Stolfat v. Equifax Information Services, LLC.
9:19-cv-80428
S.D. Fla.Jun 14, 2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jelena Stolfat moved to disqualify Trans Union’s counsel Michael Merar (out‑of‑state) and Alexandra Tifford (local) and to revoke Merar’s pro hac vice admission, alleging Merar practiced without authorization and used intimidation.
- Merar contacted Stolfat by email beginning April 29, 2019; Tifford filed the pro hac vice motion for Merar on May 9, 2019; Merar was admitted May 10, 2019.
- Before Merar’s admission, local counsel Tifford (and Christopher Knight) signed and filed Trans Union’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses.
- Trans Union opposed the motion, arguing timely pro hac vice practice, compliance with rules, lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate or refer unauthorized practice claims, and procedural deficiencies in Stolfat’s filing.
- The Court found no basis to disqualify counsel or revoke pro hac vice admission because no rule violation occurred during the short interval before formal admission.
- The Court criticized portions of Trans Union’s response as frivolous and misleading regarding the Court’s jurisdiction to address or refer unauthorized‑practice allegations, and ordered Tifford, Knight, and Merar to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel engaged in unauthorized practice of law | Merar contacted plaintiff before pro hac vice filing and practiced without admission; Tifford aided him | Counsel timely moved for pro hac vice; local counsel filed pleadings during interim; no unauthorized practice | Denied — no unauthorized practice shown; local counsel signed filings before Merar’s admission so no rule violation |
| Whether Merar’s pro hac vice admission should be revoked | Merar’s pre‑admission communications/support justify revocation | No Rule or Local Rule was violated; revocation not warranted | Denied — no grounds to revoke pro hac vice admission |
| Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate or refer unauthorized practice issues | (N/A) | Argued court lacks jurisdiction to address unauthorized practice or to refer to Florida Bar | Rejected — S.D. Fla. Local Rules incorporate Florida Bar rules and the court can sanction, refer, or take other action; referrals to Florida Bar are proper |
| Whether defense counsel’s Response is frivolous and merits sanctions | Alleged improper arguments and intimidation by defense counsel | Response defended positions and cited authority | Court found portions of Response frivolous/misleading and ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bagdade, 334 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2003) (affirming civil contempt and sanctioning attorney for unauthorized practice, false statements, and perjury)
- Adams v. BellSouth Telecommunications, [citation="45 F. App'x 876"] (11th Cir. 2002) (discussing district court findings on alleged unauthorized practice and discipline)
- In re Calzadilla, 151 B.R. 622 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1993) (enjoining attorneys and a law firm from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law)
- In re Bachmann, 113 B.R. 769 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1990) (contemplating contempt and ordering injunctive relief against unauthorized practice)
- Elam v. Bank of New York Mellon, 589 B.R. 431 (S.D. Fla. 2018) (example of district court referring attorney misconduct to state bar)