Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00195/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00195-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHA’LENA E. ELLIS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv195-LAB (KSC)

ORDER ON MOTION FOR

vs. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

KAISER PERMANENTE, et al.,

Defendants.

This case arises out of Kaiser Permanente’s termination of Sha’lena Ellis’

employment. Ellis brings this suit against Kaiser Permanente and several of its officers and

employees for claims arising under the Civil Rights Act and for wrongful termination. Ellis

has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1). (Docket no. 5). 

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) gives district courts discretion to appoint counsel “in such

circumstances as the court may deem just.” The court evaluates the plaintiff’s financial

resources, efforts to obtain counsel, and the merits of the plaintiff’s claims. Bradshaw v.

Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662.F.2d 1301, at 1318 (9th Cir. 1981).

Ellis has contacted two attorneys, and has allegedly attempted to contact an

unspecified number of attorneys from a list the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC) provided her. She contends that she never heard back from any of the attorneys on

- 1 - 16cv195-LAB (KSC)

Case 3:16-cv-00195-LAB-KSC Document 29 Filed 06/30/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

the EEOC list. However, she gives no indication of what she did to follow up with them. Ellis’

efforts are insufficient. See Williams v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 2014 WL 7404604, at *3

(D. Haw. Dec. 30, 2014) (reasoning plaintiffs’ attempts to obtain counsel were insufficient

where the plaintiff contacted seven attorneys); see also Turner v. Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL

6571413, at *2 (D. Haw. Dec. 13, 2010) (same). 

The merits of Ellis’ case are not yet clear. Cf. Howard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 2015 WL

1622981, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015) (“While Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits

is hard to estimate at this stage, if he is likely to succeed, that suggests . . . that he could

probably find a private attorney to take the case for him.”) The legal basis for her claims do

not appear to be complex and she appears capable of articulating the facts. See Vanhorn

v. U.S. Gov't Contracted Hana Grp., Inc., 2012 WL 1571509, at *2 (D. Haw. May 3, 2012).

Thus, at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, the Court DENIES Ellis’s motion without

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 29, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 16cv195-LAB (KSC)

Case 3:16-cv-00195-LAB-KSC Document 29 Filed 06/30/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2