Pauluk et al v. Clark County Health District

Filing 88

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that counsel for plaintiff Estate of Daniel Pauluk shall enter an appearance in this action on or before April 2, 2012. Failure to retain counsel will result in the court issuing an order to show cause as to why the court shoul dnt recommend that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the Estate and any non-represented plaintiffs shall meet with defense counsel on or before May 2, 2012, to set a discovery plan and scheduling order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the Estate and any non-represented plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of the motion to compel (#71) within thirty (30) days from the Estates counsel entering an appearance in this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 2/2/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
WENDY J. PAULUK, et al.,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
v.
7
CLARK COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT,
8
Defendant.
9
10
11

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:07-cv-01681-PMP -VCF
ORDER

Before the court is the action of Wendy J. Pauluk, et al. v. Clark County Health District, (Case
No. 2:07-cv-01681-PMP -VCF).

12

Pro se plaintiff Dr. Pauluk filed a motion to compel production of decedent’s tissues on March

13

16, 2011. (#71). On April 4, 2011, plaintiff Dr. Pauluk filed a motion to stay the action due to her

14

“chronic medical condition.” (#73). The court granted the stay on April 7, 2011, and stayed the action

15

until further order from the court. (#74). Defendant Clark County Health District filed an opposition

16

to the motion to compel on April 12, 2011. (#75). Plaintiff’s reply was due on April 22, 2011. Id. In

17

light of the stay, plaintiff Dr. Pauluk did not file a reply in support of her motion to compel. The court

18

held a status conference on February 2, 2012, regarding the stay of the action and the status of plaintiff

19

Dr. Pauluk’s medical condition. (#87).

20

During the status conference, the court held that plaintiff Estate of Daniel Pauluk must retain

21

counsel1, and that on or before April 2, 2012, counsel for the Estate shall enter an appearance in this

22

action. Id. The court also held that the Estate’s counsel and any non-represented plaintiffs shall meet

23

with defense counsel on or before May 2, 2012, to set a discovery plan and scheduling order. Id. In

24
25
26

1

Estates may not proceed pro se in Federal Court, and must be represented by counsel. Simon v. Hartford
Life and Accident Ins. Co., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that “courts have routinely adhered to the
general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.”)

1

addition to the rulings made during the status conference, the court hereby orders the Estate’s counsel

2

and any non-represented plaintiffs to file a reply in support of the motion to compel (#71) within thirty

3

(30) days from the Estate’s counsel entering an appearance in this action.

4

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

5

IT IS ORDERED that counsel for plaintiff Estate of Daniel Pauluk shall enter an appearance in

6

this action on or before April 2, 2012. Failure to retain counsel will result in the court issuing an order

7

to show cause as to why the court shouldn’t recommend that the action be dismissed for failure to

8

prosecute.

9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the Estate and any non-represented plaintiffs shall
meet with defense counsel on or before May 2, 2012, to set a discovery plan and scheduling order.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the Estate and any non-represented plaintiffs shall

12

file a reply in support of the motion to compel (#71) within thirty (30) days from the Estate’s counsel

13

entering an appearance in this action.

14

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2012.

15
16
17

CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2