Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02187/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02187-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ELITE WIRELESS GROUP, INC.,,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:19-cv-02187-MCE-DB

ORDER

Steven R. Roeser of the law firm of Stimmel, Stimmel & Roeser, counsel for 

Defendant Elite Wireless Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) in these proceedings, now moves to 

withdraw as said counsel. Defendant has filed no opposition to Roeser’s request. 

This motion is governed by the requirements of Local Rule 182(d), which provides 

that an attorney may not withdraw, leaving a client in propria persona, absent noticed 

motion and an affidavit from counsel showing the efforts made to provide notification of 

the attorney’s intent to withdraw.

Steven R. Roeser has complied with those requirements and his request to 

withdraw is accordingly proper.

Case 2:19-cv-02187-DC-CKD Document 39 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Because counsel’s request is both procedurally correct and unopposed, 

Roeser’s Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED.1 Steven R. Roeser and the 

law firm of Stimmel, Stimmel & Roeser are consequently relieved as counsel of record 

for Defendant effective upon the filing of a proof of service of this signed Order on 

Defendant. 

Defendant is cautioned that as a business entity it cannot make any further

appearance in this matter without counsel appearing on its behalf. Consequently,

Defendant is directed to retain new counsel to represent it in these proceedings not later

than October 7, 2022. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2022

1 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, this Court ordered the matter 

submitted on the briefs in accordance with Local Rule 230(g).

Case 2:19-cv-02187-DC-CKD Document 39 Filed 08/09/22 Page 2 of 2