Ramirez

Ramirez v. Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 20232:21-cv-01017California2,635 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CLAUDIA RAMIREZ, et al., No. 2:21-cv-01017-MCE-JDP Plaintiffs, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CORNERSTONE BUILDING BRANDS, INC., et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Presently before the Court are three Motions: (1) Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP’s (“BNBD”) Amended Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff LaJuan Dennis (“Dennis”), ECF No. 34; (2) Lawyers for Justice PC’s (“LFJ”) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff Claudia Ramirez (“Ramirez”), ECF No. 37; and (3) Plaintiffs Esmeralda Lizbeth Mendez Lozano, Lilian Cabrera, Ana Rosa Mendoza, Alicia Fernandez, Dulce Nieto, Rosa Hernandez, and Nathaniel Williams’ (“Moving Plaintiffs”) Ex Parte Application for an Order Extending the Discovery Cutoff Deadline, ECF No. 40. For the following reasons, both Motions to Withdraw as Attorney are GRANTED, but Moving Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application is DENIED.1 27 1 Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered these 28…

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.