Opinion ID: 1957625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Agcom Litigation

Text: Blount also argues that Moore's involvement in the Agcom litigation is substantially related to the current case. Blount's brief, at 19. More specifically, he states: An important issue under consideration is whether the assets of Alabama [Recycling], which were the subject of the sale by Blount, constituted assets which were the subject of the bond issue. In other words, did Alabama [Recycling] own those assets and were they actually assets which were the subject of the bond indebtedness and/or liens. Moore's prior representation of Alabama [Recycling] necessarily included issues relating to the [indenture]. These issues are central to the current case brought by Regions Bank. Blount's brief, at 20. Regions contends that Blount never showed how the work Moore did defending Alabama [Recycling] in Southern Agcom is substantially related to Regions v. Blount.  Petition, at 24. Regions presented Moore's affidavit, which stated, in pertinent part: 4. The [Kaufman] billing records... reflect that I assisted Tom DeBray, at that time a partner with [Kaufman], in the representation of Alabama [Recycling] and the [Board] as defendants in an action filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama, styled Southern Agcom, Inc. v. Alabama Protein Recycling, L.L.C. and the Industrial Development Board of the City of Troy, Alabama, Case No. 99-CV-907. [That] action arose out of a dispute between Southern Agcom, Inc., and Alabama [Recycling] and [the Board] regarding the construction of a facility for Alabama [Recycling] that would process chickens. 5. According to the [Kaufman] billing records, my representation of Alabama [Recycling] and [the Board] consisted of 12.3 billable hours in which I attended one scheduling conference, drafted a motion for leave to amend an answer, an amended answer, a witness list and deposition notices, and performed general research. It appears from the billing records that I worked on this matter in October 1999 (1.2 hours) and May 2000 (11.1) hours. 6. I did not recall representing Alabama [Recycling] or [the Board] while at [Kaufman] until said representation was recently brought to my attention by Tom DeBray.... Based upon my review of the billing records, it does appear that I was peripherally involved in Tom DeBray's and [Kaufman's] representation of Alabama [Recycling] and [the Board]. Notably, based upon my review of the federal court's Southern Agcom file, I did not even enter an appearance in the Southern Agcom case. 7. Based upon my review of the complaint in the Regions suit and the Southern Agcom complaint, the issues raised in the Southern Agcom action, a construction dispute, are not in any way related to the issues in the Regions suit, the sale of trucks.  (Emphasis added.) We agree with Regions that the work Moore performed for Alabama Recycling in the Agcom litigation is not substantially related to this case. Blount insists that Moore's prior representation of Alabama [Recycling] necessarily included issues relating to the [indenture], and that those issues are central to the current case brought by Regions. However, he does not identify those issues or explain how the same issues would be central both to a breach-of-contract action by a Georgia corporation against Alabama Recycling alleging failure to pay for the construction of a poultry-processing facility and to a conversion action against Blount alleging the unauthorized sale of trucks assigned to Regions. Although the indenture may become an issue in this case, there is no evidence that any of its provisions was in issue in the Agcom litigation. Thus, it has not been shown how Moore would have acquired confidential information regarding the indenture during her prior representation of Alabama Recycling. In short, there is no evidence indicating that Sellers or Moore has represented Blount or BP in any matter that is substantially related to this case. Blount speaks only in generalities, which are insufficient to satisfy his burden of proof as to the existence of a conflict of interest. Ex parte State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra. Otherwise stated, Regions has demonstrated a clear, legal right to a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying Balch. PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. NABERS, C.J., and SEE, LYONS, HARWOOD, BOLIN, and PARKER, JJ., concur. STUART and SMITH, JJ., recuse themselves.