PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas, 2:21-cv-02129

PlayUp, Inc. (plaintiff) sued Dr. Laila Mintas (defendant) in the District of Nevada (2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK).
Defendant moved to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel and sought monetary sanctions, alleging counsel made extrajudicial public statements in violation of Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6.
Plaintiff opposed and filed a counter-motion for sanctions, asserting the disqualification motion was frivolous and tactically motivated.
Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe considered both motions without a hearing and issued a single order on January 20, 2023.
The court applied the high burden for disqualification, explaining it is a drastic remedy and requires a clear rule violation that poses a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the proceedings.
The court denied both the motion to disqualify and both sides’ requests for monetary sanctions, finding no clear rule violation or sufficient basis for sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff’s counsel should be disqualified for alleged extrajudicial statements violating NRPC 3.6	Counsel’s public statements did not materially prejudice the case and were permissible; any prejudice can be cured at trial (voir dire)	Counsel’s extrajudicial statements will substantially likely materially prejudice the adjudicative proceeding and warrant disqualification	Denied — defendant failed to show a clear rule violation or substantial likelihood of material prejudice; disqualification is not warranted now
Whether monetary sanctions should be imposed for filing the disqualification motion / counter-motion	Plaintiff: defendant’s disqualification motion was frivolous and tactical, so sanctions are appropriate	Defendant: her motion was legitimate and not sanctionable; (she also sought sanctions in her own filing)	Denied — court declined to impose sanctions on either side; filings did not meet the standard for monetary sanctions

Hernandez v. Guglielmo, 796 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Nev. 2011) (disqualification is drastic and courts should hesitate to impose it)
Optyl Eyewear Fashion Int’l Corp. v. Style Cos., Ltd., 760 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1985) (motions to disqualify require strict scrutiny due to potential for abuse)
In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 658 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir. 1981) (concerns supporting disqualification must not be merely speculative)
Kalinauskas v. Wong, 808 F. Supp. 1469 (D. Nev. 1992) (three-part test for disqualification: rule violation, effect on integrity/public view, and seriousness relative to client’s choice of counsel)
Ignacio v. People of Territory of Guam, 413 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1969) (prejudice from publicity can be addressed at trial through voir dire and other means)
In re County of Los Angeles, 223 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2000) (federal courts apply state law in disqualification questions and must predict state court rulings when unclear)
Crockett & Myers, Ltd. v. Napier, Fitzgerald & Kirby, LLP, 583 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2009) (guidance on predicting state supreme court rulings when state law is unsettled)
Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1990) (magistrate judges have authority to resolve certain non-dispositive sanctions matters)