Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01973/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01973-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

19cv1973-JM-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALCALA PHARMACEUTICAL, 

INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v.

RNB HOLDINGS, LLC,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 19cv1973-JM-MDD

ORDER DISQUALIFYING 

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL 

MATTHEW RIFAT

[ECF NO. 15]

On December 5, 2019, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause 

requiring counsel for Plaintiff, Matthew Rifat, Esq., to notify the Clerk 

regarding certain felony charges pending against him in the California 

Superior Court in Riverside County and to demonstrate why he should be 

allowed to continue to represent Plaintiff in this case, as required by Civil 

Local Rule 83.5. (ECF No. 13). On December 6, 2019, Mr. Rifat notified the 

Clerk of the charges. (ECF No. 14). On December 11, 2019, Mr. Rifat moved 

the Court to allow him to continue to represent Plaintiff. For the reasons 

provided below, Mr. Rifat’s motion is DENIED. 

//

Case 3:19-cv-01973-JM-MDD Document 16 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19cv1973-JM-MDD

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

DISCUSSION

Civil Local Rule 83.5(b) states, in part:

 1. Any attorney charged with or convicted of a felony must 

report the charge or conviction within fourteen (14) days to the 

Clerk of Court.

 ...

3. A non-court appointed attorney charged with a felony 

must show cause why he or she should not be removed from any 

pending civil or criminal case due to a conflict of interest. It will be 

the attorney’s burden to demonstrate to each judge assigned a 

case on which the charged attorney wishes to appear that there is 

no conflict and the attorney can appropriately discharge his or her 

duties to the client. 

In his Motion to remain as counsel for Plaintiff, Mr. Rifat asserts that 

his client is aware of the charges against him and wishes that he remain as 

counsel. (ECF No. 15-2, ¶¶ 15-17). Mr. Rifat states that the charges against 

him have no connection to his representation of Plaintiff. (Id.). Mr. Rifat is 

vigorously defending himself against these very serious charges and correctly 

points out that he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. (ECF No. 15-2,

¶ 13). Nonetheless, being subject to significant criminal charges must be 

stressful and distracting. 

If that is all there was to this, the Court likely would accede to the 

wishes of Plaintiff and allow Mr. Rifat to continue as its attorney. But, there 

is more to the story. 

Mr. Rifat acknowledges that he is a prospective witness in this case. 

(ECF Nos. 10 at 3; 15-2, ¶ 15). Although starting out as a contract 

dispute/collections case, Defendant’s Amended Counterclaims allege 

misrepresentations by Plaintiff inducing Defendant to enter into the subject 

contract. Of concern here, Defendant specifically asserts that representations 

were made by Mr. Rifat, which representations are alleged to have been false. 

Case 3:19-cv-01973-JM-MDD Document 16 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19cv1973-JM-MDD

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

(ECF No. 8, ¶¶ 22, 23).

California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a) provides:

A lawyer shall not act as an advocate in a trial in the which the 

lawyer is likely to be a witness unless:

1. the lawyer’s testimony relates to an uncontested issue;

2. the lawyer’s testimony relates to the nature and value of legal 

services rendered in the case; or,

3. the lawyer has obtained informed written consent from the 

client.

Although the rule allows continued representation where the client consents 

to the attorney’s dual role, a trial court has discretion to disqualify counsel. 

See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bay Club Fairbanks 

Ranch, LLC d/b/a Fairbanks Ranch Country Club, Inc., No. 18-cv-1853-WBLM, 2019 WL 5788446, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2019). 

Mr. Rifat has declared that his client, through its principals, wants him 

to remain as counsel, but does not state that he has obtained “informed 

written consent” from the client. Nonetheless, the Court is cognizant that in 

exercising its discretion under Rule 3.7(a), the court must “weigh the 

competing interests of the parties against potential adverse effects on the 

integrity of the proceeding before it and ‘should resolve the close case in favor 

of the client’s right to representation by an attorney of [its] choice....’”

Smith, Smith & Kring v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. App. 4th, 573, 580 (1977) 

(quoting Lyle v. Superior Court, 122 Cal. App. 3d, 470, 482 (1981)). 

This is not a close case. Mr. Rifat admits that he is a prospective 

witness and, based on the allegations of Defendant’s counterclaims, his 

testimony will be contested. It is very early in the case; the Court vacated its 

Early Neutral Evaluation/Case Management Conference to consider the 

question of Mr. Rifat’s continued representation of Plaintiff. The progress of 

the case would be impacted significantly should the Court allow Mr. Rifat to 

Case 3:19-cv-01973-JM-MDD Document 16 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19cv1973-JM-MDD

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

continue as counsel at this time, only to have him forced to withdraw after 

litigation has fully commenced and strategic legal decisions have been made. 

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated that “[t]he policy 

rationale for prohibiting representation is to avoid placing the advocate in the 

‘unseemly and ineffective position’ of arguing his own credibility....” In re 

Johnston Hawks Ltd., 885 F. 2d 875, No. 88-1926, 1989 WL 107841, at *3 

(9th Cir. Sept. 12, 1989) (citation omitted). It seems inevitable in this case 

that Mr. Rifat will end up in that “unseemly and ineffective position.” Better 

for Plaintiff to obtain new counsel now rather than down the road where its 

options may be more circumscribed. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Mr. Rifat’s Motion to Continue as Counsel is DENIED. Mr. Rifat is 

DISQUALIFIED from continued representation of Plaintiff in this case 

other than to assist Plaintiff in obtaining new counsel. Plaintiff must obtain 

new counsel who must make an appearance within 30 days. Following the 

appearance of new counsel, the Court will reschedule the vacated hearing. If 

new counsel does not appear within 30 days, the Court will set the matter for 

a status hearing re: counsel. Mr. Rifat may appear at that hearing and 

provide any reasons for Plaintiff’s inability to obtain new counsel at that 

time. 

Dated: December 16, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01973-JM-MDD Document 16 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4