Riese v. County of Del Norte et al

Filing 56

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/11/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
MICHAEL RIESE,
Plaintiff,

12

No. C 12-3723 RS
ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS

v.

13
14

COUNTY OF DEL NORTE et al.,

15

Defendants.
____________________________________/

16
Plaintiff Michael Riese is a former District Attorney for defendant County of Del Norte.

17
18

During his tenure, Riese terminated the employment of defendant Jon Alexander, a Deputy District

19

Attorney. Alexander then defeated Riese in an election, and succeeded him as DA. In this action,

20

Riese alleges that Alexander and various law enforcement agencies and individuals engaged in a

21

concerted effort to harass him and wrongfully target him for criminal investigation and prosecution.
Alexander has filed an “Anti-SLAPP” motion to strike1 the claims for relief alleged against

22
23

him. Defendant Richard Griffin, a Del Norte County Sheriff’s Deputy, likewise moves to strike the

24

claims brought against him. Riese filed oppositions to both motions.
Less than thirty-five days prior to the scheduled hearing, however, Riese’s counsel filed a

25
26

motion for leave to withdraw from representation. While the motion makes no mention of

27
1

28

See California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.

1

Alexander’s motion to strike, it effectively discloses that Riese’s counsel is of the opinion Griffin’s

2

motion to strike has merit and should be granted. Counsel set the motion to withdraw for hearing on

3

the same date as the motions to strike, without seeking an order shortening time.

4

Any opposition to the motion to withdraw is presently due June 12, 2013, with any reply due

motion to withdraw will remain set for June 20, 2013. Plaintiff’s counsel shall ensure that Riese

7

receives a copy of this order as promptly as possible. Whether or not Riese intends to oppose his

8

counsel’s motion to withdraw, he shall file a statement with the Court setting out how he intends to

9

proceed in the event the motion to withdraw is granted, and whether he continues to oppose either or

10

both of the motions to strike. The hearing on the motions to strike is vacated pending further order

11
For the Northern District of California

June 19, 2013. That briefing schedule shall be maintained, and at this juncture the hearing on the

6

United States District Court

5

of Court. The motions will either be reset for hearing after the issue of Riese’s representation is

12

resolved, or will be submitted without oral argument, as may appear appropriate.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: 6/11/13

17

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2