Yousuf v. Robert A Bothman, Inc.
Filing
58
ORDER DENYING 56 STIPULATION REGARDING DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 3/5/2018. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2018)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
SAN JOSE DIVISION
4
5
SAEED YOUSUF,
Case No. 5:16-cv-05098-EJD
Plaintiff,
6
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION
REGARDING DEADLINES
v.
7
8
Re: Dkt. No. 56
ROBERT A BOTHMAN, INC.,
Defendant.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
The parties have filed a stipulation seeking to extend certain deadlines because Plaintiff’s
12
counsel is leaving her firm and Plaintiff intends to represent himself until he finds new counsel.
13
Dkt. No. 56. Plaintiff has also filed a notice of substitution of attorney which substitutes “himself
14
in pro se” for his current counsel, Amy Carlson. Dkt. No. 57. Plaintiff does not appear to be an
15
attorney himself. Id. (listing no state bar number for Plaintiff).
16
As Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) sets forth, “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until
17
relieved by order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client
18
and to all other parties who have appeared in the case.” Accordingly, if Plaintiff’s counsel seeks
19
to terminate representation such that Plaintiff will proceed pro se, she must move to withdraw. If
20
circumstances require the Court’s attention on an accelerated pace, Plaintiff’s counsel may move
21
to shorten time pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Because no such request has been made, the status quo remains. All deadlines remain as
set and Plaintiff’s counsel shall continue to serve as counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2018
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
Case No.: 5:16-cv-05098-EJD
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION REGARDING DEADLINES
1
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?