Opinion
Civil Action 20-388-JWD-SDJ
07-26-2021
LYDIA McCOY v. ZANTAVIA BOGAN, et al.
ORDER
SCOTT D. JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Gideon Carter (R. Doc. 40) as attorney for four named Defendants-Cardinal Group Management, PPQBR, Kendal Brookins, and Zantavia Bogan. According to Plaintiff, she and Mr. Carter do not get along. She claims that Mr. Carter has “exhibited most sneaky [and] dishonorable conduct, ” “lied, ” and “surely secretly did other things of which Plaintiff was unable to find out.” (R. Doc. 40 at 1, 2). For these reasons, Plaintiff sees Mr. Carter's representation of these four as a way for Mr. Carter and his clients to “continue harassing her.” (R. Doc. 40 at 2).
However, Plaintiff provides no legal basis for disqualifying Mr. Carter. Indeed, she readily admits that “the issue presented to the Court is not necessarily specifically articulated by some ‘rules' or laws.” (R. Doc. 40 at 1). Instead, she believes “it is [] common sense” to disqualify her opponents' counsel merely because she has a personal issue with the attorney. The Court does not agree.
“Motions to disqualify are generally disfavored and require a high standard of proof so as not to deprive a party of its chosen counsel.” Leleux-Thubron v. Iberia Parish Gov't, 2015 WL 339617, at *4 (W.D. La. Jan. 23, 2015). And when disqualification is sought by an opponent, as is the case here, “disqualification presents a palpable risk of unfairly denying a party the counsel of his choosing.” Nguyen v. La. State Bd. of Cosmetology¸ 2014 WL 6801797, at *1 (M.D. La. Dec. 2, 2014).
Considering the applicable law, and the fact that Plaintiff admittedly cannot provide any legal basis on which to disqualify Mr. Carter, Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Gideon Carter is DENIED.