Filed: Jun. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MATTHEW CARLSON'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL Re: Dkt. No. 275 KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On April 20, 2018, Attorney Matthew D. Carlson moved to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiffs, as Attorney Carlson no longer worked for Lichten & Liss-Riordan. (Dkt. No. 275.) Plaintiffs stated that Attorneys Harold Lichten and Jill Kahn, 1 as well as any other attorney at Lichten & Liss-Riordan, would continue to represent Plaintiffs. No opposition was filed. A
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MATTHEW CARLSON'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL Re: Dkt. No. 275 KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On April 20, 2018, Attorney Matthew D. Carlson moved to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiffs, as Attorney Carlson no longer worked for Lichten & Liss-Riordan. (Dkt. No. 275.) Plaintiffs stated that Attorneys Harold Lichten and Jill Kahn, 1 as well as any other attorney at Lichten & Liss-Riordan, would continue to represent Plaintiffs. No opposition was filed. At..
More
ORDER REGARDING MATTHEW CARLSON'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. No. 275
KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.
On April 20, 2018, Attorney Matthew D. Carlson moved to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiffs, as Attorney Carlson no longer worked for Lichten & Liss-Riordan. (Dkt. No. 275.) Plaintiffs stated that Attorneys Harold Lichten and Jill Kahn,1 as well as any other attorney at Lichten & Liss-Riordan, would continue to represent Plaintiffs. No opposition was filed.
Attorney Carlson is listed as local counsel for Attorney Lichten, who is appearing pro hac vice. (Dkt. Nos. 13, 14.) On May 31, 2018, the Court issued an order explaining that it was not clear who would be local counsel should Attorney Carlson withdraw. (Dkt. No. 280 at 1.) The Court observed that Attorney Michael Louis Freedman was listed as counsel, but that it was unclear in what capacity he was acting. (Id.) The Court, therefore, ordered Plaintiff to file either a declaration stating that Attorney Freedman would be acting as local counsel, or a substitution of counsel that substituted new local counsel for Attorney Carlson. (Id. at 2.)
On June 1, 2018, Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 281.) Plaintiffs also filed a notice of withdrawal of Attorney Freedman. (Dkt. No. 282.) Finally, Plaintiffs filed a response to the Court's May 31, 2018 order, stating that Attorney Liss-Riordan is a member of the California State Bar. (Dkt. No. 283 at 1.)
Although Attorney Liss-Riordan is a member of the California State Bar, it is still not clear to the Court that Attorney Liss-Riordan may act as local counsel for Attorney Lichten. Per Civil Local Rule 11-3, an attorney requesting to appear pro hac vice must certify "[t]hat an attorney, identified by name and office address, who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who maintains an office within the State of California, is designated as co-counsel." (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the Court requires that Attorney Liss-Riordan identify her California office, to ensure that Attorney Lichten continues the meet the requirements for pro hac vice status should Attorney Carlson be permitted to withdraw. Plaintiffs' filing is due by June 12, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
