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, A)

Download PDF
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 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

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?