Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01520/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01520-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORA LAVERY-PETRASH,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SIERRA NEVADA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

JAMES (JIM) HEARD, DAVID

WITTHAUS, ARTHUR DEWSON,

ANNALISE O’CONNOR, and DOES

1-50, inclusive,

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:11-cv-01520-GEB-DAD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; IN PRO

PER REFERRAL 

On April 12, 2013, Plaintiff’s “former attorney of record[,]”

Sharon L. Lapin, filed an “Ex Parte Inquiry” in which she asks “why [the

Court] has not yet issued a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss the Third

Amended Complaint [(ECF No. 54)], nor the Stipulated Request to Modify

the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order [(ECF No. 51)]. (Ex Parte Appl. 1

1:18-21, ECF No. 57.) 

Ms. Lapin avers in the Ex Parte Inquiry, inter alia:

2. On or about November 7, 2012, my status

to practice law in the State of California became

The Court notes that it adopted the parties’ proposed 1

modifications to the Status Order, with modifications, by Minute Order

on September 18, 2012. Therefore, the referenced stipulated request to

modify the status order is not pending. Further, an order regarding the

referenced dismissal motion was filed May 29, 2013. 

1

Case 2:11-cv-01520-GEB-DAD Document 59 Filed 05/29/13 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

inactive, involuntarily, by reason of the ruling of

the State Bar Hearing Department, Case No. 10-O03758[.] Pursuant to that ruling, I ceased

practicing law on or about November 10, 2012. That

matter is pending, under appeal.

. . . . 

6. Ms. Petrash has not sought alternative

counsel yet because she is hoping my status to

practice law will be reinstated soon.

(Ex Parte Appl. 2:14-3:4.)

Ms. Lapin’s averments evince that she has been ineligible to

practice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California since at least November 7, 2012. See E.D. Cal. R. 180(a)

(“Admission to and continuing membership in the Bar of this Court are

limited to attorneys who are active members in good standing of the

State Bar of California.”). Further, Local Rules 180(c) and 184(b)

require attorneys to “promptly notify the Court” of any “change in

status” and “any disciplinary action” that “would make the attorney

ineligible to practice in this Court.” However, Ms. Lapin did not notify

the Court of her change in status for one hundred and forty-eight (148)

days, until April 4, 2013. 

Therefore, Ms. Lapin is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) in a

writing to be filed no later than June 3, 2013, why she should not be

sanctioned five hundred dollars ($500.00) for failing to comply with

Local Rules 180(c) and 184(b). The written response shall state whether

a hearing is requested on the OSC. If a hearing is requested, it will be

held on June 10, 2013. 

Further, under these circumstances, it is apparent that

Plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona. Future service on Plaintiff

shall be as follows:

2

Case 2:11-cv-01520-GEB-DAD Document 59 Filed 05/29/13 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Nora Lavery-Petrash

13995 Bear Run Road

Nevada City, CA 95959

Also, since Plaintiff is proceeding in pro per, this case is

referred to the assigned magistrate judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2013

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge

3

Case 2:11-cv-01520-GEB-DAD Document 59 Filed 05/29/13 Page 3 of 3