Perez et al v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 145

ORDER. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 11/20/2015. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MONIQUE PEREZ, et al.,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 14-cv-00989-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

Rhonda H. Wills, counsel for plaintiffs in the above-entitled action, has filed an

15

administrative motion seeking leave to appear by telephone at the December 9, 2015,

16

hearing on defendants’ motion to amend the answer to the third amended complaint.

17

Defendants did not file a response.

18

The motion is DENIED. The court is not equipped for telephonic appearances at

19

motion hearings. Moreover, the docket and papers filed in this case indicate that

20

plaintiffs are represented by counsel from two different law firms. Thus, if Ms. Wills’

21

schedule does not permit her (or someone from her firm) to appear for plaintiffs at the

22

hearing, plaintiffs may appear through counsel of record from the other firm.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: November 20, 2015

26
27
28

__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge