Cortez v. United States of America
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:23-cv-01222
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Cortez v. United States, Judge Chesney allowed plaintiffs’ lawyers to withdraw, paused the case, canceled deadlines, and denied the United States’ filing-service request.
The order directly affected Charles Cortez, Hilma Cortez, the three minor plaintiffs, their withdrawing lawyers, and the United States. It removed the Law Offices of John L. Burris as counsel, paused the case until July 26, 2024, and vacated the listed deadlines and hearings. The minor plaintiffs could face dismissal of their claims without prejudice if new counsel did not appear by that date.
What happened
In Cortez v. United States of America, the Law Offices of John L. Burris asked to withdraw as counsel for Charles Cortez, Hilma Cortez, and three minor plaintiffs. The United States did not oppose the request but asked the court to continue deadlines and allow filings to be served through the withdrawing lawyers.
The court granted the lawyers’ withdrawal motion and stayed the case until July 26, 2024, giving the plaintiffs time to obtain new counsel. It vacated the pending deadlines, hearing, and case-management conference. The court declined to continue deadlines for 60 days after new counsel appeared and denied, without prejudice, the request to serve filings through the withdrawing lawyers. It warned that, if no new counsel appeared by July 26, it could dismiss the minors’ claims without prejudice; the case would then continue for Charles and Hilma Cortez, who could represent themselves.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney issued the order on May 8, 2024. The order also directed the withdrawing lawyers to serve a copy of it on the plaintiffs by the dates specified in the order.
The detailed version
- Cortez v. United States of America · No. 3:23-cv-01222
- Maxine Chesney
- May 8, 2024
Background
John L. Burris, Ben Nisenbaum, and Christopher Dean, collectively identified as the Law Offices of John L. Burris, moved to withdraw as counsel for Charles Cortez and Hilma Cortez and three minor plaintiffs. The minors were identified as J.S., appearing through guardian ad litem Serina Sagon; L.C., appearing through guardian ad litem Ashley Mabutas; and M.P.C., who had not appeared in the action. The court stated that all clients had been served with the withdrawal filings and that none had responded.
The United States filed a statement of non-opposition. It asked the court to continue all pending deadlines until 60 days after new counsel appeared for the plaintiffs and to permit service of filings through the withdrawing lawyers.
Rulings
The court vacated the May 17, 2024 hearing and granted the motion to withdraw. It declined to continue all deadlines for 60 days after new counsel appeared because it was unclear when, or whether, new counsel would appear.
Instead, the court stayed the action until July 26, 2024, to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to obtain new counsel. The court vacated the June 7 deadline for the United States to file a reply supporting its pending motion to dismiss, the July 19 hearing on that motion, the August 16 case-management conference, and the related deadlines. The court stated that those dates would be reset as appropriate after the stay ended.
The court stated that, if new counsel had not appeared by July 26, 2024, it would dismiss the claims asserted for the minor plaintiffs without prejudice unless information was submitted that counseled against dismissal. The order explained that the minors and their guardians ad litem could not appear in federal court without a lawyer. It stated that the action would then proceed only for Charles Cortez and Hilma Cortez, each of whom could appear without a lawyer.
The court also denied without prejudice the United States’ request to allow service of filings on the withdrawing lawyers, who would then forward them to the plaintiffs. Finally, the court directed the Law Offices of John L. Burris to serve a copy of the order on the plaintiffs by the dates specified in the order.
What the Order Did Not Decide
This order addressed counsel’s withdrawal, the case schedule, the stay, and service of filings. It did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.