Watkins v. Investment Retrievers, Inc.

Filing 26

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD WATKINS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-01348-KJM-CKD v. ORDER INVESTMENT RETRIEVERS, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 A status conference and hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss was set for 17 18 October 6, 2017. ECF No. 11. At the hearing, defendant’s counsel explained plaintiff’s counsel 19 of record, Mr. Stieglitz, has referred communications regarding this matter to Rachel Drake of RC 20 Law Group. On October 12, 2017, the court ordered plaintiff’s counsel, Jonathan Aaron 21 22 Stieglitz, to show cause why he should not be sanctioned: (1) $250.00 for failing to appear at the 23 October 6, 2012 status conference and hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss, and (2) $250.00 24 for failing to designate Rachel Drake or the appropriate acting counsel as attorney of record for 25 plaintiff. ECF No. 19. Mr. Stieglitz responded to the order to show cause on October 17, 2017. 26 ECF No. 20. Defendant filed a reply that same day. ECF No. 21. Mr. Stieglitz filed a second 27 response on October 19, 2017. ECF Nos. 22, 22-1. 28 ///// 1 1 In his response, Mr. Stieglitz states his client, Reginald Watkins, retained Ms. 2 Drake’s New Jersey law firm, RC Law Group, PLLC, and later retained Mr. Stieglitz “to serve as 3 California counsel in this action.” ECF No. 20 at p. 3. Mr. Stieglitz refers to Ms. Drake as his 4 “co-counsel.” Id. He further states Ms. Drake “drafted the initial Discovery Plan,” but later 5 sought review, comments and approval from Mr. Stieglitz. Id. Mr. Stieglitz indicates Ms. Drake 6 plans “to ensure compliance with local rules” by submitting a pro hac vice application to this 7 court when she receives a certificate of good standing from the state of New Jersey. ECF No. 22, 8 p. 2. 9 Local Rule 182(a)(1) provides “no attorney may participate in any action unless 10 the attorney has appeared as an attorney of record.” Local Rule 180(b)(2) provides, “[a]n 11 attorney who is a member in good standing of, and eligible to practice before, the Bar of any 12 United States Court or of the highest Court of any State, . . . and who has been retained to appear 13 in this Court may, upon application and in the discretion of the Court, be permitted to appear and 14 participate in a particular case.” 15 Mr. Stieglitz represents Ms. Drake is plaintiff’s attorney in this action and has 16 participated in litigating plaintiff’s case. See ECF No. 20, p. 3. Ms. Drake is not an attorney of 17 record and had not submitted an application to proceed pro hac vice in this court prior to 18 participating in this action, and not until prompted by this court’s order to show cause to Mr. 19 Stieglitz. 20 21 22 23 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. 24 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?