Lam et al v. Newsom et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying substitution of counsel. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 5/6/2014. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2014)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

ALFRED LAM, et al.,

6
7
8

Plaintiff(s),
v.

No. C 10-4641 PJH
ORDER DENYING SUBSTITUTION
OF COUNSEL

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Defendant(s).
_______________________________/
On April 28, 2014, plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter filed a proposed order

12

substituting themselves as counsel, in pro per. However, while the proposed order appears

13

to contain four signatures (presumably, one for each of the four plaintiffs), the proposed

14

order lists contact information for only one plaintiff, Alfredo Lam. Mr. Lam may represent

15

only himself, and may not represent any of the other three plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ request is

16

thus DENIED. If each plaintiff wishes to represent himself or herself in pro per, each

17

plaintiff must submit a separate substitution of attorney request, and must provide their own

18

contact information.

19
20

The court advises plaintiffs that all four of them must appear in person at the next
case management conference, scheduled for May 29, 2014 at 2:00pm.

21

The court also notes that Smith Patten is still listed as counsel of record for plaintiffs,

22

as no motion to withdraw as counsel has been filed. Until plaintiffs are properly substituted

23

in as counsel in pro per, Smith Patten is directed to serve a copy of this and any

24

subsequent orders on plaintiffs. See Civil Local Rule 11-5(b).

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 6, 2014
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge