Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01024/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01024-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:623 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD B. POWERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01024-JSC 

ORDER REFERRING PLAINTIFF TO 

FEDERAL PRO BONO PROJECT AND 

STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

The parties appeared for oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss on December 3, 

2015. At the hearing, and upon Court inquiry, Plaintiff Richard B. Powers (“Plaintiff”) expressed 

a need for counsel to assist him in this matter. Good and just cause appearing, it is ORDERED 

that Plaintiff shall be referred to the Federal Pro Bono Project (“Project”) in the manner set forth 

below:

1. The clerk shall forward the Referral Order to the appropriate Project office, San 

Francisco or San Jose, determined by whether the referring judge is located in the 

San Francisco/Oakland or San Jose division. The scope of this referral shall be for 

the limited purpose of representing the litigant in the course of a settlement 

conference.

2. Upon being notified by the Project that an attorney has been located to represent 

Plaintiff, that attorney shall be appointed as counsel for Plaintiff in this matter for 

the scope of representation described above. If the appointment of counsel is for 

limited purposes, the Court shall issue an order relieving the volunteer attorney 

from the limited representation of the litigant once those purposes have been 

fulfilled.

Case 3:15-cv-01024-JSC Document 56 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

3. The Court will maintain the schedule set forth in its Order granting Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss; however, should newly-appointed Plaintiff’s counsel need more 

time for the settlement conference, the parties shall meet and confer to stipulate to a 

new deadline for the settlement conference and a new case management conference 

date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01024-JSC Document 56 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 2