Doe

Doe v. City of Elk Grove

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 2, 20222:21-cv-02278California655 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JANE DOE, No. 2:21-cv-02278-TLN-CKD Plaintiff, ORDER v. CITY OF ELK GROVE, ELK GROVE

POLICE DEPARTMENT, GABRIEL

RAMOS, and DOES 1 to 5, Defendants. 17 This matter is before the Court on Mark E. Merin and Paul H. Masuhara’s (collectively, “Plaintiff’s counsel”) Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 6.) No opposition has been filed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion. The local rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw and leave his or her client without representation to obtain leave of court upon a noticed motion. E.D. Cal. L.R. 182(d). Local Rule 182(d) also requires an attorney to provide notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared, and an affidavit stating the current or last known address of the client. Id. Finally, to comply with Local Rule 182(d), the attorney must conform to the requirements of 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.