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.

Edna Miller, et al v. Edmund G. Brown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 19, 2011

EDNA MILLER, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiffs Edna Miller and David McGuire commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on January 11, 2011. Plaintiffs paid the required filing fee, and the Clerk of the Court issued a summons as to the six named defendants. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of California on February 18, 2011. Pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21), the case was referred to the assigned magistrate judge for all purposes described in the Rule.

Pursuant to substitutions of attorney approved by the court on May 19, 2011, Vipan Kant Bhola, Esq. is now attorney of record for both plaintiffs. (Doc. Nos. 41 & 42.) Local Rule 302(c)(21) provides that an action initially assigned to a magistrate judge "shall be referred back to the assigned Judge if a party appearing in propria persona is later represented by an attorney."

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21), this action is referred back to the assigned district judge for further proceedings;

2. The docket shall be modified to reflect that this case is not a Pro Se case, and all documents hereafter submitted for filing in this case shall bear case number 2:11-cv-0456 JAM DAD or CIV S-11-0456 JAM DAD;

3. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for May 20, 2011 before the undersigned is vacated, and the case is dropped from the calendar;

4. If plaintiffs notified any defendant in this case of the status conference set for May 20, 2011, plaintiffs shall immediately notify each such defendant that the status conference has been vacated; and

5. Plaintiffs' May 19, 2011 motion to permit counsel to appear by telephone at the status conference on May 20, 2011, or, in the alternative, to continue the status conference (Doc. No. 43) is denied as moot.

20110519

© 1992-2011 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.