Benno et al v. Shasta County, California et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/27/17, ORDERING that pursuant to Local Rule 137(b), Plaintiffs are to send the word processing version of their Substitution of Attorney and Proposed Order to [e-mail].(Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JAMES MICHAEL BENNO, JESSICA
ELAINE BENNO, JACOB DANIEL
BENNO, LOGAN WAYNE BENNO,
MARCIA JONES, DENNIS PERON,
BRIAN MONTERROZO, RICHARD
YOUNG, CHARLES B. McINTOSH,
JESSICA CONCHA SOLANO,
NICHOLAS NEAL BOLTON, WALTER
CARNEY, JERILYN CARNEY, and,
JOSH HANCOCK,

19
20
21
22
23

ORDER

Plaintiffs,

17
18

No. 2:16-cv-01110-TLN-CMK

v.
SHASTA COUNTY, SHASTA COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, THOMAS
BOSENKO, in his capacity as Sheriff of
Shasta County, DALE FLETCHER, TOM
BARNER, SHASTA COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT, SHASTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, LESTER
BAUGH, and DOES 1 to 10,
Defendants.

24
25

On January 18, 2017, the Court notified the parties of Michael Pappas’s ineligibility to

26

practice before this Court. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiffs were afforded ninety days to find new

27

counsel. On April 19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a proposed substitution of attorney (ECF No. 14) in

28

which they seek to have Jennifer McGrath substituted as their counsel. Defendants filed
1

1

objections to Plaintiffs’ proposed substitution of attorney. (ECF No. 15.) In their objections,

2

Defendants assert that Ms. McGrath is a part of the law firm of McGrath, Pappas & Pincheff, the

3

same law firm as Mr. Pappas. Defendants ask the Court to deny Ms. McGrath’s substitution

4

application because she failed to notify the Court of her connection with Mr. Pappas and that their

5

law firm continues to represent Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 15 at 2.)

6

Defendants do not provide the Court with a reason to deny Ms. McGrath’s application.

7

Plaintiffs are entitled to the attorney of their choosing and have chosen Ms. McGrath. The Court

8

will not deny Plaintiffs their right to choose their representation because Defendants contend that

9

Ms. McGrath may have a connection with an ineligible attorney. The Court did not disqualify

10
11
12
13

Mr. Pappas’s firm, if in fact Ms. McGrath is a part of the firm.
Pursuant to Local Rule 137(b), Plaintiffs are ordered to send the word processing version
of their Substitution of Attorney and Proposed Order to [e-mail].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: April 27, 2017

16
17
18

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2