Vazquez

Vazquez v. Mayorkas

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 17, 20213:18-cv-07012California272 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 TONETTE L. VAZQUEZ, Case No. 18-cv-07012-JCS Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL AND FOR

Vv. EXTENSION OF TIME ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Re: Dkt. No. 141 Defendant. 1] Plaintiff Tonette Vazquez, pro se, moves for appointment of counsel and for an extension || of time. That motion is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Court’s March 3, 2021 order (dkt. 125) denying a similar motion. Ms. Vazquez also objects to the Court’s determination that she waived attorney-client || privilege with respect to communications regarding the purported settlement. “The privilege || which protects attorney-client communications may not be used both as a sword and a shield.” || Chevron Corp. v. Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 1992). By asserting that her then- || attorneys entered a settlement agreement without authorization and pressured her to…

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.