Bell v. Ramirez et al

Filing 164

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 140 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel, filed by Renzer Bell. Despite plaintiff's personal involvement in the formation of the alleged contract that gives rise to this action, he makes no claim that O'Hara was involved in that transactions. Plaintiff's inability to cite any involvement on the part of O'Hara in the events that give rise to this action corroborates O'Hara's claim that he has no personal knowledge of the relevant fact s. To the extent plaintiff claims that O'Hara will have testimony concerning the indemnification agreement between Marshall and Ramirez, plaintiff has failed to show that O'Hara has any information concerning the formation or terms of the i ndemnity agreement or how the indemnity agreement is relevant. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 126 F. Supp. 3d 413, 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (Gorenstein, M.J.) Plaintiff does not even address either of these requirements...Accordingly, fo r all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to disqualify O'Hara from representing defendant Ramirez is denied in all respects. The Clerk of the Court is requested to mark Docket Item 140 closed, and as further set forth herein. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 9/26/2017) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ras)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------x
RENZER BELL,
Plaintiff,

13 Civ. 7916 (PKC) (HBP)

-against-

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

STALIN RAMIREZ and
KEVIN MARSHALL,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------x
PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

By notice of motion dated July 24, 2017 (Docket Item
("D.I. ") 140), plaintiff moves to disqualify Daniel M. O'Hara,
Esq. as counsel for defendant Ramirez.

For the reasons set forth

below, the motion is denied.
A motion to disqualify an attorney is committed to the
discretion of the district court.
134, 144 (2d Cir. 1994).

Purgess v. Sharrock, 33 F.3d

"While New York law governs the profes-

sional conduct of attorneys in this state,

'[t]he authority of

federal courts to disqualify attorneys derives from their inherent power to preserve the integrity of the adversary process.'"
Air Italy S.p.A. v. Aviation Techs., Inc., No. 10-CV-20
(JG) (JMA), 2011 WL 96682 at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2011), quoting
Hempstead Video, Inc. v. Inc. Vill. of Valley Stream, 409 F.3d

127, 132 (2d Cir. 2005).

The Second Circuit has held that

"[a]lthough our decisions on disqualification motions often
benefit from guidance offered by the American Bar Association
(ABA) and state disciplinary rules,

. such rules merely

provide general guidance and not every violation of a disciplinary rule will necessarily lead to disqualification."

Hempstead

Video, Inc. v. Inc. Vill. of Valley Stream, supra, 409 F.3d at
132 (citations omitted); accord Solow v. Conseco, Inc., 06 Civ.
5988 (BSJ) (THK), 2007 WL 1599151 at *3
(Katz, M.J.).

(S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2007)

"Disqualification is only warranted in the rare

circumstance where an attorney's conduct 'poses a significant
risk of trial taint.'"
228, 231 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

Decker v. Nagel Rice LLC, 716 F. Supp. 2d
(Scheindlin, D.J.), quoting Glueck v.

Jonathan Logan, Inc., 653 F.2d 746, 748

(2d Cir. 1981).

However,

"any doubt [with respect to whether disqualification should be
ordered] is to be resolved in favor of disqualification."
v. Celanese Corp., 513 F.2d 568, 571 (2d Cir. 1975)

Hull

(citation

omitted); accord Heyliger v. J.D. Collins, No. 3:11-CV-1293
(NAM/DEP), 2014 WL 910324 at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2014).
In view of their potential for abuse as a tactical
device, motions to disqualify opposing counsel are subject to
particularly strict scrutiny.

Murray v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,

583 F.3d 173, 178 (2d Cir. 2009), citing Lamborn v. Dittmer, 873
2

F.2d 522, 531 (2d Cir. 1989); accord Schatzki v. Weiser Capital
Mgmt., LLC, 10 Civ. 4685, 2013 WL 6189208 at *2
26, 2013)

(Sweet D.J.).

(S.D.N.Y. Nov.

Courts are also reluctant to grant

motions to disqualify because they inevitably result in delay and
added expense.

Evans v. Artek Sys. Corp., 715 F.2d 788, 791-92

(2d Cir. 1983)

(disqualification motions "inevitably cause delay"

(citation omitted)); D.R.T., Inc. v. Universal City Studios,
Inc., 02 Civ. 0958 (BSJ) (JCF), 2003 WL 1948798 at *2
Apr. 24, 2003)

(Francis, M.J.).

For these reasons,

(S .D.N. Y.
"the Second

Circuit requires a high standard of proof on the part of the
party seeking to disqualify an opposing party's counsel in order
to protect a client's right to freely choose counsel."
Miller, 801 F. Supp. 1101, 1113

(S.D.N.Y. 1992)

Kubin v.

(Kram, D.J.),

citing Gov't of India v. Cook Indus., Inc., 569 F.2d 737, 739 (2d
Cir. 1978); accord Gurniak v. Emilsen, 995 F. Supp. 2d 262, 269
(S.D.N.Y. 2014)

(Roman, D.J.); Gormin v. Hubregsen, 08 Civ. 7674

(PGG), 2009 WL 508269 at * 2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2009)
D.J.)

(Gardephe,

("The party seeking disqualification must bear a heavy

burden of proof in order to prevail, and [m]ere speculation will
not suffice."

(inner quotations and citations omitted)).

Plaintiff seeks O'Hara's disqualification for two
reasons:

(1) Ramirez's legal fees are being paid by his co-

3

defendant, Marshall and (2) plaintiff seeks to call O'Hara as a
witness.

Neither argument is convincing.
The fact that an attorney's fees are being paid or

reimbursed by a third party does not create a per se conflict of
interest requiring the attorney's withdrawal.

The applicable

standard is set forth in New York's Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 1.8(f) which provides:
(f) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client, or anything of value related to the
lawyer's representation of the client, from one other
than the client unless:
(1) the client gives informed consent;
(2) there is no interference with the lawyer's
independent professional judgment or with the
client-lawyer relationship; and
(3) the client's confidential information is protected as required by Rule 1.6.
See also Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers
134 (1)

§

(2000) . 1
In response to plaintiff's motion, O'Hara has submitted

a declaration in which he states that he has not violated the
Rules of Professional Conduct because Ramirez has given his

1

Section 134 ( 1) of the Restatement provides:
"A lawyer may
not represent a client if someone other than the client will
wholly or partly compensate the lawyer for the representation,
unless the client consents under the limitations and conditions
provided in § 122 and knows of the circumstances and conditions
of the payment."
4

informed consent to O'Hara's accepting payment from Marshall and
that the payments he has received from Marshall have not affected
his professional judgment with respect to Ramirez (Declaration of
Daniel M. O'Hara, Esq., dated Aug. 8 201 (D.I. 142)
Deel.") at~ 3).

("O'Hara

In support of the latter assertion, O'Hara

cites the fact that he has asserted a cross claim on behalf of
Ramirez against Marshall (O'Hara Deel.

~

4).

On this record, O'Hara's receipt of payment from
Marshall does not require his disqualification because has met
the conditions under which such a fee arrangement is permissible.
Plaintiff's second argument -- that O'Hara will be a
witness -- is no more convincing.
Rule 3.7(a) of the Code of Professional Conduct sets
forth the circumstances under which an attorney who will also be
a witness in a proceeding must withdraw:
(a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate before a tribunal in a matter in which the lawyer is likely to be a
witness on a significant issue of fact unless:
(1) the testimony relates solely to an uncontested
issue;
(2) the testimony relates solely to the nature and
value of legal services rendered in the matter;
(3) disqualification of the lawyer would work
substantial hardship on the client;
(4) the testimony will relate solely to a matter
of formality, and there is no reason to believe
5

that substantial evidence will be offered in opposition to the testimony; or
(5) the testimony is authorized by the tribunal.
In response to this aspect of plaintiff's motion,
O'Hara states that he has no personal knowledge of the alleged
facts giving rise to the action and that everything that he knows
about the action is the result of privileged communications with
his client (O'Hara Deel.

~

5).

Despite plaintiff's personal involvement in the formation of the alleged contract that gives rise to this action, he
makes no claim that O'Hara was involved in that transactions.
Plaintiff's inability to cite any involvement on the part of
O'Hara in the events that give rise to this action corroborates
O'Hara's claim that he has no personal knowledge of the relevant
facts.

To the extent plaintiff claims that O'Hara will have

testimony concerning the indemnification agreement between
Marshall and Ramirez, plaintiff has failed to show that O'Hara
has any information concerning the formation or terms of the
indemnity agreement or how the indemnity agreement is relevant.
Additionally, where [as here] only the moving party
intends to call the adversary's attorney as a witness,
"the movant must demonstrate both that the lawyer's
testimony is •necessary' and that there exists a 'substantial likelihood that the testimony would be prejudicial to the witness-advocate's client."' Acker, 2013
WL 1285435, at *l (quoting Finkel, 740 F.Supp.2d at

6

373); accord Gurvey, 2014 WL 6491281, at *5; Nimkoff,
2014 WL 1201905, at *8.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 126 F. Supp. 3d
413, 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

(Gorenstein, M.J.)

Plaintiff does not

even address either of these requirements.
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's
motion to disqualify O'Hara from representing defendant Ramirez
is denied in all respects.
The Clerk of the Court is requested to mark Docket Item 140
closed.
Dated:

New York, New York
September 26, 2017
SO ORDERED

United States Magistrate Judge
Copies mailed to:
Mr. Renzer Bell
119-31 227th Street
Cambria Heights, New York

11411

Daniel M. O'Hara, Jr., Esq.
The Law Firm of Daniel M. O'Hara
250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, New York 10177
Mr. Kevin Marshall
P.O. Box 6970
Cincinnati, Ohio 45206

7