UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 21, 2007
CHRISTOPHER NEISEN, PLAINTIFF,
SERGEANT ROSE, OFFICER OSC RODRIGUEZ, OFFICER WOOD, OFFICER MARVEL, OFFICER LONG, OFFICER ELLSWORTH, CITY OF SAN DIEGO, DOES 1 THROUGH DOE 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge
ORDER APPROVING SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY, DISMISS, AND DISCHARGING GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO [Dkt No. 54, 55, 57, 58]
On November 9, 2007, this court entered an Order denying the parties' Joint Motion to continue the scheduled December 11, 2007 trial of this action and related dates for the reasons recited in that Order. The court also set an Order To Show Cause ("OSC") hearing for November 26, 2007 to permit plaintiff's pro hac vice counsel of record, Blake Horowitz, Esq., to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him with respect to trial readiness issues and the absence of any formal substitution of attorney whereby Shawn McMillan, Esq. could assume responsibility to prosecute this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, as he purported to do through representations he filed with the court and a defective substitution request associated with the joint motion for leave to continue the trial.
On November 19, 2007, plaintiff Christopher Neisen, his counsel of record Mr. Horowitz, and his proposed new counsel, Mr. McMillan filed a fully executed Substitution Of Attorney. Dkt No. 57.
The court hereby APPROVES the substitution of Mr. McMillan for Mr. Horowitz as plaintiff's counsel of record. In addition, Mr. Horwitz filed an Affidavit and a Motion For Relief from the OSC. Dkt No. 55. For good cause shown in the Affidavit and Motion, the court GRANTS the motion and discharges the OSC. The November 26, 2007 OSC hearing is accordingly off-calendar as moot.
The parties simultaneously filed a Joint Motion To Dismiss this lawsuit, informing the court the case has settled on terms recited in the Joint Motion. Dkt N o. 58 . The court hereby GRANTS the motion, dismisses this action in its entirety, with prejudice, and VACATES all remaining case management, motion hearing, and trial dates.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.