CARDOZA v. TANN, 1:11-cv-01386-RRB. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150611922
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER RALPH R. BEISTLINE , District Judge . The record in this case reflects that Plaintiff Lawrence Pepe Cardoza is represented in this matter by Stanley Goff. At Docket 94 Cardoza filed a document pro se entitled "Requesting Phone Call & Case Status Inquiry." In that document Cardoza contends that, because he has had limited contact with his counsel, Cardoza is unaware of the current status of this case. Cardoza requests this Court enter an order compelling counsel to communicate wit
Summary: ORDER RALPH R. BEISTLINE , District Judge . The record in this case reflects that Plaintiff Lawrence Pepe Cardoza is represented in this matter by Stanley Goff. At Docket 94 Cardoza filed a document pro se entitled "Requesting Phone Call & Case Status Inquiry." In that document Cardoza contends that, because he has had limited contact with his counsel, Cardoza is unaware of the current status of this case. Cardoza requests this Court enter an order compelling counsel to communicate with..
More
ORDER
RALPH R. BEISTLINE, District Judge.
The record in this case reflects that Plaintiff Lawrence Pepe Cardoza is represented in this matter by Stanley Goff. At Docket 94 Cardoza filed a document pro se entitled "Requesting Phone Call & Case Status Inquiry." In that document Cardoza contends that, because he has had limited contact with his counsel, Cardoza is unaware of the current status of this case. Cardoza requests this Court enter an order compelling counsel to communicate with Cardoza weekly.
This Court is reluctant to intervene between a party and the party's counsel. In this case however, it appears that there may be good cause for a limited intervention.1 Accordingly, if he has not done so, counsel for Plaintiff should forthwith apprise Plaintiff of the current status of this matter, including the status of all proceedings or events of which Plaintiff has not been previously provided appropriate information. The mode of communication to be determined by counsel under all the circumstances, including the availability or feasibility of telephonic communications. Further, counsel should timely apprise Plaintiff of all future matters or events affecting the disposition of the case.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on both Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Of particular concern are two matters of which it appears Plaintiff was not appropriately apprised. The record reflects that counsel stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of certain Defendants. Docket 90. It also appears that, as of the date of Plaintiff's pending request, June 3, Cardoza was not apprised of the settlement conference held in this matter on June 4. Docket 93. Nor does it appear from the record that Plaintiff himself was present at that settlement conference, either in person or telephonically.
Source: Leagle
