Pridgeon et al v. Pegram et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 38 MOTION (Renewed) to Disqualify Counsel from Simultaneous Representation of Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 9/27/2013. (eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-467-FDW-DCK
LEE ANN PRIDGEON, L.I.G. SERVICES, INC., )
and JOHN DOES 1-100,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
RICK RYAN PEGRAM, DEBRA R. PEGRAM,
)
and JOHN DOES 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify
Defense Counsel From Simultaneous Representation Of Defendants” (Document No. 38) filed
August 22, 2013. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the
motion and the record, the undersigned will deny the motion.
Defendants filed a timely “Memorandum In Opposition To Disqualify Defense Counsel
From Simultaneous Representation Of Defendants” (Document No 39) on September 9, 2013;
however, Plaintiffs have failed to a reply brief, or notice of intent not to reply, as required by
Local Rule 7.1(E). See also, (“Initial Scheduling Order,” 3:07-MC-47, Document No. 2, p.4).
The undersigned further notes that it appears that Plaintiffs’ motion failed to meet the
requirement of consultation pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B).

In addition, the parties are

respectfully advised that the “Initial Scheduling Order,” issued by the Court on August 15, 2013,
requires a memorandum of law to include a certificate by the attorney that the submission

complies with the word limitation and that “[n]on-complying briefs will be stricken summarily
from the record.” (3:07-MC-47, Document No. 2, p.4).
Despite the procedural defects, the undersigned has carefully considered the parties’
briefs. In short, the undersigned is not persuaded that Plaintiffs have shown a conflict of interest
to date that disqualifies Defendants’ counsel from representing his clients.

Moreover,

Defendants’ “Memorandum In Opposition…” (Document No. 39) is well-reasoned.

The

undersigned particularly agrees with Defendants’ argument that this issue might have been more
efficiently resolved if the parties’ counsel had communicated with each other prior to engaging
in motions practice.

(Document No. 39, p.14).

Such argument is consistent with the

requirements of our Local Rules.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify Defense
Counsel From Simultaneous Representation Of Defendants” (Document No. 38) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 27, 2013

2