Von Haar v. City of Mountain View et al

Filing 38

ORDER Regarding Status of Plaintiff's Counsel. Signed by Judge Koh on 7/2/2011. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

JODY LYNN VON HAAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, TONY
VIERYA, aka JOSE VIEYRA, TY ZEMLOK,
FERNANDO MALDONADO, Does 1-100,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER REGARDING STATUS OF
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL

On June 6, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be

18

dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a response in which he explained that

19

counsel and Plaintiff lacked funds to prosecute the case, and that Plaintiff had been seeking new

20

counsel. In response, Defendants filed a statement in which they informed the Court that

21

Plaintiff’s counsel was suspended from the practice of law effective April 4, 2011 for a period of

22

120 days. Defendants contended that Plaintiff’s counsel had therefore violated various rules by

23

engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and failing to notify the Court of his suspension. In

24

reply, Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged the suspension, but claimed that it had not yet taken effect.

25

Based on the records submitted by Defendants and the public records available on the

26

website of the State Bar of California, it appears that the April 4, 2011 action was a stipulated

27

disposition that has been approved by the State Bar Court and recommended to the Supreme Court.

28

It does not appear that a final order of the Supreme Court has been filed. Plaintiff’s counsel
1
Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER REGARDING STATUS OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL

1

therefore appears to be correct in stating that the suspension is not yet in effect. Nonetheless,

2

Plaintiff’s counsel is not permitted to unilaterally impose a stay of litigation because his client is

3

unable to afford the litigation. If Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to continue his representation of

4

Plaintiff for financial reasons, counsel must file a motion to withdraw from the representation

5

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5. Based on counsel’s representations, it appears that he is no

6

longer financially able to represent Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to file a motion to

7

withdraw by July 15, 2011. If the Court grants the motion, Plaintiff will be given a reasonable

8

amount of time in which to seek new counsel or make an appearance pro se.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Dated: July 2, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 10-CV-02995-LHK
ORDER REGARDING STATUS OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL