Guinn v. Sturm et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING 24 Request for Substitution of Attorney as MOOT signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/10/2010. (Sant Agata, S)

Guinn v. Sturm et al

Doc. 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ­ FRESNO DIVISION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On December 2, 2010, counsel for defendants J. Sturm, A. Bigham, County of Mariposa, and Brian Muller ("Defendants") filed a request for a substitution of attorney. However, the substitution request appears to be a notice of change of firm name rather than a change in attorney representation. Ms. Kimberly Flores will continue to represent Defendants, but the name of the firm with which she is associated is changed from Allen, Fagalde, Albertoni & Flores, LLP to Fagalde, Albertoni & Flores, LLP. A request for substitution of attorneys is not the proper vehicle to notice the Court of a firm name change. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(b), "[a]ppearances as an attorney of record shall not be made in the name of the firm, organization, public entity, agency, or department." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Rather, an appearance is made by the individual attorney representing the party. Here, that has not changed. /// v. J. STURM, et al., Defendants. / (Docket No. 24) PAULO EUGENE GUINN, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00320-LJO-SKO ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY AS MOOT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. 2. The Defendants' request for substitution of attorneys is DENIED as moot; and The Clerk of Court is directed to update the CM/ECF docket to reflect the changed firm name associated with Defendants' counsel of record as noted above.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ie14hj December 10, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2