Mathieu v. Joseph Eletto Transfer, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying without prejudice 16 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 6/27/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-195-FDW-DCK
VERA MATHIEU,
Plaintiff,
v.
MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
MACY’S SPECIALTY STORES, INC.,
MACY’S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC., SEALY,
INC., SEALY MATTRESS
MANUFACTURING CO., INC., SIMMONS
COMPANY and JOSEPH ELETTO
TRANSFER, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on pro se Plaintiff’s “Motion To Stay”
(Document No. 16) filed June 27, 2014. This motion has been referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having
carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny
the motion.
By the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks to stay this action until she is “able to find a new
counsel.” (Document No. 16, p.2). The undersigned notes, however, that on May 29, 2014, the
Court granted Plaintiff’s former counsel’s “Motion To Withdraw As Counsel” (Document No.
14), and specifically ordered that:
Plaintiff will represent herself in this action until new counsel files
a Notice of Appearance on her behalf. Plaintiff is responsible for
participating in this litigation in accordance with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the “Case
Management Order” (Document No. 13).

(Document No. 15, pp.1-2). It appears that Plaintiff has been aware of the need for new counsel
since on or about April 24, 2014, but despite her efforts has been unable to find anyone to agree
to represent her. (Document No. 16, p.2).
The undersigned does not find that the instant motion provides sufficient cause for the
Court to reverse its previous Order requiring Plaintiff to proceed pro se until new counsel files a
Notice Of Appearance. Plaintiff’s motion suggests that she has made diligent efforts to hire
counsel with no success, but there is no forecast of how much longer her search might last.
(Document No. 16). Under these circumstances, the Court is not inclined to delay this matter
indefinitely, and as previously ordered, Plaintiff must be prepared to represent herself until she
finds counsel.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion To Stay” (Document No.
16) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 27, 2014

2