United States of America v. Davis

Filing 50

ORDER continuing hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment and requiring counsel's attendance at hearing by Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is continued to 10/21/2014 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Mr. Rayner is Ordered to appear at the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment prior to withdrawing as counsel. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of service)(shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
UNITED STATES
8
Plaintiff(s),

No. 11-06444 (EDL)

9
v.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
REQUIRING COUNSEL’S ATTENDANCE AT
HEARING

DAWN M. DAVIS
12
13

Defendant.
___________________________________/

14
TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
15
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which is set for hearing on October 14, 2014.
16
Defendant’s Opposition was due on September 23, 2014 but was not timely filed. On September 30,
17
the Court received Defendant’s “Response to Motion for Summary Judgment” and “Substitution of
18
Attorneys” in the mail. Defendant’s counsel Terence Rayner improperly mailed these documents
19
directly to chambers instead of properly e-filing them pursuant to Local Rule 5-1, requiring the Court
20
to process the documents into the Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) system on its own. Counsel is
21
admonished to comply with all applicable federal and local rules, including those pertaining to filing
22
documents with this Court.
23
Because Defendant’s Response was filed more than a week late, Plaintiff shall have until
24
October 7, 2014 to file its Reply. The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is continued
25
until 2:00 p.m. on October 21, 2014.
26
Defendant also mailed a document entitled “Substitution of Attorneys” purporting to substitute
27
herself in pro per in place of her current counsel. Given that Defendant’s counsel prepared the Response
28
to the Motion for Summary Judgment on her behalf and pro se Defendant may not be able to defend the

1

arguments made in the response without the assistance of counsel who drafted the response, Mr. Rayner

2

is Ordered to appear at the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment prior to withdrawing as

3

counsel.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: October 1, 2014
_______________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Chief Magistrate Judge

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

2