Opinion
No. 2: 13-cv-0082 GEB JFM
02-20-2013
ROGER ENNES, et al., Plaintiff, v. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCATION, et al., Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on January 3, 2013 by filing a complaint in this court. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a proposed substitution of attorney which sought to substitute Joseph S. Fogel as their attorney. (See Dkt. No. 9.) Additionally, on February 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to relate and consolidate cases which was noticed to be heard before the district judge assigned to this case. (See Dkt. No. 10.) On February 11, 2013, the District Judge vacated the notice of the motion to consolidate. (See Dkt. No. 11.) At that time, plaintiffs were still proceeding pro se as their proposed substitution of attorney had not yet been granted. However, on February 13, 2013, the District Judge granted plaintiffs' request for substitution of attorney. (See Dkt. No. 12.) Thus, plaintiffs are no longer appearing pro se.
On February 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed another motion to consolidate and relate cases and noticed the motion before the undersigned. (See Dkt. No. 13.) Nevertheless, because plaintiffs are now represented by counsel in light of the February 13, 2013 order by the District Judge substituting Joseph S. Fogel as their attorney, the case will be referred back to the assigned District Judge. Therefore, all pretrial motions, other than discovery motions, should now be noticed for hearing before the District Judge assigned to this action. The assigned magistrate judge shall continue to perform all duties described in Local Rule 302(c)(1)-(20).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This matter is referred back to the District Judge assigned to this action; and
2. All dates pending before the undersigned are vacated.
________________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE