Sanchez et al v. Capital Contractors Inc. et al

Filing 93

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIPULATION RE: MOTION TO WITHDRAW. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 3, 2015. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

LILLIANA SANCHEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

No. C 14-2622 MMC
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE STIPULATION RE:
MOTION TO WITHDRAW

v.
CAPITAL CONTRACTORS INC.,
Defendant.

16
17

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND

18

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

/

19
20

On June 24, 2015, a “Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re Extension of Time of

21

Pending Deadlines and Counsels’ Motion to Withdraw” was filed by (1) Corey, Luzaich, de

22

Ghetaldi, Nastari & Riddle, LLP, the Law Offices of Parviz Darabi, and Alvarenga Law

23

(collectively, the “Corey Law Firm”), as counsel for third-party defendants Hernandez

24

Janitorial Service, Professional CCS Cleaning Services, and JCR Janitorial, and (2)

25

defendant/third-party plaintiff Capital Contractors, Inc.

26

The stipulation seeks an order deeming an earlier-filed motion to withdraw to include

27

a request that the Corey Law Firm be permitted to withdraw as counsel for the three third-

28

party defendants referenced above, and an order granting the motion to withdraw as so

1

amended. As the stipulation was not accompanied by a showing that either the stipulation

2

or the motion to withdraw had been served on the three third-party defendants, the Court,

3

by order filed July 2, 2015, directed the Corey Law Firm to serve the stipulation and the

4

motion to withdraw on the clients, and to file proof of such service no later than July 17,

5

2015. By said order, the Court also directed the Corey Law Firm to file, no later than July

6

17, 2015, the last known address and telephone number of each third-party defendant for

7

whom they wished to withdraw as counsel.1

8
9

To date, the Corey Law Firm has not filed the requisite proof of service, nor has it
provided the last known address and telephone number of any third-party defendant.

10

Accordingly, the above-referenced stipulation is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: August 3, 2015
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

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

1

Additionally, the Court pointed out that the stipulation made no reference to a fourth
third-party defendant, Hernandez Cleaning Service, which, like the other three such
defendants, appeared to be represented by the Corey Law Firm.
2