ORDER

REONA J. DALY, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is now before the Court on Attorney Daniel Seidman's Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel of Record (Doc. 48). The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs A.D. and K.D. filed this action, through counsel, on February 1, 2018. On August 17, 2018, counsel filed his motion to withdraw that is now before the Court. The Court held a hearing on the motion on September 13, 2018. Attorney Seidman appeared at the hearing; however, Plaintiffs failed to appear. At the hearing, Attorney Seidman reiterated the issues set forth in his motion, explaining that he has not been able to contact Plaintiffs and, as a result, has been unable to respond to Defendants' propounded discovery requests. Based on counsel's representations, the Court GRANTS the motion to withdraw. Attorney Daniel Seidman is terminated from his representation of Plaintiffs in this matter.

Plaintiff A.D. is ADVISED that she must either: (1) file a notice of her intent to proceed pro se in this matter; or (2) have new counsel file their notice of appearance on her behalf by October 4, 2018. Plaintiff A.D. is FURTHER ADVISED that if she fails to retain new counsel by said date she will be proceeding in this matter pro se.

Plaintiff K.D.'s claim has been brought through her legal guardian and mother, A.D. The withdrawal of Attorney Seidman has, in effect, resulted in A.D. representing K.D. pro se. As a pro se litigant, A.D. is prohibited from representing K.D. in this case. See Nocula v. Tooling Systems International Corp., 520 F.3d 719, 725 (7th Cir. 2008) ("one pro se litigant cannot represent another"); Navin v. Park Ridge School Dist. 64, 270 F.3d 1147, 1148 (7th Cir. 2001) ("[Father] was free to represent himself, but as a non-lawyer, he has no authority to appear as [son's] representative"). Accordingly, K.D. must obtain new counsel by October 4, 2018 to continue as a party to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.