Stolfat v. Equifax Information Services, LLC. et al, No. 9:2019cv80428 - Document 32 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY [DE 20] AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO DEFENSE COUNSEL: denying 20 Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Counsel and Motion to Revoke the Pro Hac Vice Admission of Defendant's Counsel. Defendant's counsel, M s. Tifford, Mr. Knight and Mr. Meran, shall show cause why such arguments were made and why sanctions should not be imposed upon all such counsel due to the improper, inaccurate, and misleading statements contained in Defendant's Response. (Show Cause Response due by 6/24/2019.). Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 6/14/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stolfat v. Equifax Information Services, LLC. et al Doc. 32 UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT COU RT SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT O F FLORID A CA SE N O .I9-BO4ZB-CV -D IM ITRO U LEA SN ATTH EW M AN JELEN A STO LFAT, Plaintiff, FILED BY D.C. JUN 1j 2218 EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC ,etal. ANGELA E.NOBLE CL E'K U S OfST. CT. s.o. oF&à.-w.eB. Defendants. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S M OTIO N TO DISOUALIFY IDE 201 AN D O RD ER TO SH O W CA USE TO DEFEN SE C O U NSEL THISCAUSE isbeforetheCourtupon Plaintiff,JelenaStolfat's(Ccplaintiff')dtM otionto DisqualifyDefendantgsiclCounsels(sic)andM otiontoRevoketheProHacViceAdmissionof DefendantgsiclCounsel''(ûtM otion'')(DE 201.Thismatterwasreferredtotheundersignedbythe H onorable W illiam P.D im itrouleas,United States D istrict Judge.See D E 21.D efendant,Trans UnionLLC'S(dkDefendanf'),hasfiledaResponsetoPlaintiffsM otion gDE 251.Notimelyreply has been filed.The Courthas detennined that no hearing is necessary.Therefore,this m atter is now ripe for review . 1. PlaintifpsM otion Plaintiff,w ho is representing herselfpro se in this m atter,is seeking to klrevoke Pro Hac V ice and disqualify out-of-state counselM ichaelM erar''and ûûdisqualify localcounselA lexandra L.Tifford,Esquire.''(DE 20,p.1).According to Plaintiff,M r.M erarcontactedherby emailon Dockets.Justia.com A pril29,2019,M ay 1,2019,M ay 6,2019,M ay 8,20l9,and M ay 9,2019,butlocalcounsel,M s. Tifford,did notfile a m otion to appearprtphac vice on behalfofM r.M eraruntillate in the day on M ay 9,2019.1d.atpp.2-6.PlaintiffassertsthatM r.M erarrepresented D efendantbefore m oving îoïpro hac vice adm ission and im properly used ûûintim idation techniques''w ith Plaintiff.Id atp. 5.Finally,Plaintiffaccuses M s.Tifford ofaiding M r.M erarin the unauthorized practice oflaw . 1d.atp.6.Plaintiffrequeststhatthe Courtdisqualify both attom eys,revoke M r.M erar'spro hac vice adm ission in thisD istrict,and referthe m atterto the Grievance Com m ittee ofthe Florida Bar. f#.atpp.6-7. II. D efendant's R esponse ln response,D efendantarguesthatitsubm itted its m otion forM r.M erarto appearprö hac viceamereninedaysafterDefendantfileditsAnswerandDefensestotheComplaint.(DE 25,p. 1J.DefendantcontendsthattheCourtlacksjurisdictionovergrievancesregardingtheunauthorized practiceoflaw and also lacksjurisdiction to referthismatterto theFloridaBar.1d.atpp.2-3. N ext,D efendantargues thatM r.M erar's conduct in this case ata11tim es com plied w ith Rule 4- of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. 1d. at pp. 3-4. D efendant also asserts that disqualification is drastic and inappropriate given the facts in this case.1d.atpp.4-5.A ccording to D efendant,there isalso no basisto revoke M r.M erar'sprtphac vice adm ission when M r.M erar hasnotviolated any Rule ofProfessionalConductorLocalRule.1d.atpp.6-7.Finally,D efendant m aintains thatPlaintiff'sM otion is procedurally deficientform ultiple reasons.1d.atpp.7-8. AttachedtoDefendant'sResponsearetheDeclarationofAlexandraL.Tifford (DE 25-11 andtheDeclarationofM ichaelM erargDE 25-21. 111. Plaintifrs M otion is W ithoutM erit The Courthas carefully reviewed the M otion,R esponse,various attachm ents, and the entire docketin thiscase.Therelevantfacts are as follow s. A lexandra Tifford,Esq., is an attorney at the 1aw 51711 of Fow ler W hite Burnet'tin the M iamioftice.(DE 25-1,! 2).Sheislicensedto practice law in the StateofFlorida,and sheis admitted to practice in the Southern DistrictofFlorida.1d.at!3. M ichaelM erar,Esq.isan attomeyatthelaw 51114ofQuilling,Selander,Lownds,W inslett& M oser,P.C.,inthePlano,Texas office.(DE 25-2,!21.Heislicensedtopracticelaw intheStateofTexasandtheStateofGeorgia, and he is adm itted to practice in the United States District Courts for the N orthern, Southem Eastern,and W estern D istrictsofTexas,as w ellasthe N orthern and M iddle D istrictsofG eorgia. 1d.at!3. M r.M erarfirstcontacted thepro se Plaintiffvia em ailon A pril29,2019,and M s.Tifford submittedthemotionfoçprohacviceadmissiononMay9,2019.(DE 25-2,!!5-6, .DE 25-1,!7' , DE 14J.BeforeM r.M erarwasadmittedtopracticeinthisDistrictprtphacviceonMay 10,2019, M s.Tifford iûdiligently review ed,signed,and tiled allpleadings entered by Trans Union in this case.''(DE 25-1at!7;DE 25-1at!6;151.Defendant'sAnswerand AffirmativeDefenses(DE 121,whichwasfiledbeforeMr.M erarwasadmittedpr/hacvice,issolelysignedbyDefendant's localcounsel,A lexandra Tifford and ChristopherK night. Based on these facts,there is no evidence ofunauthorized practice oflaw and there are no groundsto disqualify Defendant's counselorrevoke M r.M erar'spro hac vice adm ission in this D istrict.Plaintiff's M otion is baseless.N either M r.M erar nor M s.Tifford violated the Southern D istrictofFlorida LocalRules orthe Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.There w as sim ply a short lag ofapproxim ately l1 daysbetw een M r.M erarcontacting Plaintiffand being adm itted pro hac vice,during which period oftim e D efendant's localcounsel,who isadm itted in this District,filed an A nswerand A ftirm ative D efenses.Thisdoesnotam ountto a rule violation ofthe unauthorized practice of law .l Further, no ktintim idation techniques'' w ere utilized by defense counsel as claim ed by Plaintiff.ln sum ,Plaintiff'sM otion is due to be denied because itisnotsupported by the law orthe facts. IV . D efendant's R esponse to the M otion Is.in Part.Frivolous W hile Plaintiff's M otion is w ithout m erit and is due to be denied, the Court tinds it necessary to specitically com m enton portionsofD efendant's Response asw ell.The Courtagrees w ith D efendantthatdisqualification and revocation ofpro hac vice adm ission are im properhere based upon the argum entand factspresented by Plaintiff' ,how ever,som e ofthe argum ents m ade by D efendant's counselin D efendant's Response are frankly startling,and are so frivolous and m isleading thatthe Courtw illtake the tim e to addressthem here. First,DefendantarguesthatthisCourtSélacksjurisdiction to hearmattersregarding the unauthorizedpracticeoflaw.''(DE 25,p.21.Thisisawhollyfrivolousargument.Thiscaseisin federalcourt.UnderLocalRule 11.1(c), The standards ofprofessionalconductofm em bers of the Bar ofthis Courtshall includethe currentRulesRegulating the Florida Bar.Fora violation ofany ofthese canons in connection w ith any m atter pending before this Court,an attorney m ay besubjectedtoappropriatedisciplinaryaction. S.D.Fla.L.R.11.1(c).lnotherwords,theFloridaBarRulesareincomoratedintotheLocalRules ofthis Court.A ny unlicensed practice oflaw before thisCourtcan be dealtwith by this Courtby w ay ofcontem pt,sanctions,or referralto the Florida Barancl/or to this D istrict's Com m ittee on A ttorney Adm issions,Peer Review and Attom ey Grievance pursuantto R ule 6 ofthe Southern 1 In fact, in m ore egregious circumstances,a coul' tin this Districtretroactively granted pro hac vice adm ission aher anattorneywho wasnotadmitledto thisDistrictfiled an Am endedCom plaint.Findling v.Bisaria,No.12-CV- 80llS-DMM ,2012 W L 3835079,at*3 (S.D.Fla.Sept.4,2012).Thecourtnotedthat1çadistrictcourtmay use its discretion in determ ining whetherto allow a non-lawyerto appear in court. ''1d. D istrid of Florida Rules G overning the A dm ission,Practice, Peer Review ,and Discipline of A ttorneys.H ad D efendant's counseltaken the tim e to read the Court's LocalR ules,they w ould nothave m adethisfrivolousargum ent. Second, D efendant's counsel im properly relies on tw o federal cases in support of its argumentthatthisCourtlacksjurisdictionto hearmattersregardingtheunauthorizedpracticeof law:InreLosee,195B.R.785(M .D.Fla.Bankr.1996),andGoncziv.CountryfvideHomeLoans, lnc.,No.06-61597-C1V-A1tonag=TuOoff,2007 W L 9700997 (S.D.Fla.Feb.2,2007).2 The Gonczicase isnotata11on point.W hile the courtdid state in GonczithatStonly the state barhas the authorization to determ ine w hether conduct constitutes unauthorized practice of law '',this statem entw as in the contextof a defendant'sm otion to dism iss a com plaintby a private litigant explicitly alleging the unauthorized practice of 1aw as a cause of action againstD efendant.2007 W L 97000997,at*1.Defendant'scitation to case law aboutthe legalvalidity ofa civilclaim for theunauthorized practice of1aw iscom pletely irrelevantto the case athand.N ext,the fosee court did state thatw hether or not an attorney Cûis guilty of unauthorized practice of 1aw is a question w hich m ustberesolved by the Suprem e CourtofthisStateupon the recom m endation ofthe Florida Barand notby thisCourt.''195 B .R .at786. How ever,in the very nextsentence,the courtstated thattûltlhisconclusion shouldnotbeinterpretedto meanthatthisCourtlacksthepowerto refer them atterto the Florida Barforinvestigation ifitappearsthataperson m ighthave engaged in the unauthorized practice oflaw beforethisCourt.''1d.The fosee case,therefore,actually contradicts 2Defendantalso cites Florida state casesw hich are completely irrelevantasthey involve whetherentitiesand individualsotherthantheFloridaBarcançcprosecute''claimsfortheunauthorizedpracticeoflaw andw hetherthe içFloridaSupremeCourt'sjurisdictiontopreventtheunauthorizedpracticewasûexclusive'vis-à-visotherstate courts.''Statev.Palmer,791So.2d 1l81,1185 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.200l).Nowhere dothesecasesstatethata federalcourthasnojurisdictiontodeterminewhetheranattorneyhasengagedintheunauthorizedpracticeof1aw before a federalcourt. Defendant'sargumentmadelaterinitsResponsegDE 25,p.3)thatthisCourtlacksjurisdictionto referthis m atterto the Florida B areven ifsufticientgroundsexist. Further,and quite im portantto this Court,D efendantfailed to disclose thatseveralfederal courts,including courts in this District, have, in fact, m ade findings regarding an attonw y's unauthorizedpracticeoflaw,contrarytoDefendant'scitationtofosee.SeePrincipalL(/eIns.Co. v.Meyer,No.09-20244-C1V,2010W L 744578(S.D.Fla.M ar.2,2010)(requiringanattorneyto show cause w hy the coul'tshould notreferthe attorney'sunauthorized practice oflaw to the State Attorney'sOfficeortake furtheraction);Shellv.U S.Dep'tof Hous.drUrban Dev.,No.0860589-C1V,2008 W L 2637431(S.D.Fla.July 3,2008)(noting in afootnotethatthecourtcan conducta hearing on am otion foran orderto show causew hy an attorney should notbe sanctioned fortheunlicensed practiceoflawl;Adamsv.Bellsouth Telecommuncations,Inc.,No.96-2473CIV,2001W L 34032759,at*2(S.D.Fla.Jan.29,2001),dismissedsubnom.Adamsv.Bellsouth Telecommunications,45F.App'x 876(1lth Cir.2002)(notingthattheUnited StatesM agistrate Judge had held a hearing and had found that an attorney had violated the Florida Bar Rules prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law , but im posing no sanctions because none w ere recommendedl;Benjamin v.Airborne Sec.drProt.Servs.,lnc.,No.12-61624-C1V,2012 NUL 12886185(S.D.Fla.Dec.l8,2012)(notingthatanattorney'srepresentationofacorporateparty borderedontheunlicensedpracticeoflawl;InreCalzadilla,151B.R.622tBallkr.S.D.Fla.1993) (enjoiningtwoattorneysandtheirlaw t114. 1, 1from engagingin theunauthorizedpracticeoflaw);In re Bachmann,113 B.R.769 tBallkr.S.D.Fla. 1990)(contemplating holding an attorney in contempt,butinstead permanently enjoining and restraining theattorney from engaging in the unauthorizedpracticeoflaw);In reBagdade,334 F.3d568 (7th Cir.2003)(holding attorney in civilcontem ptfor engaging in the unauthorized practice of law ,m aking false representations to 6 thecourt,andtestifyingfalselyunderoath).Therefore,Defendant'sResponsecitesacase,Gonczi, w hich had nothing to do w ith the factsofthiscase and then citesa bankruptcy case,f osee,w ithout advising the Courtof additionalauthority which did notsupportD efendant's position,and then takingaposition,addressedfurtherbelow,directlyrejectedbyfosee. ln thisregard,Defendantftm herim properly argues in its Response to the M otion thatthis CourtlacksjurisdictiontoreferthismattertoTheFloridaBartûevenifsufticientgroundsexisted.'' (DE 25,p.31.This argumentiscompletely frivolous.Courts in this Districtregularly refer attorney'smisconducttotheFloridaBar.See,e.g.,Elam v.BankofNew YorkMellon,589B.R. 43l,438 (S.D.Fla.2018). ,Abrams-lackvon v.Avossa,282 F.Supp.3d 1268,1271(S.D.Fla. 2017)' ,Parish-carterv.Avossa,No.9:16-CV-81623,2017W L 4355835,at*4(S.D.Fla.Oct.2, 2017),affi 760 F.App'x 865(11th Cir.2019). ,Jallaliv.USA Funds,No.11-625l0-C1V,2013 W L 12080743,at*1(S.D.Fla.Oct.30,2013)* ,Nardolilliv.Bankofvqm.Corp.,No.12-81312CIV,2013W L 12154544,at*1(S.D.Fla.Sept.24,2013)* ,UnitedStatesv.Coulton,No.07-CR60172-LENARD, 2013 W L 12086298, at *18 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 2013),report and recommendation adopte4 No.07-60172-CR,2013W L 12086299(S.D.Fla.M ay 10,2013),affd andremande4 594F.App'x563(11thCir.2014).Justasanyclientorattorneycanfileagrievance againstan atlorney licensed by the Florida Bar,afederaljudge,whetheraDistrictJudge ora M agistrate Judge,also can referam atterto the Florida Bar.M oreover,thisCoul'tcan also referan attorney to its own Com m ittee on Attom ey A dm issions,Peer Review and Attorney Grievance pursuantto Rule 6 ofthe Southern D istrict ofFlorida Rules Governing the A dm ission,Practice, Peer Review,and D iscipline of Attorneys.The C ourtis sim ply confounded as to why defense counselchose to m ake these argum ents to thisC ourt. DuetotheimproperargumentscontainedinDefendant'sResponse gDE 25,pp.2-31,the Courthashadtoexpendadditionalscarcejudicialresourcesinresolvingthismatter.TheResponse is electronically signed by A lexandra L. Tifford, Esq., on her ow n behalf and on behalf of Christopher E.K night,Esq.,and M ichaelM eran,Esq.A ccordingly,the Courtdirectsthose three counselto show cause,on orbefore June 24,2019,w hy such frivolous,im proper,and m isleading argum entand citation to case 1aw w ere presented to this Court,as wellas w hy defense counsel failed to advise the Courtofcase 1aw w hich directly contradictsD efendant'suntenable argum ent. Further,defense counsel shall address w hy sanctions should not be im posed against all such counselorany ofthem in lightofthe argum entsm ade by defense counselatD E 25,pp.2-3.U pon receiptofDefendant'scounsels'R esponse,the Courtw illdeterm ine whatsanctions,ifany,should be im posed againstany defense counselin thiscase. Upon careful review of the m otions and the entire docket in this case, it is hereby O RD ER ED asfollow s: Plaintiff'sCsM otiontoDisqualifyDefendant(sic)Counsels(siclandM otionto RevoketheProHacViceAdmission ofDefendant(siclCounsel''(CcMotion'') (DE 20jisDENIED.Mr.M erarandM s.Tifford,aswellastheir1aw finns,are perm itted to continue to representD efendantin thism atteratthistim e. Defendant'scounsel,M s.Tifford,M r.Knight,and M r.M eran,shallshow cause onorbeforeJune24,2019,why such argum entswerem adeasdiscussed above and why sanctions should notbe im posed upon allor any such counseldue to the im proper,inaccurate,and m isleading argum ents contained in D efendant's ResponsegDE 25,pp.2-31. The Clerk ofCourtisD IRECTED to m aila copy ofthisOrderto Jelena Stolfat, A pt.103,265 Courtney Lakes Circle,W estPalm Beach,Florida 33401. 8 D O N E and O RD ER ED in Cham bers atW estPalm Beach,Palm Beach CountysFlorida, g this14 fayot-lune, 2019. 1?a&. . W ILLIAM M TTH EW M A N UN ITED STATES M A G ISTR ATE JUD G E 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
