IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 24, 2009
RUDY LACHICA, PLAINTIFF,
JONATHAN MELTZER, DEFENDANT.*FN1
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff's counsel filed a "Stipulation and Proposed Order" on April 17, 2009 ("Proposed Order") in which the parties sought to continue the hearing date for a dismissal motion filed on March 17, 2009. When I was considering whether the Proposed Order should be signed, I discovered Plaintiff's counsel should have timely withdrawn the Proposed Order since the motion it concerned was mooted when Plaintiff's counsel filed a "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" on April 22, 2009. This voluntary dismissal dismissed the only claim involved in the motion. I looked at four docket filings before I fully understood that Plaintiff's counsel was discourteous in his failure to withdraw the Proposed Order when he must have known it was utterly unnecessary.
Plaintiff's counsel was under a duty to have timely withdrawn that Proposed Order. It is expected that counsel's filings will reflect behavior evincing elementary professional competence and common sense, and that counsel will discharge their professional duty of ensuring that the judge is timely informed when a request for proposed order is withdrawn. Plaintiff's counsel failed to discharge this obligation.
Since Plaintiff's April 22 "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" dismisses the only claim alleged against Defendant State of California, Department of Alcohol and Drug Program, and moots the dismissal motion filed March 17, this Defendant is no longer a party in this action and the March 17 dismissal motion is deemed withdrawn.