Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02646/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02646-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES H. LEWIS and

JANE W. LEWIS,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-03-2646 WBS KJM

vs.

ROBERT D. RUSSELL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On November 7, 2005, Theodore S. Goodwin, counsel for Jung Hang Suh and

Soo Jung Suh, moved to withdraw as counsel. This motion was the subject of stipulation

between counsel and clients filed on November 16, 2005. No opposition from any other party to

this stayed-for-purposes-of- settlement litigation was received with respect to the request to

withdraw.

Pursuant to the Settlement Process order which gives the undersigned authority to

issue orders concerning the case during the settlement process, the court orders approved Mr.

Goodwin’s request to withdraw as counsel.

Mr. Goodwin’s affidavit indicates that the Suhs have filed for bankruptcy. The

effect of the automatic stay on a litigation stayed for the purposes of settlement, where the Suhs

Case 2:03-cv-02646-WBS-AC Document 162 Filed 12/14/05 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

2

are not only defensive parties, but parties seeking a type of affirmative relief as well, is unclear. 

Nevertheless, until further order of this court or the bankruptcy court, the Suhs need not

participate in any manner in any settlement process, which will continue before the undersigned. 

However, a filing for bankruptcy does not excuse compliance with valid discovery requests

which may be made against the Suhs as against any third party, assuming that the undersigned

permits such discovery, or if the litigation is recommenced. See In re Miller, 262 B.R. 499, 507

(9th Cir. BAP 2001). See also David v. Hooker Ltd., 560 F.2d 412, 417 (9th Cir. 1977).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 12/14/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

lewis2646.ord2

Case 2:03-cv-02646-WBS-AC Document 162 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 2