Valery v. Wells Fargo & Company
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-05464
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Valery v. Wells Fargo, Judge Oetken denied without prejudice Valery’s withdrawn motion to disqualify defense counsel.
Ernst Valery, Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and McGuireWoods.
What happened
In Valery v. Wells Fargo & Company, Ernst Valery asked to withdraw his motion to disqualify McGuireWoods, the law firm representing Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The motion had been filed in another federal court and was later pending in this case.
Valery said withdrawing the motion did not waive the issues raised in it. He said those issues could be addressed in a related Maryland state-court case. Wells Fargo did not object to the withdrawal and took no position on Valery’s reasons.
Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Valery’s request and denied the motion to disqualify without prejudice. The opinion does not decide the underlying disqualification issues.
The detailed version
- Valery v. Wells Fargo & Company · No. 1:21-cv-05464
- James Oetken
- Mar. 11, 2022
Background Ernst Valery was represented by Beck & Lee in this matter. He had filed a motion asking the court to disqualify McGuireWoods, the firm representing defendants Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The letter states that the motion was originally filed in the Northern District of California and was later pending before the Southern District of New York.
Parties’ Positions Valery elected to withdraw the motion at that time. He stated that he did not intend to abandon or waive the issues raised in the motion, but believed they would be better addressed in a related Maryland state-court proceeding, identified in the opinion by its case number and caption. Wells Fargo did not object to withdrawing the motion and took no position on Valery’s reasons.
Ruling Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Valery’s request. The court denied the motion to disqualify without prejudice. The order did not resolve the merits of whether McGuireWoods should be disqualified.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.