Artiga Carrero v. Farrelly et al

Filing 60

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 53 Substantive legal issues - addressing filed by Baltimore County, Maryland. Signed by Chief Judge James K. Bredar on 1/3/2018. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

MIRNA RUBIDIA ARTIGA
CARRERO,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

CHRISTOPHER
FARRELLY, et al.,

*

Defendants.

CIVIL NO. JKB-16-3939

*

*

*

*

*

*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

*

*

*

Mirna Rubidia Artiga Carrero (“Plaintiff”) filed a two-count complaint against Baltimore
County Police Officer Christopher Farrelly in his individual capacity and against Baltimore
County seeking declaratory relief and compensatory damages stemming from her alleged
unlawful arrest in 2014.

Initially, Officer Farrelly and Baltimore County were jointly

represented by Baltimore County Attorney James Nolan. On December 1, 2017, the Court
issued a memorandum and accompanying order disqualifying Mr. Nolan from continuing to
represent Officer Farrelly due to the serious potential for—if not actual—conflict stemming from
his joint representation of the County and Officer Farrelly. (ECF Nos. 47 & 48.) Now pending
before the Court is a letter from Mr. Nolan suggesting that he may be able to continue to
represent Officer Farrelly conflict free if the Court were to grant an as yet unfiled motion to
bifurcate the proceedings against Officer Farrelly and the County. (ECF No. 53.) Although it is
not clearly presented as such, the Court construes Mr. Nolan’s correspondence as a motion to
reconsider the Court’s prior order disqualifying him from representing Officer Farrelly. The sole

ground for reconsideration offered—potential bifurcation—does not resolve the conflict
identified by the Court, and therefore the request will be DENIED.
Even if the Court were to bifurcate the proceedings against Officer Farrelly from those
against the County, there would still be an inherent conflict in a County attorney representing
Officer Farrelly. As the Court noted in its previous memorandum and order, Officer Farrelly has
arguably already been prejudiced by the arguments advanced by the County attorney on his
behalf regarding the adequacy of his training. Moreover, whether tried separately or jointly, the
County and Officer Farrelly continue to have adverse interests in this litigation; this conflict
cannot be cured simply by having Mr. Nolan and a different County attorney offer conflicting
arguments on behalf of the County in separate proceedings. Accordingly, neither Mr. Nolan nor
any other County attorney may represent Officer Farrelly moving forward.
For the foregoing reasons, the request submitted by Mr. Nolan (ECF No. 53), construed
as motion for reconsideration of ECF No. 48, is hereby DENIED.
DATED this 3rd day of January, 2018.

BY THE COURT:

___________/s/______________________
James K. Bredar
Chief Judge

2