Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Beach v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:17-cv-01034-EPG. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180713858 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF No. 17) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . On March 3, 2018, Monica Perales of Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff, Keith Raymond Beach. (ECF No. 14.) Ms. Perales attested that she had been unable to communicate or otherwise obtain substantive direction from Plaintiff; that the attorney-client relationship had accordingly completely broken down; and that cou
More

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 17)

On March 3, 2018, Monica Perales of Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiff, Keith Raymond Beach. (ECF No. 14.) Ms. Perales attested that she had been unable to communicate or otherwise obtain substantive direction from Plaintiff; that the attorney-client relationship had accordingly completely broken down; and that counsel was therefore unable to prosecute the case. (Id. at 1-2.)

On April 12, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Ms. Perales' motion to withdraw at which Ms. Perales and counsel for the Commissioner appeared telephonically. Plaintiff was ordered to personally appear for the hearing, and the order for personal appearance was mailed to Plaintiff via United States Mail at Plaintiff's address of record. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing. (See ECF No. 16.) Further, at the hearing, Ms. Perales informed the Court that her last communication with Plaintiff had been in July 2017, and that she had not received responses to numerous letters and telephone calls to Plaintiff since that time. (ECF No. 17 at 1-2.)

The Court granted the motion to allow Monica Perales of Law Offices of the Lawrence D. Rohlfing to withdraw as Plaintiff's counsel of record, and ordered Plaintiff substituted in to proceed in the case pro se. The Court directed Plaintiff to file a notice with the Court within 30 days indicating whether he intends to continue to proceed in the case pro se or whether new counsel will represent him. (ECF No. 17 at 2-3.) The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to file the notice as directed would "result in dismissal of this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute." (Id. at 3.)

Plaintiff has not filed a notice or otherwise contacted the Court to explain how or if he intends to proceed in this case. This lack of notice, combined with Plaintiff's failure to respond to communications from his former counsel since July 2017, convinces the Court that Plaintiff has abandoned the case. Accordingly, the action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

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