Filed: Mar. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 24, 2016
Summary: RULING DENYING PROPOSED INTERVENOR LONTRAY'S REPRESENTATION BY THE JAFFE, RAITT, HEUER & WEISS LAW FIRM PAUL D. BORMAN , District Judge . Now before the Court is Lontray Enterprises, LLC's Motion for Indicative Ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1. (ECF No. 368.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Lontray's Motion for Indicative Ruling. I. BACKGROUND On March 17, 2016 Lontray Enterprises, LLC, proposed intervening defendant, filed a claim of appeal with t
Summary: RULING DENYING PROPOSED INTERVENOR LONTRAY'S REPRESENTATION BY THE JAFFE, RAITT, HEUER & WEISS LAW FIRM PAUL D. BORMAN , District Judge . Now before the Court is Lontray Enterprises, LLC's Motion for Indicative Ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1. (ECF No. 368.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Lontray's Motion for Indicative Ruling. I. BACKGROUND On March 17, 2016 Lontray Enterprises, LLC, proposed intervening defendant, filed a claim of appeal with th..
More
RULING DENYING PROPOSED INTERVENOR LONTRAY'S REPRESENTATION BY THE JAFFE, RAITT, HEUER & WEISS LAW FIRM
PAUL D. BORMAN, District Judge.
Now before the Court is Lontray Enterprises, LLC's Motion for Indicative Ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1. (ECF No. 368.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Lontray's Motion for Indicative Ruling.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 17, 2016 Lontray Enterprises, LLC, proposed intervening defendant, filed a claim of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from this Court's Opinion and Order Denying Lontray's Motion to Intervene filed through representation by its newly hired law firm, Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss ("Jaffe"), because a Jaffe lawyer listed on the pleading requires this Court to recuse itself from this over two year old case based on a relationship between that Jaffe law partner and this Court's law clerk that has been working on this case for over two years.
Significant facts:
1. This case was filed in 2013. The same law clerk has been working on this case since its inception.
2. In a companion case also assigned to this Court, BR North 223, LLC v. Glieberman, et al., case no. 14-14488, Lontray has been represented by a different law firm, Ellias & Elias, P.C. since 2014.
3. Lontray filed the present motion to intervene in this case, not using its previous law firm in the companion case, but instead hiring a new law firm, Jaffe.
II. DISCUSSION
The Court does not reach the merits of Lontray's Motion to Intervene; the Court rules that Lontray cannot be represented on its Motion to Intervene by Jaffe, because of a relationship between a Jaffe attorney and the Court law clerk that has been working on the case since 2013.1
The Court bases its ruling to prevent the Jaffe firm from representing Lontray Enterprises on the law clerk/partner's close friendship. Canon 3F of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, titled "Conflict of Interest" states:
(1) A judicial employee should avoid conflicts of interest in the performance of official duties. A conflict of interest arises when a judicial employee knows that he or she might be so personally . . . affected by a matter that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question the judicial employee's ability properly to perform official duties in an impartial manner.
Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, JNET available at, http://jnet.ao.dcn/policy_guidance/guide_judiciarypolicy/volume_2_ethics_and_judicial_conduc t/part_codes_conduct/ch_3_code_conduct_judicial_employees (last visited on March 24, 2016).
The Court further finds that erecting a wall between that attorney from further work on this case does not solve the issue of appearance of a conflict of interest, because the pertinent Jaffe attorney is a partner in the firm and thus shares in its profits.
Finally, it would be a significant burden on the Court and the process of this case to remove the law clerk from continuing work on this case.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 the Court rules on the Indicative Ruling requested by Lontray/Jaffe in Doc. #368, 3/18/16, that it will not grant the Jaffe Firm's request to Represent the Proposed Intervenor based on the walling off of the Jaffe partner from this action.
