Righetti v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 69

ORDER re 68 Notice of Additional Counsel filed by Gerald Righetti. Signed by Judge Edward M.Chen on 9/28/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DARIN W. SNYDER (S.B. #136003) dsnyder@omm.com LORIN M. KLINE (S.B. #275263) lkline@omm.com MEGHAN K. WOODSOME (S.B. #272459) mwoodsome@omm.com O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 Attorneys for Plaintiff Gerald L. Righetti 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 GERALD L. RIGHETTI, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Case No. C-11-2717 EMC Addition NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION 1 2 TO THE COURT AND TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD HEREIN: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Gerald L. Righetti and his counsel of record, 4 O’Melveny & Myers LLP, hereby add Meghan Woodsome, an associate at O’Melveny & Myers, 5 as attorney of record for Mr. Righetti in the above-captioned matter. 6 7 Dated: September 27, 2012 8 DARIN W. SNYDER MEGHAN K. WOODSOME O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 9 10 11 By: /s/ Meghan K. Woodsome Meghan K. Woodsome Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 The above Substitution is hereby approved. ER H 9 10 R NIA n M. Che FO dward Judge E LI RT 8 IT NO 7 __________________________ Hon. Edward M. Chen ED ER UnitedIS SO ORD Judge States District A 6 UNIT ED 5 9/28 Dated: ____ __, 2012 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O 4 S 3 N D IS T IC T R OF C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ORDER APPROVING SUBSTITUTION

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?