Golden v. Eastridge Workforce Solutions et al
Filing
89
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 86 attorney Geraldine Kirk Hughes' motion to withdraw is GRANTED and that Guinness Ohazuruike is substituted as plaintiff's attorney. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must respond to 82 defendant's motion for summary judgment by 11/29/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 11/8/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ANITA R. GOLDEN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
TEG STAFFING, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Case No. 2:16-cv-01590-JAD-CWH
ORDER
Presently before the court is plaintiff’s attorney’s motion to withdraw (ECF No. 86), filed
on October 19, 2017. Defendant did not file a response.
Plaintiff’s attorney, Geraldine Kirk-Hughes, requests to withdraw from this case and for
15
Guinness Ohazuruike to be substituted as plaintiff’s attorney. Plaintiff consents to the substitution.
16
Plaintiff also requests an extension of time to oppose defendant’s pending motion for summary
17
judgment (ECF No. 82). The court will grant the motion as unopposed. See LR 7-2(d) (stating that
18
“[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion, except a
19
motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to the
20
granting of the motion.”).
21
22
23
24
25
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that attorney Geraldine Kirk Hughes’ motion to withdraw
(ECF No. 86) is GRANTED and that Guinness Ohazuruike is substituted as plaintiff’s attorney.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must respond to defendant’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 82) by November 29, 2017.
DATED: November 8, 2017
26
27
______________________________________
28
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
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?