AZ Pool Supplies Incorporated v. Saltman Enterprises Incorporated et al
Filing
33
ORDER denying 15 Motion for Sanctions; denying 15 Motion for Order to Show Cause; denying 29 Motion to Disqualify Counsel; granting 30 Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/28/2012.(NVO)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
AZ Pool Supplies Incorporated, an Arizona
foreign corporation,
10
Plaintiff,
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV12-1214 PHX DGC
Saltman Enterprises Incorporated, a revoked
Arizona corporation, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
Plaintiff’s motion for inherent sanctions (Doc. 15) and its motion to disqualify
16
counsel (Doc. 29) are denied, and Defendants’ motion to quash the deposition of defense
17
counsel (Doc. 30) is granted.
18
Plaintiff’s motion for inherent sanctions is based on Defendants’ answer to the
19
complaint and should have been brought, if justified at all, under Federal Rule of Civil
20
Procedure 11. That rule requires that the motion be served before filing, to afford
21
opposing counsel an opportunity to address charges in the motion before the Court’s time
22
and resources are invoked to resolve the issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Plaintiff’s
23
counsel cannot evade these requirements by appealing to the Court’s inherent power.
24
Moreover, the typical remedy for statements in a pleading with which opposing counsel
25
disagrees is to litigate those issues and establish the correct facts, not to fire off a motion
26
for sanctions.
27
28
Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel constitutes a similar tactical salvo rather
1
than a justified motion.
2
submitted an affidavit in response to Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and allegedly
3
violated several ethical rules in the process, including making himself a witness in the
4
litigation. To avoid the use of ethical rules for the tactical disqualification of opposing
5
counsel, Arizona law provides that “[o]nly in extreme circumstances should a party to a
6
lawsuit be allowed to interfere with the attorney-client relationship of his opponent.”
7
Alexander v. Superior Court, 685 P.2d 1309, 1313 (Ariz. 1984).
8
9
Plaintiff seeks to disqualify defense counsel because he
The allegations in the motion to disqualify do not approach extreme
circumstances.
Defense counsel filed the affidavit because Plaintiff’s counsel had
10
accused him of unethical conduct. And although Plaintiff’s counsel may disagree with
11
factual assertions made in the affidavit, the proper remedy is not to seek disqualification
12
of opposing counsel, but to litigate the facts and establish the truth.
13
Plaintiff’s counsel has issued a notice of deposition for defense counsel on the
14
basis of defense counsel’s affidavit. Defendant’s motion to quash seeks to prevent the
15
deposition. The motion will be granted and the deposition quashed. The deposition, like
16
the motions discussed above, is a tactical move designed to obtain some advantage over
17
opposing counsel or his client.
18
Plaintiff’s counsel is warned that the Court will not tolerate further vexatious
19
litigation tactics like those displayed in his motions and the deposition notice. The
20
federal courts are available to achieve the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of
21
genuine disputes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Those goals cannot be achieved when parties or
22
counsel engage in accusatory and vexatious litigation practice rather than focusing on the
23
merits of the dispute. Plaintiff’s counsel is also admonished that he should cease tossing
24
out accusations of perjury and lies as though they were mere greetings. Courtesy,
25
respect, and civility are mandatory in this Court.
26
IT IS ORDERED:
27
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for inherent sanctions (Doc. 15) is denied.
28
2.
Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel (Doc. 29) is denied.
‐ 2 ‐
1
3.
Defendants’ motion to quash (Doc. 30) is granted.
2
Dated this 28th day of September, 2012.
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
‐ 3 ‐
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?