Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01043/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01043-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In fact, Ms. Bell states that she saw the e-mail notifications when checking her Hotmail

account, when the Court’s ECF records have no record of a Hotmail account for Ms. Bell. Ms.

Bell’s registered addresses are: jaynelle.bell@prurealty.com, jaynelle_bell@sbcglobal.net,

jkbellesq@sbcglobal.net, and jaynellebell@aol.com. Presumably, Ms. Bell has set up mail

forwarding from one or more of these accounts to her Hotmail account.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE ROBERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C04-1043 TEH 

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR ORDER

SHORTENING TIME ON

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S MOTION

TO WITHDRAW

This matter comes before the Court on an ex parte application, filed by Plaintiff’s

counsel, Jaynelle Bell, for an order shortening time on counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

Ms. Bell seeks to have her motion heard 21 days from the date of her filing the motion, while

Civil Local Rule 7-2(a) of this Court requires motions to be noticed for hearing “not less than

35 days after service of the motion.”

The Court has previously admonished counsel for failing to follow the Court’s local

rules, as well as for failing to follow the Court’s electronic filing (“ECF”) procedures. 

Ms. Bell’s conduct in this instance is especially egregious since she admits that she received

e-mail notifications of filings in this case but simply did not check the account (or one of the

four accounts) she provided to the Court for use in the ECF system.1 Nor does counsel’s

purported unavailability until October present good cause for shortening time on a motion

which she chose not to file until July 4. Even if Ms. Bell is as busy as she claims to be, that is

no excuse for failing to follow court procedures, including all federal and local rules, standing

orders, and ECF procedures. Ms. Bell voluntarily filed this lawsuit on Plaintiff’s behalf and,

Case 3:04-cv-01043-TEH Document 112 Filed 07/08/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

unless and until she is relieved as Plaintiff’s counsel by order of this Court, Ms. Bell owes

duties both as an attorney for her client and as an officer of this Court. 

In light of all of the above, the Court does not find good cause to grant Ms. Bell’s

application for an order shortening time, and counsel’s application is therefore DENIED. 

Under Civil Local Rule 7-2(a), August 8, 2005, was the earliest possible date on which

Ms. Bell could have noticed a motion filed on July 4, 2005. Because the Court is unavailable

on that date, Ms. Bell shall re-notice her motion for no sooner than August 15, 2005.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Bell shall serve a copy of this order on her client,

Plaintiff Michelle Roberson, and that Ms. Bell shall also serve the re-notice of her motion to

withdraw on Ms. Roberson. Ms. Bell shall file with this Court proofs of service of both

documents on Ms. Roberson on or before Monday, July 18, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 07/08/05 /s/ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:04-cv-01043-TEH Document 112 Filed 07/08/05 Page 2 of 2