Watkins v. Investment Retrievers, Inc.
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/30/17: Ms. Drake is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE by November 3, 2017 why she should not be sanctioned $250.00 for failing to comply with local rules. (Kaminski, H)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INVESTMENT RETRIEVERS, INC.,
A status conference and hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss was set for
October 6, 2017. ECF No. 11. At the hearing, defendant’s counsel explained plaintiff’s counsel
of record, Mr. Stieglitz, has referred communications regarding this matter to Rachel Drake of RC
On October 12, 2017, the court ordered plaintiff’s counsel, Jonathan Aaron
Stieglitz, to show cause why he should not be sanctioned: (1) $250.00 for failing to appear at the
October 6, 2012 status conference and hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss, and (2) $250.00
for failing to designate Rachel Drake or the appropriate acting counsel as attorney of record for
plaintiff. ECF No. 19. Mr. Stieglitz responded to the order to show cause on October 17, 2017.
ECF No. 20. Defendant filed a reply that same day. ECF No. 21. Mr. Stieglitz filed a second
response on October 19, 2017. ECF Nos. 22, 22-1.
In his response, Mr. Stieglitz states his client, Reginald Watkins, retained Ms.
Drake’s New Jersey law firm, RC Law Group, PLLC, and later retained Mr. Stieglitz “to serve as
California counsel in this action.” ECF No. 20 at p. 3. Mr. Stieglitz refers to Ms. Drake as his
“co-counsel.” Id. He further states Ms. Drake “drafted the initial Discovery Plan,” but later
sought review, comments and approval from Mr. Stieglitz. Id. Mr. Stieglitz indicates Ms. Drake
plans “to ensure compliance with local rules” by submitting a pro hac vice application to this
court when she receives a certificate of good standing from the state of New Jersey. ECF No. 22,
Local Rule 182(a)(1) provides “no attorney may participate in any action unless
the attorney has appeared as an attorney of record.” Local Rule 180(b)(2) provides, “[a]n
attorney who is a member in good standing of, and eligible to practice before, the Bar of any
United States Court or of the highest Court of any State, . . . and who has been retained to appear
in this Court may, upon application and in the discretion of the Court, be permitted to appear and
participate in a particular case.”
Mr. Stieglitz represents Ms. Drake is plaintiff’s attorney in this action and has
participated in litigating plaintiff’s case. See ECF No. 20, p. 3. Ms. Drake is not an attorney of
record and had not submitted an application to proceed pro hac vice in this court prior to
participating in this action, and not until prompted by this court’s order to show cause to Mr.
Accordingly, Ms. Drake is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE by November 3, 2017
why she should not be sanctioned $250.00 for failing to comply with local rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 30, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?