Filed: Aug. 30, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 30, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 93 ] BENITA Y. PEARSON, District Judge. 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 conf
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 93 ] BENITA Y. PEARSON, District Judge. 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 confl..
More
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 93]
BENITA Y. PEARSON, District Judge.
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 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.
