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; David Mcguire v. California Department of Corrections; the Attorney Generals

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


May 24, 2011

EDNA MILLER; DAVID MCGUIRE,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE; EDMUND G. "JERRY" BROWN, JR., AN INDIVIDUAL; JULIE HARLAN, AN INDIVIDUAL; DAVID J. NEIL, AN INDIVIDUAL; JILL H. TALLEY, AN INDIVIDUAL; LEWIS KUYKENDALL, AN INDIVIDUAL; KATHY BIDD, AN INDIVIDUAL; DOES ONE THROUGH TEN, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

On May 2, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a "Declaration of New Counsel for Plaintiffs, Vip Bhola, Esq. to Clarify Limited Issues in Connection with Motion Hearing of May 2, 2011." (ECF No. 30.) For the following reasons, this document will be stricken.

This case was previously referred to a magistrate judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21) because the Plaintiffs were proceeding in propria persona. Subsequently, Defendant Attorney General's Office filed a "Matter in Abatement and Motion to Dismiss" and Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Attorney General's Office, Julie Harlan, David J. Neil, and Jill H. Talley ("Defendants") filed a "Special Motion to Strike Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (Anit-SLAPP Motion) and Motion to Dismiss". (ECF Nos. 9, 13.) The magistrate judge ordered Plaintiffs to file their oppositions to these respective motions by February 4, 2011. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition in which they opposed both motions and then retained counsel. (ECF Nos. 18-20.)

The Order granting substitution of attorney was filed February 15, 2011 and the case was referred back to the district court. (ECF Nos. 20, 22.) On March 8, 2011 Defendants re-noticed both motions for hearing on May 2, 2011 before the district court. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiffs did not file further opposition to the pending motions. The motions were submitted without oral argument on April 29, 2011. (ECF No. 29.)

After the time for filing oppositions past, and notwithstanding having ample opportunity to file oppositions to the pending motions, Plaintiffs' counsel filed his declaration which is tantamount to filing a late opposition to the motions. Since Plaintiffs do not have leave to file the "Declaration of New Counsel", Document Number 30 is STRICKEN.

20110524

© 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.