Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Glassey v. Microsemi, C 16-05606 WHA. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170601c41 Visitors: 29
Filed: May 30, 2017
Latest Update: May 30, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING AS WITHDRAWN MOTIONS FOR PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC CASE FILING WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . On May 9, plaintiffs in this terminated civil action filed requests to substitute themselves for their attorney of record, Dennis Kennelly, and moved for permission for electronic case filing (Dkt. Nos. 131-34). A prior order set these matters for hearing on June 8 and required that plaintiffs attend the hearing in person (Dkt. No. 136). Today, plaintiffs filed a "Dismissal without
More

ORDER DENYING AS WITHDRAWN MOTIONS FOR PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC CASE FILING

On May 9, plaintiffs in this terminated civil action filed requests to substitute themselves for their attorney of record, Dennis Kennelly, and moved for permission for electronic case filing (Dkt. Nos. 131-34). A prior order set these matters for hearing on June 8 and required that plaintiffs attend the hearing in person (Dkt. No. 136). Today, plaintiffs filed a "Dismissal without prejudice of ECF Access Motion" that stated, "both Plaintiffs do formally dismiss without prejudice and withdraw their Pro Se `motion for ECF Access' and in so doing do formally waive the June 8th Hearing Date." The "Dismissal" also reiterated their request to remove Attorney Kennelly as counsel of record (Dkt. No. 142).

Pursuant to plaintiffs' new filing, their motions for permission for electronic case filing (Dkt. Nos. 131, 133) are DENIED AS WITHDRAWN. Plaintiffs' requests to remove Attorney Kennelly and proceed pro se, however, remain set for hearing on JUNE 8 AT 8:00 A.M. in Courtroom 8 on the 19th floor of the San Francisco courthouse. To repeat, plaintiffs shall attend the hearing in person. This order also serves as additional notice to Attorney Kennelly that the hearing remains scheduled for June 8, and it would be of service to the Court if he would attend (see Dkt. No. 141). Again, allowance of this hearing in no way suggests that, if substitution of counsel is permitted, this closed case will be reopened.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer