Hardesty v. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Mgt. Dist.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Joseph Hardesty et al., No. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiffs, Consolidated with: 2:12-cv-02457-KJM- 13 v. KIN 14 ORDER Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 15 Management District et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On August 15, 2023, plaintiff Jay Schneider filed a declaration in opposition to defendant 19 | County of Sacramento’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement between defendant and the 20 | Schneider plaintiffs. Schneider Decl., ECF No. 722. Litigants represented by counsel may not 21 | file documents on their own behalf. United States v. Mendez, No. 11-00356, 2023 WL 2058890, 22 | at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2023). Mr. Schneider declares this filing was necessary because his 23 | attorney refused to file an opposition on behalf of him and his wife (co-plaintiff, Susan 24 | Schneider). Schneider Decl. 8-9. Under this district’s local rules, “an attorney who has 25 | appeared may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of court upon 26 | noticed motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 27 | 182(d). Mr. Schneider’s counsel has not moved for leave to withdraw. Until Mr. Schneider’s 28 | counsel properly seeks to withdraw or substitute counsel in accordance with the Local Rules and

1 | other applicable rules, Glenn W. Peterson and Richard Manning Ross are Mr. Schneider’s 2 | counsel. 3 Within seven (7) days plaintiffs’ counsel Glenn W. Peterson and Richard Manning Ross 4 | are directed to notify the court regarding the status of their representation of plaintiffs Jay and 5 | Susan Schneider. If they no longer represent plaintiffs in this matter, both attorneys are ordered 6 | to show cause as to why they should not be sanctioned for withdrawing without leave of court. 7 | Additionally, counsel for the parties are hereby directed to meet and confer and notify the court 8 | within fourteen (14) days whether the briefing schedule for the pending motion should be 9 | modified in order for plaintiffs Jay Schneider and Susan Schneider to file an opposition and 10 | whether the hearing as to the pending motion should be continued to a later date. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: August 24, 2023. 13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE