Garity v. APWU-AFl-CIO et al

Filing 143

ORDER Referring Case to the Pro Bono Program. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court shall also forward this order to the Pro Bono Liaison. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is STAYED for a period of 30 days to allow the Pro Bono Program to attempt to locate counsel for plaintiff Rosemary Garity. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 8/24/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: pro bono liaison - TR)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 *** 3 4 ROSEMARY GARITY, Plaintiff, 5 6 7 Case No. 2:11-CV-01109-APG-CWH ORDER REFERRING CASE TO THE PRO BONO PROGRAM v. APWU-AFI-CIO, et al., Defendants. 8 9 10 IT IS ORDERED that this case is referred to the Pilot Pro Bono Program (“Program”) 11 adopted in General Order 2014-01 for the purpose of screening for financial eligibility (if 12 necessary) and identifying counsel willing to be appointed as pro bono counsel for plaintiff 13 Rosemary Garity. The scope of appointment shall be for all purposes through the conclusion of 14 trial. By referring this case to the Program, the court is not expressing an opinion as to the merits 15 of the case. 16 17 18 19 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court shall also forward this order to the Pro Bono Liaison. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is STAYED for a period of 30 days to allow the Pro Bono Program to attempt to locate counsel for plaintiff Rosemary Garity. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if pro bono counsel is appointed within 30 days from 21 entry of this order, a proposed scheduling order is due 30 days after pro bono counsel is 22 appointed. If pro bono counsel is not appointed within the next 30 days, then a proposed 23 scheduling order is due October 24, 2016. 24 DATED this 24th day of August, 2016. 25 26 27 28 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?