Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bhugra v. Marriott International

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 22, 2008

NARINDER BHUGRA, ET AL., PLAINTIFF(S),
v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, DEFENDANT(S).

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph C. Spero United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On April 14, 2008, this Court issued a Case Management and Pretrial Order (the "Court's Order") directing Plaintiffs' counsel to submit a pro hac vice application [Docket No. 18]. On May 22, 2008, Plaintiffs' filed a combined response to the Order to Show Cause and Motion for 120-Day Stay of Proceedings (the "Motion") [Docket No. 19]. On June 3, 2008, the Court denied the Motion [Docket No. 21] and Ordered that on or before July 15, 2008, Plaintiffs shall appear through counsel of record admitted to practice in the Northern District of California. As of July 15, 2008, a query of the Court's docket indicates that there has been no appearance through counsel admitted to practice in the Northern District of California as required in the Court's Order dated June 3, 2008.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appearance of counsel Michael Perry, Ryan Kauffman, and the firm of Fraser, Trebilcock, Davis & Dunlap, P.C., of Lansing, Michigan, is stricken for failure to comply with Civil L.R. 11-3(a). Individual plaintiffs suing on their own behalf shall appear pro se or through counsel admitted to practice in this Court within thirty (30) days or the Court will dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. The Court notes that persons suing as representative of the estates of deceased persons may not appear pro se, and must appear through counsel See, Stewart v. Chelan County District Court, 2007 WL 870345, at *4 (E.D. Wash); Jones v. Correctional Med. Servs., Inc., 401 F.3d 950, 951-52 (8th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, such party plaintiff shall appear through counsel admitted to practice in this district within thirty (30) days or the Court will dismiss the action with respect to those parties for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080722

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.