TAL Properties of Pomona, LLC v. Village of Pomona
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-06838
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In TAL Properties v. Village of Pomona, Judge Halpern granted plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify Michael H. Sussman and his firm from representing Noreen Shea.
TAL Properties of Pomona, LLC and Avrohom Manes obtained the disqualification order; Michael H. Sussman and Sussman & Associates may not represent Defendant Noreen Shea in this action.
What happened
TAL Properties of Pomona, LLC and Avrohom Manes asked the court to remove Michael H. Sussman and Sussman & Associates as lawyers for Defendant Noreen Shea. They argued that Sussman had previously represented them in a related federal case and had obtained confidential information relevant to this case.
The court applied a three-part test for disqualifying a lawyer who previously represented an opposing client. It found that Sussman had represented the plaintiffs, that the earlier case and this case were substantially related because both involved alleged religious discrimination connected to construction of a home, and that the law presumed relevant confidential information had been shared.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the plaintiffs’ motion. Michael H. Sussman and Sussman & Associates were disqualified from representing Noreen Shea in the present action, and the Clerk was instructed to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- TAL Properties of Pomona, LLC v. Village of Pomona · No. 7:19-cv-06838
- Philip Halpern
- Dec. 30, 2020
Background
Plaintiffs TAL Properties of Pomona, LLC and Avrohom Manes moved to disqualify Michael H. Sussman and his firm, Sussman & Associates, from representing Defendant Noreen Shea. Plaintiffs argued that Sussman had represented them in a prior federal lawsuit and, through that representation, had obtained and continued to withhold confidential and privileged documents concerning their claims. Sussman filed an affirmation opposing disqualification.
Legal standard
The court explained that disqualification is part of its inherent authority to supervise attorneys and may be necessary to protect the integrity of the adversary process. In a successive-representation case—where a lawyer previously represented a client and later represents an opposing party—disqualification is warranted when three conditions are met: (1) the moving party was the lawyer’s former client; (2) the earlier and current matters are substantially related; and (3) the lawyer had access, or was likely to have had access, to relevant privileged information.
Court’s analysis
The court found the first condition satisfied because Sussman undisputedly represented the plaintiffs in an earlier federal lawsuit, docket number 17-CV-02928, and also represented them in an earlier state-court action.
The court also found a substantial relationship between the earlier and current cases. The earlier case asserted a religious-discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Village of Pomona and certain Village officials. It alleged that the plaintiff faced discrimination when defendants refused to issue a certificate of occupancy and engaged in other discriminatory conduct related to construction of a home. The current action includes broader allegations and additional claims, but also asserts claims against the Village and Village officials and alleges religious discrimination related to construction of a home. The court therefore concluded that the matters were substantially related.
For the third condition, the court applied an irrebuttable presumption that relevant confidences were shared when the same lawyer handled substantially related prior and current representations. It rejected Sussman’s contrary argument, explaining that recent Second Circuit precedent supported the presumption. The court therefore presumed that Sussman had access, or was likely to have had access, to relevant privileged information.
Disposition
The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for disqualification. Michael H. Sussman and Sussman & Associates were disqualified from representing Noreen Shea in the present action. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the pending motion, identified as Doc. 124.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.