Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00634/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00634-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

-1-

Bruce D. Praet, 119430

Kelly R. Irwin, 238884

FERGUSON, PRAET & SHERMAN

A Professional Corporation

1631 East 18th Street

Santa Ana, California 92705-7101

(714) 953-5300 telephone

(714) 953-1143 facsimile

bpraet@law4cops.com

Attorneys for Defendants City of Fresno, Chief Jerry Dyer, and Officer Coan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA CARRILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, FRESNO CITY

POLICE CHIEF JERRY DYER, FRESNO

CITY POLICE OFFICER DAVID COAN

and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 1:06-CV-00634 OWW-LJO

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR

PLAINTIFF

DATE: May 21, 2007

TIME: 10:00 a.m.

CTRM: 3

THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL having come on 

regularly for hearing on May 21, 2007, with Plaintiff, Maria Carrillo, personally

appearing with her counsel, Juan Falcon, and Defendants appearing telephonically

through counsel of record, Bruce D. Praet, Plaintiff has indicated that she does not

consent to the withdrawal of Attorney Falcon and the following Order shall be:

1. The Motion To Withdraw as Counsel is DENIED.

2. All current dates will remain in place and will not be continued.

3. Plaintiff and her counsel shall cooperate with Defendants in the setting of

Plaintiff’s deposition (this deposition only may extend beyond the June 5, 2007, discovery

cut-off date in order to accommodate Defendants).

///

Case 1:06-cv-00634-OWW -GSA Document 29 Filed 05/30/07 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-

4. Defendants’ request that the Court renew its consideration of the previous

Motion to Dismiss is denied.

5. Defendants’ request for sanctions is denied. However, in the event that

Defendants prevail in this matter, the Court will consider the cost of Defendants having to

oppose the Motion To Withdraw as Counsel as a recoverable cost.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00634-OWW -GSA Document 29 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 2