Shahrivar v. City of San Jose, 10-cv-01029-RS. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190919752
Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . This matter is on remand from the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that plaintiff's previously dismissed Sixth Amended Complaint included certain claims that were viable as to three of the defendants. Plaintiff's counsel has moved to withdraw, based on unspecified "professional considerations" that allegedly require termination of the representation. The motion to withdraw indicated plaintiff was unlikely to oppose, if given sufficient time to locate new c
Summary: ORDER RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . This matter is on remand from the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that plaintiff's previously dismissed Sixth Amended Complaint included certain claims that were viable as to three of the defendants. Plaintiff's counsel has moved to withdraw, based on unspecified "professional considerations" that allegedly require termination of the representation. The motion to withdraw indicated plaintiff was unlikely to oppose, if given sufficient time to locate new co..
More
ORDER
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
This matter is on remand from the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that plaintiff's previously dismissed Sixth Amended Complaint included certain claims that were viable as to three of the defendants. Plaintiff's counsel has moved to withdraw, based on unspecified "professional considerations" that allegedly require termination of the representation. The motion to withdraw indicated plaintiff was unlikely to oppose, if given sufficient time to locate new counsel. Plaintiff now reports he has been unable to obtain new counsel despite diligent efforts, and opposes withdrawal of existing counsel for that reason. Plaintiff suggests appointment of pro bono counsel.
Good cause appearing, the matter will be referred by separate order to the Federal Pro Bono Project for possible placement with pro bono counsel. A ruling on the motion to withdraw will be deferred and the hearing set for September 26, 2019 is vacated pending the results of that referral. Additional briefing on defendants' motion for a more definite statement is also deferred and the hearing set for November 7, 2019 is vacated pending further order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
