CDCR

(PS) Raghukultilak v. CDCR

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 14, 20202:19-cv-00455California692 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BHARATH RAGHUKULTILAK, No. 2:19-cv-0455-TLN-DMC Plaintiff, v. ORDER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.

18 This matter is before the Court on Lawrance A. Bohm, Victoria Gutierrez, Pablo 19 Colmenares, and Bohm Law Group, Inc.’s (collectively, “Plaintiff’s counsel”) Motion to 20 Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff Bharath Raghukultilak (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 20.) No 21 opposition has been filed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 22 The local rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw and leave his or 23 her client without representation to obtain leave of court upon a noticed motion. E.D. Cal. L.R. 24 182(d). Local Rule 182(d) also requires an attorney to provide notice to the client and all other 25 parties who have appeared, and an affidavit stating the current or last known address of the client. 26 Id. Finally, to comply with Local Rule 182(d), the…

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.