Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-76/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

CASE NUMBER 1:02-6583 AWI SMS

ORDER STRIKING NOVEMBER 28,

2011 APPLICATION BY ATTORNEY

ABBOTT

(Document # 776)

BACKGROUND

This action was set for trial on September 20, 2011. When Plaintiffs did not file a pretrial

statement, on August 11, 2011, the court vacated the trial date and ordered Plaintiffs to show

cause why this case should not be dismissed for their failure to file a pretrial statement. 

On August 11, 2011, Attorney Michael L. Abbott (“Attorney Abbott”), on behalf of

Plaintiffs, filed an application requesting that the court find certain prior orders final for the

purposes of appeal. 

After requesting an extension of time, on September 30, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a response

to the court’s order to show cause. As to Attorney Abbott, Plaintiffs stated, in part, the

following:

1. Plaintiffs Terry D. Hamilton and Sharon M. Hamilton, hereinafter referred

to as (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully request permission to appear pro se and file

Plaintiffs’ joint Response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause entered as docket

number 769.

2. Plaintiffs’ reserve their rights to supplement Plaintiffs’ Response to this

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 777 Filed 12/05/11 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

Court’s Order to Show Cause due to the complex nature of issues pending in the

instant case after new counsel is retained and has e-filed his/her entry of

appearance pursuant to the local rules.

. . . .

3. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an Order: a) directing

Mr. Abbott to prepare a “Substitution of Counsel” for Plaintiffs to execute and

further direct his Office to e-file same on PACER e-filing system; b) the Order

should clarify that Mr. Abbott is no longer counsel of record for Plaintiffs in the

instant case; and c) that any new counsel for Plaintiffs will be treated fairly as any

officer of the court.

4. The purpose of this Order is to satisfy Plaintiffs new perspective counsel

who will first review the status of the case on PACER regarding any potential

threats of sanctions and other problems regarding Mr. Abbott as Plaintiffs’ former

counsel.

5. Plaintiffs have been unsuccessful to date to hire new counsel to substitute

in as replacement counsel for Mr. Abbott. . . . 

October 28, 2011, the court discharged the order to show cause. On the issue of Attorney

Abbott’s representation and the next procedural step to be taken in this action, the court ruled as

follows:

Finally, Plaintiffs request that the court enter an order requiring Attorney

Abbott to withdraw from this action. The court has reviewed the docket and

agrees with Plaintiffs that whether Attorney Abbott is Plaintiffs’ counsel of record

is unclear. The court’s proof of service and list of attorneys representing Plaintiffs

indicate Attorney Abbott is no longer Plaintiffs’ attorney and Plaintiffs are

appearing pro se. The court will issue an order confirming this.

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. The court’s August 11, 2011 order to show case is

DISCHARGED;

2. Plaintiffs’ request for permission to appeal the March 28, 2011

discovery order pursuant to Rule 54(b) is DENIED without

prejudice;

3. Any further motion that seeks the court’s permission to appeal

SHALL be filed within thirty days of this order’s date of service;

and

4. Attorney Abbott is no longer Plaintiffs’ attorney in this action and

Plaintiffs are currently proceeding pro se.

On November 28, 2011, Attorney Abbott, listing in the top right-hand corner of the

document that he is “Attorney for Plaintiffs”, filed an application for the court to find a prior

order is final pursuant to Rule 54(b).

2

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 777 Filed 12/05/11 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

DISCUSSION

Based upon Plaintiffs’ specific request to clarify that Attorney Abbott is no longer

represented them and that they are appearing in pro se, the court made a specific order that

Attorney Abbott was no longer Plaintiffs’ attorney in this action. Based upon Plaintiffs’ request

for additional time in which to find a new attorney, the court discharged the order to show cause

and granted Plaintiffs thirty days to file a motion regarding their stated desire to file an appeal. 

No substitution of counsel has been filed, and Plaintiffs have filed no document concerning

Attorney Abbott. 

The court is at a loss to explain why Attorney Abbott filed the November 28, 2011

application. It is possible Attorney Abbott is filing documents in this court without Plaintiffs

permission. It is also possible that Attorney Abbott has again been hired to represent Plaintiffs,

and Attorney Abbott has inadvertently failed to file a motion to substitute into this action as

Plaintiffs’ attorney of record. Regardless, the Local Rules clearly state that no attorney may

participate in any action unless the attorney has appeared as an attorney of record. See Local

Rule 182(a)(1). The Local Rules mandate that, at this stage of litigation, an appearance as an

attorney of record is made by filing and serving a substitution of attorneys. See Local Rule

182(a)(2). Finally, the Local Rules provide specific guidance on how to file a substitution of

attorney. See Local Rule 182(g). The Local Rules have not been followed.

ORDER 

Because the court’s October 31, 2011 order clearly stated that “Attorney Abbott is no

longer Plaintiffs’ attorney in this action and Plaintiffs are currently proceeding pro se”, the court

finds Attorney Abbott’s November 28, 2011 application is improper. Accordingly, the

November 28, 2011 application is hereby STRICKEN from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 2, 2011 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 777 Filed 12/05/11 Page 3 of 3