New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Disqualification: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Is Decided before Motion to Disqualify, Moots DQ Motion If Jurisdiction Lacking

Download PDF

 Washington-St. Tammany Elec. Coop., Inc. v. La. Generating, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27177 (M.D. La. Feb. 20, 2020):

1 At oral argument, the Court also heard argument on Louisiana Generating LLC's Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiffs. (Doc. 203.) The Court is ruling on the Motion to Dismiss rather than the Motion to Disqualify because, as the Supreme Court has explained, subject-matter jurisdiction is "fundamentally primary." Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 180, 99 S. Ct. 2710, 61 L. Ed. 2d 464 (1979). In addition, there is Fifth Circuit dicta that supports the proposition that where a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, a motion to disqualify counsel is moot. Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC v. Nadel & Gussman, LLC, 844 F.3d 495, 501 (5th Cir. 2016) ("Having concluded that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the underlying suit, we deny as moot Enable's motion to disqualify Nadel's counsel.") In addition, as a general rule a jurisdictional question is decided first, as the Southern District Mississippi [Heimer v. Knight, No. 3:13CV115TSL-JMR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202347, 2013 WL 12209912, at *1 (S.D. Miss. May 16, 2013)] stated,

Courts have regularly found that when faced with contemporaneous motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to disqualify an attorney, it is proper to decide the jurisdictional question first. See Rice v. Rice Found., 610 F.2d 471, 478 (7th Cir. 1979) (explaining that district court must have and exercise subject matter jurisdiction before ruling on motion to disqualify); [*3]  ESN, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 685 F. Supp. 2d 631, 645-646 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (concluding that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking so that case could not proceed on the merits, thus making motion to disqualify counsel moot); Dinger v. Gulino, 661 F. Supp. 438, 442 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) (concluding that question of jurisdiction should be considered before motion to disqualify attorney since "[a]bsent jurisdiction, it would be inappropriate for this Court to enter orders, even regarding a motion to disqualify an attorney"); Vetter v. Sands, No. 81 Civ. 5072, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24145, 1984 WL 794, 2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 1984) (finding that defense motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel should be continued until determination of motion to dismiss challenging subject matter jurisdiction); see also Arora v. Hartford Life and Annuity Ins. Co., 519 F. Supp. 2d 1021, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (granting motion to remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and declining to rule on motion to disqualify). [Quoting Heimer v. Knight, No. 3:13CV115TSL-JMR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202347, 2013 WL 12209912, at *1 (S.D. Miss. May 16, 2013).]

 

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice