Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Meidinger v. City of Rapid

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division

April 24, 2014

RANDALL J. MEIDINGER, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF RAPID CITY; and PETER RAGNONE; STEVE ALLENDER; JOHN LEAHY, and SAM KOOIKER, in their individual capacities. Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL (DOC. 84)

JOHN SIMKO, Magistrate Judge.

Pending is Plaintiff Randall Meidinger's motion to disqualify defense counsel. (Doc. 84).

BACKGROUND

This is a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 case in which a Report and Recommendation was recently filed. The Recommendation is to grant the motions for summary judgment of all defendants except Peter Ragnone. Meidinger's claim under the Fourth Amendment survives against defendant Peter Ragnone. Ragnone is employed by Rapid City as a police officer with the police department.

Meidinger brings this motion to disqualify under SDCL Ch. 16-18, App., Rule 1.7 of the Professional Rules of Conduct. Rule 1.7 provides:

(a) Except as provided by paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;
(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or same matter before a tribunal; and
(4) each affected client gives informed consent, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.