Yazzie v. Mohave, County of et al
Filing
62
ORDER denying as moot 50 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery. FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to LR Civ. 7.2(i), if Plaintiff VinaYazzie fails to timely respond to the pending motions to withdraw, this Court will deemP laintiff's failure to respond as consent to the Court granting the motions. FURTHER ORDERED granting 58 Mr. Coronado's Motion for Leave to Appear Telephonically. Mr. Coronado shall call into chambers at 602-322-7560 at the time set fo r the hearing. FURTHER ORDERED granting 61 Defendants' Motion for Expedited Ruling. FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Coronado shall send a copy of this Order to his client. See attached Order. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/15/2015.(TLB)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Vina Yazzie,
No. CV-14-08153-PCT-JAT
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
Mohave County, Steve Latoski, Ramon
Osuna, Kevin Stockbridge and Warren
Twitchel,
13
14
ORDER
Defendants.
15
16
Pending before the Court are five motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Second Motion for
17
Extension of Time (Doc. 50); (2) Plaintiff’s attorney, Eduardo H. Coronado’s Motion to
18
Withdraw as Attorney (Doc. 56); (3) Mr. Coronado’s Motion for Leave to Appear
19
Telephonically (Doc. 58); (4) Mr. Coronado’s Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 59); and (5)
20
Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Ruling (Doc. 61).
21
The Court will not rule on the pending motions to withdraw (Doc. 56; Doc. 59)
22
until Plaintiff’s time to respond under the local rules has expired. Pursuant to Local Rule
23
of Civil Procedure 7.2(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), a response, if any,
24
shall be filed by Plaintiff Vina Yazzie by October 30, 2015. A reply, if any, shall be filed
25
within the deadlines set by the rules.
26
Because of the timing of the request to withdraw, the Court orders Mr. Coronado
27
to continue representing Plaintiff at the deposition on October 19, 2015, and oral
28
argument on October 27, 2015. See Bohnert v. Burke, No. CV-08-2303-PHX-LOA, 2010
1
WL 5067695, at *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 7, 2010) (noting a trial court has discretion to grant or
2
deny a request to withdraw and the court should consider what harm withdrawal may
3
cause before granting a request). However, due to Mr. Coronado’s pending request to
4
withdraw, the Court will permit him to appear telephonically at the oral argument.
5
Plaintiff’s requests for a ninety day extension to “all current court deadlines”
6
(Doc. 56 at 2; Doc. 59 at 2) are denied to the extent they pertain to any expired deadlines
7
and the pending deposition and oral argument.1 The Court will consider the request to
8
extend future deadlines once Plaintiff has had the opportunity to respond to the motions
9
to withdraw. (Doc. 56; Doc. 59). Because of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s earlier motion to
10
extend time for discovery (Doc. 50) is denied as moot. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion
11
for expedited ruling (Doc. 61) is granted.
12
13
IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery
(Doc. 50) is DENIED as moot.
14
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to LR Civ. 7.2(i), if Plaintiff Vina
15
Yazzie fails to timely respond to the pending motions to withdraw, this Court will deem
16
Plaintiff’s failure to respond as consent to the Court granting the motions.
17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Coronado’s Motion for Leave to Appear
18
Telephonically (Doc. 58) is GRANTED. Mr. Coronado shall call into the Court at 602-
19
322-7560 at the time set for the hearing.
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Ruling (Doc.
21
61) is GRANTED.
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
28
1
This ruling does not impact the pending Motion to Extend Deadline to Amend
Claim (Doc. 43) which will be argued on October 27, 2015.
-2-
1
2
3
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Mr. Coronado shall send a copy of this Order
to his client.
Dated this 15th day of October, 2015.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?