Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Document 454

Filed 04/27/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS No. 03-2684L and No. 01-568L (consolidated) (Filed: April 27, 2007) ____________________________________ ) SHELDON PETERS WOLFCHILD, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)

ORDER By motion and an accompanying affidavit [424], a group of forty-six intervening plaintiffs headed by Ms. Shirley Abdo-Arrow ("Abdo-Arrow group") seeks leave to substitute Mr. Ron J. Volesky and Mr. Gary J. Montana for its current counsel, Mr. Garrett J. Horn. On February 23, 2007, Mr. Horn and Mr. Creighton A. Thurman filed a response [429] objecting to the substitution of counsel, accusing Messrs. Montana and Volesky of having violated Rule 4.2 of the American Bar Association's Rules of Professional Conduct, which rule governs communications with persons represented by counsel. The government has responded [430] that it does not oppose the substitution of counsel, but it notes that not all of those on the list of intervening plaintiffs included in the Abdo-Arrow group's motion appeared in the previous motions to intervene and complaints in intervention filed by Mr. Horn on behalf of several groups of intervening plaintiffs. In the circumstances, the government has objected to the AbdoArrow group's motion to the extent that it attempts to add to the case new intervening plaintiffs whose motions to intervene the court has not previously granted. Thereafter, on March 12, 2007, the Abdo-Arrow group amended its motion to substitute counsel [438], reiterating that the members of the group had executed retainer agreements with Messrs. Montana and Volesky and had terminated their retainer agreements with Mr. Horn. In an effort to address the government's concerns about using the motion to substitute counsel as a vehicle to add intervening plaintiffs to the case, the Abdo-Arrow group included in its amended motion a corrected list of its members. The government subsequently filed a response [447] to the amended motion, contending that discrepancies remain between the Abdo-Arrow group's

1

Case 1:03-cv-02684-CFL

Document 454

Filed 04/27/2007

Page 2 of 2

amended membership list and those intervening plaintiffs who are currently represented by Mr. Horn and are already parties to the case. The court notes that the so-called Abdo-Arrow group actually constitutes a subset of the persons seeking addition to the intervening plaintiffs comprising the Julia DuMarce group. See Wolfchild v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 511, 519 (1006). In all events, the Abdo-Arrow group's motion to substitute counsel [424] is GRANTED. Any ethical violations that counsel may wish to raise must be directed to the appropriate local bar regulatory authority. To clarify the derivation of the expanded Julia DuMarce group insofar as the AbdoArrow subset is concerned, counsel for the Julia DuMarce group shall file on or before May 10, 2007 an amended list of its members. That list must cite each individual's name and identify by docket number the previous complaint in intervention in which any such individual was listed. It is so ORDERED.

s/ Charles F. Lettow Judge

2