Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al
ORDER. Plaintiff shall show cause why the purposed Notice of Withdraw by stipulation filed October 19, 2011 (Doc. No. 168) should not be struck as non-compliant with this court's Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.2(d)(2). Plaintiff's papers in response to this order shall be filed by 4:00 p.m., October 20, 2011. Signed by Hon. Leslie G. Foschio on 10/20/2011. (SDW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAUL D. CEGLIA,
MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG,
Plaintiff shall show cause why the purposed Notice of Withdraw by stipulation
(“Plaintiff’s Notice”) filed October 19, 2011 (Doc. No. 168) should not be struck as noncompliant with this court’s Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.2(d)(2) (“Rule 83.2(d)(2)” or
“the Rule”). Whereas Rule 83.2(d)(2) requires, as relevant, that “all counsel of record”
(underlining added) endorse the proffered withdrawal by stipulation, Plaintiff’s Notice
contains only signatures of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys, but not, as required by the
Rule, Defendants’ attorneys.1
Plaintiff’s papers in response to this order shall be filed by 4:00 p.m., October 20,
/s/ Leslie G. Foschio
LESLIE G. FOSCHIO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: October 20, 2011
Buffalo, New York
W hile our Local Rules provide for a Substitution of Counsel by filing of a Notice of Substitution
of Counsel by identification of “new counsel of record” and affirm ing the agreem ent of the party
represented to such substitution, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.2(d)(1), Plaintiff’s Notice does not
appear to constitute a substitution of counsel as it fails to designate such new counsel for Plaintiff.
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?