(PS) Copeland v. Challenge Security Services Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 20202:18-cv-01435California987 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ZUKEYNA COPELAND, individually and No. 2:18-cv-01435-TLN-CKD on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER v.

CHALLENGE SECURITY SERVICES,

INC., Defendant.

18 This matter is before the Court on Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff Zukeyna Copeland (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 10.) Trenton R. Kashima, an attorney at Finkelstein & Krinsk, submitted a supplemental declaration in support of the motion. (ECF No. 10-2.) No oppositions to this motion have been filed. /// /// /// /// /// /// I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 5, 2018, Plaintiff engaged Finkelstein & Krinsk (hereinafter, “Plaintiff’s counsel”) to represent her in this wage and hour case against Defendant Challenge Security Services, Inc. (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 10-1 at 2.) Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 24, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant did not respond to the summons, and Plaintiff’s counsel…

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.