Acosta v. TLC Residential, Inc., C 15-02776 WHA. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180316b20
Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE DOCKET ENTRY NO. 254 WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Attorney Cynthia Browning's recent submission (Dkt. No. 254) does nothing to change the basic fact that she previously represented defendants in this very case, knew them, knew their style, understood their ability (or not) to pay counsel, was previously allowed to withdraw from the case and then, thereafter — with her eyes wide open — came back into the very same case to represent the same defendants, gaining a postponement o
Summary: ORDER RE DOCKET ENTRY NO. 254 WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Attorney Cynthia Browning's recent submission (Dkt. No. 254) does nothing to change the basic fact that she previously represented defendants in this very case, knew them, knew their style, understood their ability (or not) to pay counsel, was previously allowed to withdraw from the case and then, thereafter — with her eyes wide open — came back into the very same case to represent the same defendants, gaining a postponement of..
More
ORDER RE DOCKET ENTRY NO. 254
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Attorney Cynthia Browning's recent submission (Dkt. No. 254) does nothing to change the basic fact that she previously represented defendants in this very case, knew them, knew their style, understood their ability (or not) to pay counsel, was previously allowed to withdraw from the case and then, thereafter — with her eyes wide open — came back into the very same case to represent the same defendants, gaining a postponement of proceedings to allow her more time, only to have her seek to withdraw yet again for non-payment of fees on the eve of the evidentiary hearing. The Court's refusal to bless a second withdrawal has nothing to do with race or involuntary servitude. It has nothing against Attorney Browning on a personal level. It has only to do with what is expected of an officer of the court and professionalism in this district.
The motion is DENIED. However, Attorney Browning is now excused from further representing defendants, as a fait accompli. The referral to the committee will stand.
The committee should decide whether Attorney Browning should continue to practice in this district and, if so, on what terms.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
