Steshenko v. McKay et al
Filing
166
ORDER REVOKING PRIOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, REFERRING LITIGANT TO FEDERAL PRO BONO PROJECT, AND STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/25/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2011)
*E-Filed 10/25/11*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
8
12
GREGORY STESHENKO,
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS MCKAY, et al.
16
17
18
No. C 09-5543 RS
ORDER REVOKING PRIOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,
REFERRING LITIGANT TO
FEDERAL PRO BONO PROJECT,
AND STAYING PROCEEDINGS
PENDING APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
Defendants.
____________________________________/
19
20
In view of the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, the appointment of James Dal
21
Bon as counsel for plaintiff Gregory Steshenko is hereby revoked, and Dal Bon is relieved from
22
further representation of Steshenko in this matter. As Steshenko’s prior showing that he satisfies
23
the criteria set forth in the guidelines of the Federal Pro Bono Project remains adequate, and good
24
cause appearing, the Volunteer Legal Services Program of the Pro Bono Project Silicon Valley
25
(“PBPSV”) is requested to attempt to obtain new pro bono counsel for him. All proceedings in this
26
action are hereby stayed until 20 days from the date an attorney is appointed to represent Gregory
27
Steshenko, and all pending hearing dates are vacated. Upon appointment of new counsel, the parties
28
NO. C 09-5543 RS
1
shall engage in meaningful meet and confer negotiations in an attempt to resolve all existing
2
discovery disputes prior to re-noticing or refiling any pending discovery motions.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: 10/25/11
7
8
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NO. C 09-5543 RS
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?