Tipaksorn Tungjunyatham v. Mike Johanns

Filing 84

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Late Filing of Opposition to Defendant's Bill of Costs 81 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 5/27/2011. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

TIPAKSORN TUNGJUNYATHAM,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01764-SMS

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LATE FILING OF OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S BILL OF COSTS

v.
MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary of the United
States Department of Agriculture,

13

(Doc. 81)
Defendant.

14

/

15
Claiming that she did not receive notice of Defendant’s submission of its Bill of Costs,
16
Plaintiff moves for leave to file opposition. This Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff is
17
represented by counsel, the Reich Law Firm, which received notice of the Bill of Costs. Neither
18
the Court nor Defendant is responsible to notify personally a party who is represented by counsel
19
so long as notice is provided to the party’s attorney of record.
20
On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a notice advising the Court that she had terminated legal
21
representation by the Reich Law Firm. The notice failed to comply with Local Rule 83-182 (d),
22
which provides:
23
24
25
26
27
28

Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not
withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of court upon
noticed motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared.
The attorney shall provide an affidavit stating the current or last known addresses
of the client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw.
Withdrawal as an attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of
the State Bar of California and the attorney shall conform to the requirements of
those Rules. The authority and duty of the attorney of record shall continue until
relieved by order of the Court issued hereunder. Leave to withdraw may be
granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.
-1-

1
2

The Reich Law Firm has taken no action to withdraw as counsel. Even assuming that

3

Plaintiff’s notice of termination could somehow be interpreted as an exception to Local Rule 83-182

4

(d), Defendant’s bill of costs was submitted and taxed well before the date on which Plaintiff claims

5

to have discharged the Reich Law Firm.

6
7

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to accept late filing of opposition to Defendant’s Bill of Costs
is HEREBY DENIED.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:
icido3

May 27, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-