Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00856/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00856-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rudy Anaya
Defendant
Paul Weldon
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL WELDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUDY ANAYA,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00856-DAD-MJS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

DISQUALIFICATION

(Doc. No. 24)

Plaintiff filed this action on June 8, 2015, alleging that defendant Rudy Anaya deprived 

him of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1986. (Doc. No. 1.) On September 23, 2016, 

plaintiff filed a “Notice of Disqualification of Erica Mercado Camarena and Affidavit in Support 

Thereof.” (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff’s notice was not a motion properly noticed for hearing under 

the Local Rules of this court.1 In any event, therein plaintiff alleges that Deputy City Attorney 

Camarena, who represents defendant in this action, has violated ABA Model Rule of Professional 

Conduct 1.9(b) by serving as counsel in the substantially related matter of Weldon v. Conlee, 

1:13-cv-00540-LJO-SAB. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff also alleges that Deputy City Attorney Camarena

/////

/////

 

1

Plaintiff is forewarned that despite his pro se status, he must comply with the Local Rules of 

this court as well as the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 1:15-cv-00856-DAD-MJS Document 32 Filed 12/21/16 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

has not taken the “public officer and employee” oath.2 (Id. at 1–3.) Plaintiff cites language from 

the United States Constitution and the California Constitution requiring certain government 

officials to take an oath of office. (Id.) For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s notice of 

disqualification, construed as a motion to disqualify, will be denied.

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9(b) provides that:

A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a 

substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer 

formerly was associated had previously represented a client

(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by 

Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter;

unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in 

writing.

However, “[b]ecause [federal courts] apply state law in determining matters of 

disqualification, we must follow the reasoned view of the state supreme court when it has spoken 

on the issue.” In re Cty. of L.A, 223 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2000). As applicable to members of 

the California bar, California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310(E) provides that:

A member shall not, without the informed written consent of the 

client or former client, accept employment adverse to the client or 

former client where, by reason of the representation of the client or 

former client, the member has obtained confidential information 

material to the employment.

Applying the appropriate ethical rule, plaintiff’s argument for disqualification of defense 

counsel fails because Deputy City Attorney Camarena’s representation in the present matter is not 

adverse to a prior client. Specifically, in plaintiff’s other case, Weldon v. Conlee, 1:13-cv-00540-

LJO-SAB, Deputy City Attorney Camarena served as the defendant’s counsel and did not 

represent plaintiff. In the present action Deputy City Attorney Camarena is again serving as 

defendant’s counsel and is not representing plaintiff. Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that 

Deputy City Attorney Camarena has ever represented him in any action. Accordingly, there are 

 

2 Attached as “Exhibit A” to plaintiff’s motion is a letter from Fresno City Clerk Yvonne Spence 

stating that “the City of Fresno does not require our employees to sign an oath of office.” (Doc. 

No. 24 at 4.)

Case 1:15-cv-00856-DAD-MJS Document 32 Filed 12/21/16 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

no grounds to find that Camarena violated Rule 1.9(b), or the relevant California Rule of 

Professional Conduct.

Likewise, plaintiff’s argument that Deputy City Attorney Camarena failed to take a proper 

oath of office is of no avail. Plaintiff has not identified any authority which would disqualify 

Deputy City Attorney Camarena from the present action based upon the lack of an oath of office. 

Consequently, plaintiff has not presented any grounds for disqualification of defense counsel.

For these reasons, plaintiff’s notice of disqualification (Doc. No. 24), construed as a 

motion, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00856-DAD-MJS Document 32 Filed 12/21/16 Page 3 of 3