Shirley v. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB et al

Filing 75

ORDER re 74 Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed by John Shirley. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 5/17/2012. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

10
Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

JOHN SHIRLEY, individually and as
trustee of the JOHN F. SHIRLEY
and JULIE E. SHIRLEY 2003 TRUST,
and JULIE SHIRLEY,

11
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14

v.
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB, WELLS
FARGO BANK N.A., and DOES 1-10,

15
Defendants.

16
17
18

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, a division of
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., formerly
known as WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB,

19
Third-Party Complainant,

20
21
22
23
24

v.
LSI TITLE COMPANY; LENDER
PROCESSING SERVICES, INC.;
FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION
SERVICES, INC.; and ROES 1
through 10, inclusive,

25
Third-Party Defendants.
26
27
28

) Case No. 10-03870-SC
)
) ORDER RE: SUBSTITUTION OF
) COUNSEL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1

John Shirley ("Shirley") has filed a notice of substitution of

2

counsel.

3

intends to substitute himself as counsel of record in place of Ryan

4

F. Thomas ("Thomas") and Roy N. Johnston ("Johnston").

5

would not only represent himself, but also his wife, Julie Shirley,

6

and the John F. Shirley and Julie E. Shirley 2003 Trust ("the

7

Trust").

8
9

ECF No. 74 ("Notice").

According to the Notice, Shirley

The Court has several concerns with the Notice.

Shirley

First, it is

unclear how Shirley intends to represent his wife and the Trust

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

without engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

11

that Shirley was admitted to practice law in the state of

12

California but his bar status is no longer active.

13

and Johnston have not sought permission to withdraw as counsel

14

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5.

15

valid, there appears to be no mechanism for Shirley to receive

16

future court filings in this action.

17

It appears

Second, Thomas

Third, even if the Notice was

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the

18

Notice is invalid.

Thomas and Johnston shall continue to represent

19

Shirley until they file the appropriate motions and have been

20

relieved by the Court.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated: May 17, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

2