Millete

Millete v. Chula Vista Police Department

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 22, 20243:22-cv-01343California1,171 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 BENITO LEO MILLETE and Case No.: 22-cv-1343-WQH-BJC

JUDITH I MILLETE,

ORDER Plaintiffs, 11 v.

CHULA VISTA POLICE

DEPARTMENT; CITY OF CHULA VISTA; and DOES 1– 100, 15 Defendants. 16 HAYES, Judge: The matter before the Court is the Ex Parte Request to be Relieved as Counsel and Request for Order to Extend the Deadlines on the Current Order (ECF No. 37) filed by counsel for Plaintiffs Benito Leo Millete and Judith I. Millete (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), Bonita P. Martinez (“Plaintiffs’ Counsel”). I. REQUEST TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL “An attorney may not withdraw as counsel except by leave of court, and the decision to grant or deny counsel’s motion to withdraw is committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Urias v. Labcorp Peri-Approval & Commercialization Inc., No. 23-CV-1815 JLS (MSB), 2023 WL 8845384, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2023) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009); S.D. Cal. Civ.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.