Shah et al v. Rodino et al, No. 3:2013cv00103 - Document 69 (N.D. Ind. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 59 Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 3/24/14. (smp)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION AMIT SHAH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TERRY RODINO, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:13-CV-103 JD-CAN OPINION AND ORDER This case stems from a business dispute between majority and minority shareholders of several closely held corporations. The facts of the case are more fully detailed in the Court s order granting Defendants motion to dismiss. Now before the Court is another pending motion, requesting review of Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein s decision denying Plaintiffs motion to disqualify the law firm May Oberfell Lorber from representing four of the Defendants in this case. [DE 59.] The parties briefing and the Magistrate Judge s decision regarding disqualification were based on the then-operative pleadings. The Court has now granted the Defendants motion to dismiss and the Plaintiff has no currently pending claims. Without any pending claims, any decision by the Court on the issue of disqualification would be advisory, at best. Additionally, if Plaintiffs respond to the Court s order by filing derivative claims on behalf of the Duro Entities, such claims may impact the analysis of the alleged conflicts of interest, both by counsel and the Court. See, e.g., Cutshall v. Barker, 733 N.E.2d 973, 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000); Wittenborn v. Pauly, No. 87 C 5814, 1988 WL 33723, at *3 4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 1988); Messing v. FDI, Inc., 439 F. Supp. 776, 781 (D.N.J. 1977); Cannon v. United States Acoustics Corp., 398 F. Supp. 209, 220 (N.D. Ill. 1975), aff d in relevant part, 532 F.2d 1118 (7th Cir. 1976). Accordingly, the motion for review [DE 59] is DENIED AS MOOT. If Plaintiffs file an amended complaint, the parties are free to renew their motion for disqualification based on the allegations contained in the amended pleading. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: March 24, 2014 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO Judge United States District Court 2

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.