Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02756/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02756-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Phillip Ticktin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carole Fabrics, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2756-PHX-FJM

ORDER

When plaintiff filed the complaint in this case on September 9, 2005, he was

represented by Justin Beresky and John Amorison. On April 25, 2006, we granted Beresky's

motion to withdraw as attorney of record, and ordered the clerk to terminate Amorison's

status as counsel for plaintiff because Amorison failed to apply for pro hac vice status. In

the same order, we advised plaintiff to acquire substituted counsel as soon as possible, and

ordered that all future notice to the plaintiff be at plaintiff's address alone. 

On October 4, 2006, plaintiff filed a "Notice of Service of Plaintiff's First Request for

Production of Documents to Defendant" (doc. 30). That notice was signed by plaintiff, and

indicated that he was "Pro Se." However, the same document included attorney Rosemary

Cook's name, address, phone number and email address in the upper-left corner, and stated

that Cook was "Attorney for plaintiff." Both plaintiff and Cook's names appear in the same

Case 2:05-cv-02756-FJM Document 43 Filed 11/15/06 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 -

manner on plaintiff's "Notice of Service of Plaintiff's First Supplemental Disclosure

Statement" (doc. 38). 

Perhaps due to this confusion, defendant Carole Fabrics has served copies of its

motion for summary judgment (doc. 31), reply in support of that motion (doc. 41), and

"Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to File First Amended Complaint" (doc. 40)

on Cook, instead of on plaintiff. The court itself cannot determine, based on the pleadings

before it, whether Rosemary Cook represents plaintiff in this case. 

If plaintiff is in fact represented by Cook in this case, IT IS ORDERED that Cook

file a notice of appearance with the court, stating that she will represent plaintiff, within ten

days of the entry of this order. Alternatively, if plaintiff intends to proceed pro se, IT IS

ORDERED that all of his pleadings reflect that fact and omit any reference to Cook as

"Attorney for plaintiff." IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff elects to proceed pro

se, defendants serve notice on plaintiff, not on Cook. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk send a copy of this order to Rosemary

Cook and plaintiff Phillip Ticktin at 16804 N. 113th Drive, Surprise, AZ 85374. 

DATED this 14th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02756-FJM Document 43 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 2