Amarado Oil Company, LTD. v. Davis et al

Filing 104

Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons stated herein, the Court is satisfied that an informed consent and waiver of conflict has indeed been executed, and that the matter is in hand. The Court is satisfied that an informed consent and waiver of conflict has indeed been executed, and that the matter is in hand. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 8/30/2013. Related document(s) 93 . (JLG)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
AMARADO OIL COMPANY, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEAN DAVIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:12cv627

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 93]

On August 8, 2013, the Court issued an Order instructing attorneys Ralph Streza and
Sarah A. Toops, counsel for Davis Defendants, to inform the Court whether a conflict of interest
exists or is likely to arise, and, if so, whether conflict of interest waivers have been executed.
ECF No. 86. Counsel for Davis Defendants responded, stating that
[a]t this time and before, we have concluded that no conflict exists nor is it likely
that one will arise. We have reviewed and researched the matter in detail, and
while there is a theoretically or potential conflict of interest, an informed consent
and waiver of conflict has been executed.
ECF No. 91.
Thereafter, Plaintiff Amarado filed an unsolicited nine-page objection to the response in
which it asserts numerous arguments, the bulk of which are unrelated to the instant matter and
which, therefore, the Court will not address. As to the one matter that appears to relate to the
instant matter, the Court notes the following: although Amarado states that “[t]here is no
indication in the CCJ letter that the waiver was truly made upon informed consent,” ECF No. 93
at 6, the letter filed by counsel for the Davis Defendants states that “an informed consent and
waiver of conflict has been executed.” ECF No. 91. Thus, the Court is satisfied that an informed

(5:12cv627)
consent and waiver of conflict has indeed been executed, and that the matter is in hand. See, e.g.,
ECF No. 98 at 2-7 (Davis Defendants’ counsel providing legal analysis in response to Amarado’s
objection). The Court declines to take up Amarado’s request that it “continue further inquiry into
the conflict issues.” ECF No. 93 at 9.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 30, 2013
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

2