DIFOUR
v.
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA

M.D. Fla. | 2023-02-09
No. 2:22-cv-786
District Court, M.D. Florida (2023)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish compelling reasons to disqualify counsel for a defendant, denying their motion to strike the notice of appearance.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs moved to strike a defendant's notice of appearance, alleging a conflict of interest because the attorney was employed by a law firm that al…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Right To Counsel Of Choice Disqualification Of Counsel Conflict Of Interest

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Counsel Of Choice cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Notice of Appearance (Doc. 12).1 Although the complaint is difficult to decipher, it appears Plaintiffs Manuel Difour and Cynthia Peguero have sued Defendants for various torts stemming from a contract dispute. (Doc. 1.) Counsel for Defendant Servis One, Inc. has made a limited appearance for the purpose of moving for remand. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiffs object to this because Servis One’s attorney is employed by the law firm Kelley Kronenberg, which is

Plaintiffs offer any rationale for why the attorney who appeared is operating under a conflict of interest. As the Court sees it, the interests of the defendants may be aligned, especially as remand is concerned. It is thus logical (and perfectly acceptable) for defendants to share counsel.

Simply put, Plaintiffs have failed to offer any rationale (let alone compelling reasons) for the Court to deprive Servis One of its right to counsel or question its choice of an attorney. Further, the Court notes that Servis One’s attorney is licensed in the State of Florida.

Accordingly, is it now ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Notice of Appearance (Doc. 12) is DENIED. ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 8, 2023.

Ki Za / Kfle C. Dudek = United States Magistrate Judge

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations. also a defendant in this case. Thus, Plaintiffs claim, there is a conflict of interest. (Doc. 12 at 1.) Apart from this generalized statement, they do not cite any legal authority that would allow the Court to prohibit counsel from appearing in this case. Servis One is “entitled to the counsel of [its] choice.” In re BellSouth Corp., 334 F. 3d 941, 961 (11th Cir. 2003). And its choice in counsel “may be overridden only if compelling reasons exist.” Id. The burden rests on the moving party to prove the grounds for disqualification. Id. Plaintiffs have fallen well short of this bar here. They do not explain how an attorney from Kelley Kronenberg is legally precluded from representing Servis One. Nor do

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw