Randolph v. McMahon

D. Nevada

Randolph v. McMahon

DecidedMay 11, 2020

Docket2:18-cv-00238

StatusUnknown

This text of Randolph v. McMahon (Randolph v. McMahon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Randolph v. McMahon, (D. Nev. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 NANETTE RANDOLPH, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00238-APG-NJK 12 Plaintiff(s), Order 13] v. [Docket No. 62] 14) LINDA MCMAHON, 15 Defendant(s). 16 On April 21, 2020, the Court granted attorney Timothy Bridge’s motion to withdraw as 17|| attorney. Docket No. 62; see also Docket No. 59 (motion to withdraw). The Court possesses the 18|| power to reconsider its interlocutory orders. United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). Upon further reflection, the motion to withdraw should have been denied without prejudice because it was not served on the affected client. Compare Local Rule IA 11-6(b) with Docket No. 59 at 3 (certificate of service). Accordingly, the Court VACATES its order at Docket 22|| No. 62 and DENIES without prejudice the motion to withdraw at Docket No. 59. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to reactivate Mr. Bridge as attorney of record in this case. Any renewed 24] motion to withdraw must comply with the local rules, including serving it on the affected client. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: May 11, 2020 27 Nancy J. e 28 United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 NANETTE RANDOLPH, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00238-APG-NJK 12 Plaintiff(s), Order 13] v. [Docket No. 62] 14) LINDA MCMAHON, 15 Defendant(s). 16 On April 21, 2020, the Court granted attorney Timothy Bridge’s motion to withdraw as 17|| attorney. Docket No. 62; see also Docket No. 59 (motion to withdraw). The Court possesses the 18|| power to reconsider its interlocutory orders. United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). Upon further reflection, the motion to withdraw should have been denied without prejudice because it was not served on the affected client. Compare Local Rule IA 11-6(b) with Docket No. 59 at 3 (certificate of service). Accordingly, the Court VACATES its order at Docket 22|| No. 62 and DENIES without prejudice the motion to withdraw at Docket No. 59. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to reactivate Mr. Bridge as attorney of record in this case. Any renewed 24] motion to withdraw must comply with the local rules, including serving it on the affected client. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: May 11, 2020 27 Nancy J. e 28 United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Randolph v. McMahon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randolph-v-mcmahon-nvd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack