United States Second Circuit
MARTENS v. THOMANN, 00-7688, 00-7768, 00-7772
Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before revocation of pro hac vice status.
Appellate Information
- Argued 02/09/2001
- Decided 11/28/2001
- Published 11/28/2001
Judges
- SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge., Before: CALABRESI and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.
Court
- United States Second Circuit
Counsel
- For Appellant:
- Gary Phelan and Joseph D. Garrison, Garrison, Phelan, Levin-Epstein, Chimes & Richardson, New Haven, CT, for plaintiffs-appellants Pamela K. Martens, Judith P. Mione, Cara Beth Walker, and Teresa Tedesco; and appellants Kent Spriggs and John Davis., Kent Spriggs, Spriggs & Davis, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for plaintiffs-appellants Cara Beth Walker and Teresa Tedesco., Jerry G. Traynham, Patterson & Traynham, Tallahassee, FL, (submitted brief) for amici curiae Lisa Mays, Marianne Dalton, Edna Broyles, Danielle Saccone, and Cindy Van Lammeren., Sally P. Dunaway, Thomas W. Osborne, Laurie A. McCann, AARP Foundation Litigation, Melvin Radowitz, AARP, Washington, DC, (submitted brief) for amicus curiae AARP., Paula Brantner, National Employment Lawyers Association, San Francisco, CA, Margaret A. Harris, Butler & Harris, Houston, TX, (submitted briefs) for amicus curiae NELA.
- For Appellees:
- Linda Friedman, Stowell & Friedman, Ltd., Chicago, IL (Max Fischer, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellees., Brad S. Karp, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York, NY (Joyce S. Huang, Daniel J. Toal, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Smith Barney Inc.