Franco v. Hilton Grand Vacations, 2:19-cv-00090-GMN-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190618e07
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2019
Summary: Order [Docket No. 23] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is attorney Christopher Burk's motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs. Docket No. 23. Mr. Burk was ordered to file a supplement fully explaining the circumstances giving rise to his motion. See Docket No. 24 at 1. In violation of that order, no such supplement was filed. 1 Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is hereby DENIED and the hearing set on the motion is VACATED. Mr. Burk is advised that
Summary: Order [Docket No. 23] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is attorney Christopher Burk's motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs. Docket No. 23. Mr. Burk was ordered to file a supplement fully explaining the circumstances giving rise to his motion. See Docket No. 24 at 1. In violation of that order, no such supplement was filed. 1 Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is hereby DENIED and the hearing set on the motion is VACATED. Mr. Burk is advised that ..
More
Order
[Docket No. 23]
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is attorney Christopher Burk's motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs. Docket No. 23. Mr. Burk was ordered to file a supplement fully explaining the circumstances giving rise to his motion. See Docket No. 24 at 1. In violation of that order, no such supplement was filed.1 Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is hereby DENIED and the hearing set on the motion is VACATED. Mr. Burk is advised that he must diligently pursue this case on Plaintiffs' behalf. The Clerk's Office is INSTRUCTED to mail a copy of this order on Plaintiffs at their address at Docket No. 31.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Mr. Burk did file a supplement in a parallel case. See Mejia v. Westgate Las Vegas Resorts, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-02128-GMN-NJK, Docket No. 38 (D. Nev. June 11, 2019). In an order issued concurrently herewith, the Court is denying the motion to withdraw in that case because an insufficient showing has been made that withdrawal should be allowed.
Source: Leagle
