Cortez et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 65

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW; STAYING ACTION AND VACATING DEADLINES; VACATING MAY 17, 2024, HEARING; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL. The motion to withdraw is granted. The Court stays the action un til July 26, 2024. The current dates, namely the June 7, 2024, deadline for defendant to file a reply in support of its pending motion to dismiss, the July 19, 2024, hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, and the August 16, 2024, Case Manage ment Conference, as well as the deadlines associated with said Conference, are vacated, and will be reset, as appropriate, after the stay is lifted. The Law Offices of John L. Burris is directed to serve, no later than May 10, 2024, a copy of the ins tant order on Charles Cortez, Hilma Cortez, and each of the three minors through their respective guardians ad litem, and to file proof of such service no later than May 13, 2024. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 8, 2024. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2024)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHARLES CORTEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 23-cv-01222-MMC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL'S MOTION TO
WITHDRAW; STAYING ACTION AND
VACATING DEADLINES; VACATING
MAY 17, 2024, HEARING;
DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL

12
13

Before the Court is the Motion, filed April 3, 2024, by John L. Burris, Ben

14

Nisenbaum, and Christopher Dean (collectively, "Law Offices of John L. Burris") "for

15

Leave of Court to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiffs Charles Cortez and Hilma Cortez,"

16

which motion, as clarified in a supplemental filing submitted April 11, 2024, seeks an

17

order allowing the Law Offices of John L. Burris to withdraw as counsel not only for

18

Charles Cortez and Hilma Cortez, who are the parents of decedent Michael Cortez, but

19

also for three minors, who are the decedent's children, specifically, (1) J.S., who appears

20

through her guardian ad litem Serina Sagon, (2) L.C., who appears through her guardian

21

ad litem Ashley Mabutas, and (3) M.P.C., who has not appeared to date in the instant

22

action.1 Although all said clients were served with the above filings, none has filed a

23

response thereto. Defendant United States of America filed a statement of non-

24

opposition, in which it includes two requests. Having read and considered the parties'

25
26
27
28

1

In a supplemental declaration submitted in support of the instant motion, counsel
states that, after the operative complaint was filed, M.P.C.'s mother, Justinne Pasion,
retained the Law Offices of John L. Burris, and that she is acting as M.P.C's guardian ad
litem. (See Supp. Burris Decl. ¶ 8.)

1

respective written submissions, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon,

2

VACATES the hearing scheduled for May 17, 2024, and rules as follows.

3

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

For the reasons stated by the Law Offices of John L. Burris, and good cause
appearing, the motion to withdraw is hereby GRANTED.

5

To the extent the United States requests that the Court continue all pending

6

deadlines until sixty days after new counsel has appeared for plaintiffs, the Court declines

7

to do so, as it is unclear when, or whether, new counsel will appear. The Court will,

8

however, afford plaintiffs an opportunity to obtain new counsel, and, accordingly, hereby

9

STAYS the above-titled action until July 26, 2024. If, as of July 26, 2024, new counsel

10

has not appeared, the Court, unless information counseling against dismissal has been

11

submitted, will dismiss without prejudice the claims asserted on behalf of the minor

12

plaintiffs, as they and their respective guardians ad litem cannot appear without counsel,

13

see Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding “guardian

14

or parent cannot bring a lawsuit on behalf of a minor in federal court without retaining a

15

lawyer”); the instant action will then proceed on behalf of Charles Cortez and Hilma

16

Cortez only, each of whom may appear pro se. Further, in light of such stay, the current

17

dates, namely the June 7, 2024, deadline for defendant to file a reply in support of its

18

pending motion to dismiss, the July 19, 2024, hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss,

19

and the August 16, 2024, Case Management Conference, as well as the deadlines

20

associated with said Conference, are hereby VACATED, and will be reset, as

21

appropriate, after the stay is lifted.

22

To the extent the United States requests that it be allowed to serve any filings on

23

the Law Offices of John L. Burris, which, in turn, would be responsible for forwarding

24

them to each of plaintiffs, the request, given the stay of proceedings, is hereby DENIED

25

without prejudice.

26

Lastly, the Law Offices of John L. Burris is hereby DIRECTED to serve, no later

27

than May 10, 2024, a copy of the instant order on Charles Cortez, Hilma Cortez, and

28

each of the three minors through their respective guardians ad litem, and to file proof of
2

1
2

such service no later than May 13, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: May 8, 2024
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3