Marshall v. Cargill, Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER RE SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DELORA MARSHALL, Plaintiff, v. CARGILL, INC., PATRICK MAPELLI, LES ICETON, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. / ORDER RE SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL No. C 08-02422 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The request to strike is denied. The client is entitled to retain counsel of her choice at this stage in the litigation. If her attorney of choice has interfered with the professional rights of attorney Hoffman, then that will have to be sorted out between the attorneys in some other venue. For purposes of the immediate lawsuit before the undersigned, the client has chosen attorney Figari who shall henceforth be the attorney of plaintiff Delora Marshall. With respect to the request to strike, attorney Hoffman's statements are what they are, and good cause to strike has not been shown. Plaintiff is instructed to file the notice of substitution of counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2008

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

28 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

1

2