Klair et al v. Long et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
KLAIR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LONG, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PRO HAC VICE
ADMISSION OF:
TIMOTHY D. WALLNER
Case No. 2:23-cv-00407-AMA-CMR
District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen
Chief Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
This matter is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (ECF 13,
299). Before the court is a Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (Motion) (ECF 298) filed by Local
Counsel. Local Counsel seeks Pro Hac Vice Admission for Timothy D. Wallner (Mr. Wallner)
(ECF 298). For the reasons stated below, the court DENIES the Motion because it fails to
demonstrate good cause to warrant an exception to this court’s local rule regarding pro hac vice
admission.
I. 	DISCUSSION
“28 U.S.C. § 2071 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 83 authorize federal courts to promulgate local rules
of practice.” Mateo v. Empire Gas Co., Inc., 841 F. Supp. 2d 574, 576 (D.P.R. 2012) (citing United
States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 575 (1958)). In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which empowers each
federal district to regulate the admission of attorneys, provides: “In all courts of the United States
the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such
courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” In the District of Utah,
attorneys who are not admitted to practice law in Utah may move for admission pro hac vice under
Case 2:23-cv-00407-AMA-CMR Document 332 Filed 08/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

the requirements of local rule DUCivR 83-1.1(c). Local rule DUCivR 83-1.1(c)(1) provides that
pro hac vice admission “is not available to any attorney who . . . has already been admitted pro hac
vice in 3 unrelated cases in the previous 5 years in this district, unless the court finds good cause
for the attorney not seeking admission to the Utah State Bar.” DUCivR 83-1.1(c)(1)(A)(iii).
Mr. Wallner’s Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission (ECF 298-1) indicates that he has
been admitted pro hac vice in this district in four unrelated cases over the past five years (id. at 2).
Mr. Wallner acknowledges that his pro hac vice admissions surpass the Rule’s limit and provides
the following explanation for why he has not sought admission to the Utah State Bar:
Undersigned counsel in this matter represents the same or similar parties in this
matter as those represented in the matters listed above. Moreover, the transactions
at issue in this matter are similar to those at issue in the above listed matters,
including some overlap as to the properties at issue. The pro hac vice admissions
listed above are not related to an intent to practice regularly in Utah moving
forward, but are instead related to the continued representation of discrete clients
in factually similar matters proceeding in this court as well as other courts
throughout the country.
(Id). Mr. Wallner’s explanation does not establish good cause for not seeking admission.
Mr. Wallner states that he does not expect to appear in any additional cases, but that
assertion does not constitute good cause. He has provided no facts or explanation showing that his
frequent practice in this district will end after the present matter, or that the concerns underlying
the limitation on frequent pro hac vice admission will not persist. A speculative representation
about future litigation activity is insufficient to satisfy the good cause requirement.
Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has described pro hac vice attorneys as “[o]ne-
time or occasional practitioners.” Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 647 (1987). Stated otherwise,
“admission pro hac vice is temporary and limited in character and is not intended to be requested
by a practitioner on a frequent basis.” Mateo v. Empire Gas Co., Inc., 841 F. Supp. 2d 574, 576
(D.P.R. 2012) (quoting In re Reza, 138 B.R. 190, 191 (Bkrtcy. S.D. Ohio 1992)). Mr. Wallner’s
Case 2:23-cv-00407-AMA-CMR Document 332 Filed 08/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

representation of the same or similar parties has already resulted in four pro hac vice admissions
in addition to two recent pro hac vice applications, one in the present matter (ECF 298) and another
in Wilson v. Long, et al., No. 2:23-cv-00599-AMA-CMR, ECF 201. Mr. Wallner’s ongoing
representation of these parties thus evinces an intent to appear in this court on a frequent basis
rather than on a temporary and limited basis.
II. 	CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Because Mr. Wallner has failed to establish good cause under DUCivR 83-1.1(d)(3), the
Motion is DENIED.
DATED this 13 August 2026.
Chief Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
United States District Court for the District of Utah
Case 2:23-cv-00407-AMA-CMR Document 332 Filed 08/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3