Isom v. Valley Forge Insurance Company et al

Filing 67

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2 Motion to Disqualify and to Strike; denying 17 26 Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 21 Motion to Revoke. Brown's pro hac vice admission will be revoked. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 8/5/2016 (scp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
JONATHAN M. ISOM

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-109-KS-MTP

VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court the Motion to Disqualify Willie E. Gary, Esq., James L.
Brown, Esq., and their Law Firms, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PLLC, and James L.
Brown and Associates and to Strike the Complaint (“Motion to Disqualify”) [2] and the Motion to
Revoke James L. Brown, Esq’s Admission Pro Hac Vice (“Motion to Revoke”) [21] filed by
Defendants Valley Forge Insurance Company and Transportation Insurance Company, and the
Motion for Willie E. Gray to Appear Pro Hac Vice [17] and the Supplemental Motion for Willie E.
Gary to Appear Pro Hac Vice [26] (collectively “Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice [17][26]”) filed
by Plaintiff Jonathan M. Isom. After considering the submissions of the parties, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court finds the following:
1)

the Motion to Disqualify [2] should be granted in part and denied in part;

2)

the Motion to Revoke should be granted; and

3)

the Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice should be denied.
I. BACKGROUND

On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff Jonathan M. Isom (“Plaintiff”) filed this action in the Circuit
Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi. The Complaint [1-1] was signed
by his attorney, Halbert E. Dockins, Jr. (“Dockins”). Though Dockins’ address is not listed on the

Complaint [1-1] as required by both the federal and Mississippi rules of procedures, the Court is
aware that his office is in Jackson, Mississippi, and that Dockins is licensed to practice in the state
of Mississippi. (See Civil Cover Sheet [1-5].) Underneath the signature line of the Complaint [1-1],
under the heading “Of Counsel and pending Pro Hac Vice,” the names, addresses, and phone
numbers of Willie E. Gary, Esq. (“Gary”), and James L. Brown, Esq. (“Brown”), were listed.
On February 3, 2016, Defendants Valley Forge Insurance Company and Transportation
Insurance Company (collectively “Defendants”)1 removed the case to this Court and filed their
Motion to Disqualify [2], claiming, inter alia, that Gary and Brown engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law by allowing their names, addresses, and phone numbers to appear on the Complaint
[1-1], and requesting the Court disqualify the attorneys and their law firms and to strike the
Complaint [1-1] from the record. No response to this motion was filed by Plaintiff.
On April 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions for the pro hac vice admission of both Gary and
Brown. The Court granted pro hac vice admission to Brown, but denied it to Gary based on a failure
to file a certificate of good standing. Defendants filed their Response in Opposition [19] to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice [17] with respect to Gary on April 5, 2016, and filed their
Motion to Revoke [21] with respect to Brown on April 7, 2016. Plaintiff submitted no response to
either of these filings, and submitted their Supplemental Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice [26] on
April 15, 2016.
After considering the submissions of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court
is now ready to rule.

1

This action was also brought against Defendants Gathering Insurance Services, LLC, and
CNA Financial Corporation, but neither had been served with process when the relevant motions
were filed. CNA Financial Corporation has since been dismissed from the case for failure to
serve process.
2

II. DISCUSSION
The Mississippi Supreme Court has clearly stated that a counsel’s name and office address
appearing on a pleading constitutes an appearance under Mississippi law. See In re Williamson, 838
So.2d 226, 235 (Miss. 2002) (“In the future, attorneys are hereby noticed and cautioned that a
foreign attorney will be deemed to have made an appearance in a Mississippi lawsuit if the foreign
attorney signs the pleadings or allows his or her name to be listed on the pleadings.”) (emphasis
added). In making an appearance, an attorney “hold[s] [him]self out to be representing a client.”
Id. The Court does not find it of any consequence, then, that Gary and Brown were listed as “Of
Counsel and pending Pro Hac Vice,” because, by allowing their names to be on the Complaint [1-1],
they held themselves out to be representing Plaintiff and were engaged in the unauthorized practice
of law in the state of Mississippi. See id. It is therefore within the sound discretion of the Court to
deny Gary’s Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice [17][26] and revoke Brown’s pro hac vice status. The
Court is perplexed by the fact that seasoned counsel who have previously appeared in this court in
other cases ignored the rule that they were familiar with.2
Though the Court may have been persuaded to refrain3 from exercising its discretionary
authority upon a showing of good cause, Gary and Brown have filed no response to Defendants’
Motion to Disqualify [2] or their Motion to Revoke [21]. They have also filed no reply to

2

It is noted that the letter that was improperly submitted as a response to the Motion states
that the usage of the language “of counsel and pending pro hac vice” is regularly done and
approved by this Court. This Court has never seen this and made inquiry to the Magistrate Judge
who responded likewise.
3

L.U.Civ.R. 83.1 (d)(7) is clear and says “Standards for Admission.” . . . An application
ordinarily should be granted unless the Court finds reasons to believe that . . . (E) admission
should be denied because the applicant had before the application, filed or appeared in the
Federal Court without having secured approval under these rules.
3

Defendants’ opposition to Gary’s Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice [17][26]. Absent any effort on
the part of the attorneys to excuse their unauthorized practice of law,4 the Court will deny Gary’s
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice [17][26], and Gary shall not be allowed to appear in this case. The
Court will also grant Defendants’ Motion to Revoke [21]. Brown’s pro hac vice admission will be
revoked, and he shall not be allowed to continue in this case. The Motion to Disqualify [2] will be
granted insofar as Gary and Brown shall be disqualified from continuing in this matter.
However, because striking the Complaint [1-1] would be an extraordinary remedy which
Defendants have not shown is warranted, the Court will deny the Motion to Disqualify [2] with
regards to Defendants’ request that the pleadings be struck. Furthermore, Defendants have not
shown that Gary and Brown’s actions can be imputed to their respective firms, and the Court will
not disqualify the law firms at this time.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify
[2] is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted in that Gary and Brown are disqualified
from continuing in this matter. It is denied in that the Complaint [1-1] will not be struck and the
law firms will not be disqualified from seeking pro hac admission in the future.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appear Pro Hac
Vice [17][26] will be denied.

4

Local counsel in this case did submit a response to Defendants’ arguments through a letter
sent to chambers on July 25, 2016, over three months after Defendants filed their Motion to
Revoke [21] and over five months after the filing of the Motion to Disqualify [2]. Even if it
were to accept such an untimely response, the Court will not entertain arguments not properly
filed on the record.
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion to Revoke [21]
will be granted. Brown’s pro hac vice admission will be revoked.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 5th day of August, 2016.

s/ Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5