govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-1_19-cv-08935-7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
  
 
DELLISA RICHARDSON, 
 
   Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
CASCADE SKATING RINK and LIVE 
LIFE HEADPHONES LLC, 
 
             Defendants. 
 
 
 
1:19-cv-08935-NLH-EAP 
 
OPINION AND ORDER 
 
HILLMAN, District Judge 
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2022, Defendants Live Life 
Headphones, LLC and Cascade Skating Rink (“Defendants”), moved 
to admit Stephen Reich, Esq. pro hac vice in a motion signed by 
existing counsel and Reich himself, (ECF 115)1; and 
WHEREAS, Plaintiff Dellisa Richardson (“Plaintiff”) opposed 
Reich’s admission, raising arguments including Reich’s 
participation in the case by way of letters, emails, calls, and 
the like prior to the pro hac vice motion, (ECF 123); and 
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2022, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth 
A. Pascal permitted Reich to appear as counsel in this matter 
provided that all pleadings, briefs, and other papers were 
 
1 The November 9, 2022 motion was preceded by motions filed on 
October 31, 2022 and November 7, 2022, (ECF 111; ECF 114), that 
were flagged by the Clerk’s Office due to signature issues.   
Case 1:19-cv-08935-ESK-EAP     Document 185     Filed 12/20/23     Page 1 of 4 PageID:
<pageID>
2 
 
signed by local counsel Jorge Salva, Esquire, (ECF 127); and 
WHEREAS, in her order, Judge Pascal expressly acknowledged 
Plaintiff’s “questioning Mr. Reich’s qualifications in this 
jurisdiction, doubting the need for Mr. Reich as additional 
counsel, and arguing that Mr. Reich inappropriately represented 
Defendants prior to his application for pro hac admission,” and 
stated that she considered Plaintiff’s arguments in reaching her 
decision, (id.); and  
WHEREAS, on December 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed the pending 
motion to strike all pleadings, filings, motion, and papers 
“since Stephen Reich Esq[’s] . . . inception in this 
jurisdiction of New Jersey,” (ECF 128); and  
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s motion to strike was administratively 
terminated by Judge Pascal on January 20, 2023, to be 
reinstated, if necessary, following a settlement conference, 
(ECF 133); and 
WHEREAS, the motion to strike was re-gaveled by Judge 
Pascal following unsuccessful settlement discussions; and 
WHEREAS, the Court held a motion hearing on December 5, 
2023, during which it heard oral argument on this and other 
motions, (ECF 181); and 
WHEREAS, the Court agrees with Plaintiff to the extent that 
she argues that Reich should have applied for admission earlier 
and further notes that it was inappropriate for Reich to sign 
Case 1:19-cv-08935-ESK-EAP     Document 185     Filed 12/20/23     Page 2 of 4 PageID:
<pageID>
3 
 
his own pro hac vice motion, see Allyn Z. Lite, N.J. Fed. Prac. 
Rules, L. Civ. R. 101.1, cmt. 4(b) (Gann 2023) (“[S]ince only 
attorneys admitted to practice before the Court may sign and 
file pleadings and other papers, an applicant for pro hac vice 
admission may not sign and file her own motion for admission.” 
(collecting cases)); and  
WHEREAS, Judge Pascal expressly considered Plaintiff’s 
arguments in opposition to Reich
’s admission – which are largely 
repeated in the pending motion – and the Court finds no basis 
for questioning Judge Pascal’s discretion or disturbing her 
decision, see Kohlmayer v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 124 F. 
Supp. 2d 877, 878 n.1 (D.N.J. Dec. 20, 2000) (declining to 
reverse the magistrate judge’s order denying a pro hac vice 
admission absent a finding that the order was “clearly erroneous 
or contrary to law” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. 
§ 636)); see also Opalinksi v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., No. 10–
2069, 2011 WL 1042762, at *2-3 (D.N.J. Mar. 18, 2011) (analyzing 
an appeal of the magistrate judge’s order granting pro hac vice 
admission under the standard set forth under Federal Rule of 
Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c))
2; and 
WHEREAS, striking pleadings is a particularly harsh 
 
2 Though the Court references decisions that cite Federal Rule of 
Civil Procedure 72, Local Civil Rule 72.1, and 28 U.S.C. § 636, 
it does not interpret Plaintiff’s pending motion as an appeal of 
Judge Pascal’s order admitting Reich.   
Case 1:19-cv-08935-ESK-EAP     Document 185     Filed 12/20/23     Page 3 of 4 PageID:
<pageID>
4 
 
sanction inconsistent with the Court’s preference of 
adjudicating matters on their merits and unwarranted under the 
facts underlying this motion, see Younes v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 312 
F.R.D. 692, 712-13 (D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2015) (concluding that 
sanctions were appropriate pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure 26(g) and 37(b)(2), but declining the plaintiffs’ 
request to strike the defendant’s answer as “too severe”); and 
WHEREAS, the Court further finds that any impropriety 
caused by Reich’s involvement in this matter prior to admission 
has been adequately cured by Judge Pascal’s order admitting him, 
see Ghaleb v. U.S. Ship Mgmt., No. Civ.A. 04–84, 2005 WL 
1225177, at *4 (D.N.J. May 6, 2005) (report and recommendation) 
(granting a belated pro hac vice admission nunc pro tunc and 
finding that the admission “effectively moot[ed] the first 
aspect of defendant’s dismissal motion” premised on counsel not 
being admitted to the court prior to the filing of the 
complaint, noting the Third Circuit’s preference to have matters 
decided on the merits). 
 THEREFORE
 ,  
 IT IS HEREBY on this  19th     day of   December  , 2023 
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike, (ECF 128), be, 
and the same hereby is, DENIED AS MOOT. 
        s/ Noel L. Hillman  
At Camden, New Jersey   NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J. 
Case 1:19-cv-08935-ESK-EAP     Document 185     Filed 12/20/23     Page 4 of 4 PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight