In Re BEN WILLIAMS v. Laurain, No. 3:16-cv-777 W.D. La. . Luv n’ care, Ltd. “LNC”

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re BEN WILLIAMS,
Petitioner
______________________
2025-137
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in No.
3:16-cv-00777-TAD-JPM, Judge Terry A. Doughty.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Ben Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus seek-
ing, inter alia, to direct the United States District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana to vacate its order deny-
ing his motion for leave to appear pro hac vice in Luv n’
care Ltd. v. Laurain, No. 3:16-cv-777 (W.D. La.). Luv n’
care, Ltd. (“LNC”) and Nouri E. Hakim oppose the petition.
Mr. Williams replies. We deny the petition.
Case: 25-137 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

IN RE WILLIAMS 2
I.
In 2016, LNC brought that action against Eazy-PZ,
LLC (EZPZ) in the Western District of Louisiana alleging
unfair competition and seeking a declaratory judgment
that it did not infringe EZPZ’s design patent that had been
prosecuted by Mr. Williams, then a patent agent. EZPZ
counterclaimed for infringement. In February 2025, fol-
lowing an eight-day bench trial during which Mr. Williams
testified, the district court found EZPZ’s patent unenforce-
able based in part on Mr. Williams’s inequitable conduct.
The court subsequently entered a final judgment and is-
sued orders denying EZPZ’s post-judgment motions.1
In March 2025, following trial and the court’s inequita-
ble conduct judgment, Mr. Williams moved to appear pro
hac vice on behalf of EZPZ. On March 21, 2025, the court
denied that request, citing its finding that Mr. Williams
had engaged in inequitable conduct. Mr. Williams moved
for reconsideration, contending that denying his motion
without a hearing violated In re Evans, 524 F.2d 1004,
1008 (5th Cir. 1975). On May 22, 2025, the district court
denied that motion. Mr. Williams then filed this petition
seeking a writ of mandamus to, among other things, com-
pel the district court to hold a hearing on his motion.
II.
A writ of mandamus requires a petitioner to show that
he has a clear and indisputable right to relief, that he has
no other adequate avenue for relief, and that issuance of
this extraordinary relief is appropriate under the circum-
stances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367,
380–81 (2004). Mr. Williams has not satisfied that
1 On September 9, 2025, EZPZ notified the district
court that it filed a voluntary petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code triggering an auto-
matic stay of the litigation under 11 U.S.C. § 362.
Case: 25-137 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

IN RE WILLIAMS 3
standard here. Mr. Williams has not shown that an appeal
following entry of final judgment would be an inadequate
alternative to challenge the denial of the motion for leave
to appear pro hac vice. Cf. Melendres v. Maricopa Cnty.,
661 F. App’x 917, 918 n.1 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Ordinarily, a
putative intervenor can raise the denial of a pro hac vice
application in an appeal from a final judgment.”); Roma
Const. Co. v. aRusso, 96 F.3d 566, 577 (1st Cir. 1996) (ad-
dressing party’s challenge to denial of its counsel’s motion
for admission pro hace vice on final judgment).
Nor has Mr. Williams shown a clear and indisputable
right to his requested hearing. He relies exclusively on Ev-
ans, where the Fifth Circuit held, in a criminal case, that
the defendant’s attorney could not be denied pro hac vice
admission without a hearing to address any specific allega-
tions as to how he failed to satisfy the necessary profes-
sional and ethical qualifications. Since Evans, the
Supreme Court has held out-of-state attorneys have no con-
stitutional right to such a hearing, see Leis v. Flynt, 439
U.S. 438, 442–43 (1979), and courts have understood Evans
as applying to “pre-trial motions” for admission, Schlum-
berger Techs., Inc. v. Wiley, 113 F.3d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir.
1997); U.S. v. Dinitz, 538 F.2d 1214, 1223 (5th Cir. 1976)
(“Evans merely attempted to establish standards applica-
ble to a pretrial motion to appear pro hac vice.”).
Evans did not involve the situation here: an attorney,
who testified at trial about his conduct, seeking pro hac vice
admission after the district court found he engaged in un-
ethical behavior. And what Evans did involve—a criminal
defense attorney being denied a pre-trial pro hac vice mo-
tion based merely on general accusations about the attor-
ney’s demeanor without a hearing to respond—is
sufficiently different such that we cannot say on limited
mandamus review that Mr. Williams has demonstrated a
clear and indisputable right to the relief he seeks under the
circumstances of this case. Mr. Williams’s other requests
Case: 25-137 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

IN RE WILLIAMS 4
are on the merits of the underlying case. Since he is not a
party to those proceedings, we deny the petition in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
September 25, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-137 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 09/25/2025

-- 4 of 4 --