Denial of Motion to DQ â Cert Petition - Stopa Law Firm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

17. Unfortunately, and despite the fact that the Motion to Disqualify was evidentiary in nature, Petitioners’ attempts to obtain evidence or discovery were met with nothing but opposition. On February 23, 2010, the Bank moved for an extension of time to respond to the discovery, then never responded, necessitating a Motion to Compel. See Appendix to Petition 11 and 12, respectively. 18. Incredibly, despite not responding to this discovery, Shapiro argued Petitioners had never sought discovery (which, of course, was plainly false), then used the absence of any such discovery in support of their position that there was no evidence “in the record” to support disqualification. 1 See Appendix to Petition, 5 and 6. 19. On the afternoon of May 25, 2010, less than two days before the scheduled hearing, Shapiro filed a Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum of Mullis and attempted to set that motion for hearing. See Appendix to Petition, 13. Despite the undersigned’s unavailability, Shapiro noticed the hearing for the following day, May 26, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. 20. Candidly, the undersigned believed that the hearing would not proceed, given the incredibly short notice, his unavailability, and the lack of any 1 Oddly, Shapiro seemed to believe that evidence supporting disqualification had to be fleshed out in discovery and that the presentation of evidence at the dulynoticed, evidentiary hearing was not permitted. Suffice it to say that this position was non-sensical and contrary to law. See analysis, infra. 8
emergency. After all, even if, arguendo, the subpoena were somehow improper, there was nothing stopping the lower court from quashing it at the start of the hearing on May 27, 2010 (before Mullis’ testimony and before anything objectionable was produced). Nonetheless, on May 26, 2010 at approximately 11:05 a.m., as the undersigned was in chambers for a different hearing, in a different case, in a different county, the lower court telephoned that judge’s chambers and, over objection, ordered the undersigned to argue the hearing via phone. 2 See Appendix to Petition, 14. The lower court then quashed the subpoena of Mullis, ruling “If Judge Levens thinks that testimony is necessary, then he can have that taken or have the hearing continued for that testimony at a later time.” See Appendix to Petition, 14, p. 9. A written Order quashing the subpoena ensued. See Appendix to Petition, 15. 21. On May 27, 2010, the lower court conducted a hearing on the Motion to Disqualify Counsel. The motion was verified, but except for the facts verified in the motion, neither side presented any evidence. See Appendix to Petition, 16. Of course, Petitioners had been precluded from presenting evidence, by way of testimony and documentation from Mullis, because the court had quashed the subpoena. See Appendix to Petition, 14, 15. 2 The judge presiding over that hearing, Judge Pendino, was not even the judge presiding over the case. See Appendix to Petition, 16. 9
Page 1 and 2: MARCUS FRANKLIN and MELISSA FRANKLI
Page 3 and 4: Exhibit “A.” As such, it is axi
Page 5 and 6: was executed in Harris County, Texa
Page 7: Essentially, Shapiro argued that th
Page 11 and 12: was largely predicated), purportedl
Page 13 and 14: 52-53. A written Order followed, se
Page 15 and 16: provides: 30. Meanwhile, Rule 4-1.1
Page 17 and 18: 33. The Comment to Rule 4-1.7, R.Re
Page 19 and 20: II. THE LOWER COURT’S FAILURE TO
Page 21 and 22: MERS (and hence has a conflict unde
Page 23 and 24: 45. Petitioners could go on and on
Page 25 and 26: esponsibilities to each client and
Page 27 and 28: 54. Respectfully, it would be hard
Page 29: CONCLUSION 57. In light of the fore

Denial of Motion to DQ â Cert Petition - Stopa Law Firm

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

Denial of Motion to DQ â Cert Petition - Stopa Law Firm