Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp

Filing 644

ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO VACATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ADVANCING HEARING ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Alsup on May 12, 2011. (whalc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MARTIN GARDNER REIFFIN,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 98-00266 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
/

ORDER STRIKING
MOTION TO VACATE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND ADVANCING
HEARING ON MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

Plaintiff Martin Gardner Reiffin is represented by Attorneys Norman H. Beamer and

17

Jesse J. Jenner of Ropes & Gray LLP, as well as Attorney Joseph L. Spiegel of Spiegel Brown

18

Fichera & Acard LLP. When a party is represented by an attorney, the attorney and only the

19

attorney speaks for the party. Mr. Reiffin himself, however, has made a series of filings labeled

20

pro se, including a Rule 60 motion to vacate summary judgment. This procedure is improper.

21

Accordingly, the motion to vacate summary judgment and Mr. Reiffin’s related pro se filings are

22

STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD and DENIED. Specifically, the Clerk shall strike the following

23

docket entries: Docket Numbers 628, 629, 630, 634, 635, 637, and 640. The denial is without

24

prejudice to the motion being re-filed according to correct procedures.

25

Relatedly, Attorneys Beamer and Jenner have requested leave to withdraw as counsel for

26

Mr. Reiffin. They represent that their client “has discharged the firm from its representation of

27

plaintiff in this matter” (Dkt. Nos. 632, 638). Mr. Reiffin filed a response to this request, but it

28

1

did not indicate whether he opposed or acquiesced. Instead, it explained how Mr. Reiffin viewed

2

the withdrawal motion as supporting the fraud theory underlying his Rule 60 motion

3

(Dkt. No. 638).

4

The hearing on counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby advanced to 2:00 P.M. ON

5

MAY 26, 2011. All three of Mr. Reiffin’s attorneys of record must attend. Mr. Reiffin himself

6

also must attend. Additionally, counsel for defendant must attend. Attorney Spiegel or

7

defendant’s counsel may (but are not required to) file a statement in response to the motion to

8

withdraw by NOON ON MAY 23, 2011.

9

Finally, the hearing on defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees remains set for June 2.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: May 12, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2