Jacobs v. Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: December 4, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01752
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Albert L Jacobs, Jr., et al., No. CV-20-01752-PHX-DLR

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motions to disqualify opposing counsel. (Docs. 18, 17 20, 25, 28.) “As a general rule, courts do not disqualify an attorney on the grounds of 18 conflict of interest unless the former client moves for disqualification.” Kasza v. Browner, 19 133 F.3d 1159, 1171 (9th Cir. 1998). Yet, Plaintiffs have indiscriminately moved to 20 disqualify all opposing counsel in some form or another. Plaintiffs—who have not alleged 21 they have suffered an injury in fact arising from these alleged representational defects— 22 lack standing to complain about possible conflicts of interest arising out of the 23 representation of Defendants. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). 24 Plaintiffs’ motions are meritless. The Ninth Circuit has recognized the potential for 25 abuse of disqualification motions, explaining that litigants may engage in such costly 26 motions practice, not because their arguments are particularly meritorious, but to 27 inconvenience the other side. Optyl Eyewear Fashion Intern. Corp. v. Style Co., Ltd., 760 28 F.2d 1045, 1051 (9th Cir. 1985). The Court will not tolerate such behavior. 1 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions to disqualify opposing counsel (Docs. 2|| 18, 28) are DENIED. 3 Dated this 4th day of December, 2020. 4 5 Ls le 8 States Dictric Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-