Santorsola v. Manusos

Filing 42

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 35 Motion to Strike Notice of Appearance ; denying Plaintiff's 33 Amended Motion to Disqualify. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

NICHOLAS SANTORSOLA,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

No. C16-29RSL
v.
MICHAEL MANUSOS,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO DISQUALIFY
COUNSEL AND TO STRIKE
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion to Disqualify Counsel,” Dkt.

16

# 33, and “Motion to Strike Notice of Appearance,” Dkt. # 35. In both motions, plaintiff asks

17

the Court to disqualify defendant’s counsel, Thomas George Crowell, on the grounds that

18

Mr. Crowell is employed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”)

19

and both plaintiff and defendant are insured by State Farm. (State Farm engaged Mr. Crowell to

20

represent defendant in this action pursuant to defendant’s insurance policy. Dkt. # 38, ¶ 1.)

21

Plaintiff claims that this constitutes a “concurrent conflict of interest” in violation of the

22

American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Washington Rule of

23

Professional Conduct 1.7.

24

Those ethics rules do not apply to these circumstances. Neither Mr. Crowell nor any

25

other member of State Farm’s legal office represents or has ever represented plaintiff. Dkt. # 38,

26

¶ 2. Plaintiff cites no legal authority for the proposition that his insurer may not provide a legal

27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO DISQUALIFY AND TO STRIKE - 1

1

defense to another insured pursuant to the terms of that insured’s policy, and the Court is aware

2

of none. Though plaintiff highlights defendant’s informed consent pursuant to RPC 1.8(f)(1),

3

that ethics rule applies where a third party – such as an insurance company – pays for a party’s

4

legal expenses. The rule does not establish a concurrent conflict of interest involving the other

5

party to the lawsuit.

6
7
8

For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motions to disqualify and to strike (Dkt. ## 33,
35) are DENIED.

9
10

SO ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2017.

11
12
13
14

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO DISQUALIFY AND TO STRIKE - 2