Shade et al v. State of Nevada et al
REVISED ORDER that 79 Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall have until September 18, 2017, in which to retain substitute counsel who shall make an appearance in accordance with the requirements of the Local Rules of Practice, or shall file a notice with the court that they will be appearing in this matter pro se. Plaintiffs' failure to timely comply with this order by either obtaining substitute counsel, or filing a notice that they will be appearing pro se , may result in the imposition of sanctions which may include a recommendation to the district judge that plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The clerk of the court shall serve the plaintiffs with a copy of this order at their last known address. FURTHER ORDERED that 78 Motion to Stay is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/22/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RHONDA SHADE and LOWELL SHADE,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01016-RFB-PAL
(Mot Stay – ECF No. 78)
(Mot WD Atty – ECF No. 79)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Before the court is counsel for plaintiffs Potter Law Offices’ Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel and Stay Proceedings (ECF Nos. 78, 79). The motion represents that plaintiffs’ counsel’s
present physical condition and health is such that he can no longer represent plaintiffs in this
matter. There are only two attorneys in the law firm, and his associate and son, is unable to continue
representing the plaintiffs. As such, the firm seeks leave to withdraw as counsel of record.
Currently, the parties are awaiting a written ruling from the district judge on defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 52) which was heard on January 13, 2017.
Mr. Potter also requests a stay of the scheduling deadlines in order for plaintiffs to obtain
new counsel. On May 9, 2016 the court entered a temporary stay of discovery pending decision
of the defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiffs motion to amend/correct the complaint. See
Minutes of Proceeding, (ECF No. 43). The order directed the parties to submit a propose discovery
plan and scheduling order 14 days after decision on these motions. Thus a stay of discovery is
already in place and the motion to stay will therefore be denied as moot.
Having reviewed and considered the matter, and for good cause shown,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 79) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiffs shall have until September 18, 2017, in which to retain substitute counsel
who shall make an appearance in accordance with the requirements of the Local Rules
of Practice, or shall file a notice with the court that they will be appearing in this matter
3. Plaintiffs’ failure to timely comply with this order by either obtaining substitute
counsel, or filing a notice that they will be appearing pro se, may result in the
imposition of sanctions which may include a recommendation to the district judge that
plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
4. The clerk of the court shall serve the plaintiffs with a copy of this order at their last
50 Emery Street
Pahrump, NV 89048
5. The Motion to Stay (ECF No. 78) is DENIED as moot.
DATED this 22nd day of August, 2017.
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?