice application. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: April 25, 2025

28 Virginia K. DeMarchi United States Magistrate Judge