Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00149/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00149-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF GRASS VALLEY, )

) 2:04-cv-00149-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, a )

corporation; NEWMONT USA LIMITED, )

a corporation; NEWMONT NORTH )

AMERICAN EXPLORATION LIMITED, a )

corporation; NEW VERDE MINES LLC, )

a limited liability company; )

NEWMONT REALTY COMPANY, a )

corporation, )

 )

Defendants. )

)

Defendants move to disqualify Plaintiff’s outside counsel,

arguing that the outside counsel’s contingency fee arrangement with

the City violates a government attorney’s duty of neutrality. (Def.s’

Mot. at 3:6-14.) Plaintiff (hereinafter sometimes referenced as “the

City”) opposes the motion. For the following reasons, the motion is

denied. 

Case 2:04-cv-00149-DAD Document 381 Filed 11/20/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendants argue that the California Supreme Court’s

decision in People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court (Clancy), 39

Cal.3d 740, 750 (1985) compels disqualification of Plaintiff’s outside

counsel because Clancy held that a government entity could not hire

outside counsel on a contingency fee basis to litigate claims for

abatement of a public nuisance. (Def.s’ Mot. at 3:19-24.) The City

includes in its Complaint, inter alia, a claim for abatement of public

nuisance. (Pl.’s Compl. at 10:16-12:6.) Defendants assert that the

City’s lead trial counsel is being compensated on a contingency fee

basis. (Def.s’ Mot. at 2:7-16.) The City counters that it is

authorized by California Government Code section 37101 to hire outside

counsel and that Clancy approves of hiring outside counsel where the

government retains control of the litigation. (Pl.’s Opp. at 2:6-12,

n.1.) 

Courts have the inherent power to disqualify counsel. 

Cargill Inc. v. Budine, 2007 WL 1813762, *7 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2007). 

Motions to disqualify counsel are decided based on state law. In re

County of Los Angeles, 223 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2000). The party

seeking disqualification bears the burden of proving the conflict

alleged. United States v. Schafer, 2006 WL 3271290, *7 (E.D. Cal.

Nov. 12, 2006).

Even assuming arguendo that the City’s outside counsel is

hired on a contingency fee basis, Defendants have not countered

Plaintiff’s showing that the City Attorney for the City of Grass

Valley is acting as co-counsel in this action and the City retains

“ultimate decision-making authority in the case.” (Decl. of Jeffrey

Folz in Opp. ¶ 4; Pl.’s Opp. at 6:12-20.) Accordingly, Defendants’

motion is denied. Clancy, 39 Cal.3d at n.3 (distinguishing Sedelbauer

Case 2:04-cv-00149-DAD Document 381 Filed 11/20/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

v. State, 455 N.E.2d 1159, 1164 (Ind. App. 1983) because in that case

“the court approved the assistance of a private attorney only because

he appeared ‘not in place of the state’s duly authorized counsel.’”);

City and County of San Francisco v. Philip Morris, Inc., 957 F.Supp.

1130, 1135 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (“the Court finds that this case is

sufficiently distinguishable from Clancy [because outside counsel] is

acting here as co-counsel, with plaintiffs’ respective government

attorneys retaining full control over the course of the litigation.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00149-DAD Document 381 Filed 11/20/07 Page 3 of 3