Opinion
3:21-cv-05761-TL
07-05-2023
DAVID Q. WEBB, Plaintiff, v. NAPHCARE, INC., Defendant.
ORDER
TANA LIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff David Q. Webb's second motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 58).
The procedural history of this matter was previously recited in the Court's order of referral on Plaintiff's first motion to appoint counsel. See Dkt. No. 53. That first referral to the Pro Bono Panel was unsuccessful, and the Court ultimately denied Plaintiff's motion. Dkt. No. 57. However, the Court allowed Plaintiff “to seek a limited-scope representation of pro bono counsel” if he wished. Id. at 3. Plaintiff promptly did so, filing the instant motion for pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of assisting Plaintiff in responding to Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 33). Dkt. No. 58. Defendant did not file any opposition to the motion. The Court referred Plaintiff's request to the District's Pro Bono Panel Screening Committee and re-noted his motion to June 16, 2023. Dkt. No. 62. On June 16, 2023, the Pro Bono Panel Screening Committee informed the Court of its recommendation to appoint counsel as described above.
Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to identify counsel from the Pro Bono Panel to represent Plaintiff for the limited purpose of assisting Plaintiff in responding to the pending Motion to Dismiss by September 1, 2023. If the Clerk timely identifies pro bono counsel, the Court will issue an order of appointment; if not, the Court will be unable to appoint counsel for Plaintiff. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to renote Plaintiff's second motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 58) for September 1, 2023.
Once Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is resolved, the Court will lift the stay in this matter and resolve Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 33) and Plaintiff's pending Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 39).