A group of plaintiffs who last year sued current and former Department of Energy contractors at the Portsmouth Site in Ohio have asked a federal court for a four-month delay in the case while they replace two Florida attorneys, one of which is apparently facing disbarment proceedings back home.
The plaintiffs, including former Portsmouth security guard Jeffrey Walburn, filed a motion May 20 in the U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio asking Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers to grant a delay of “at least” 120 days.
On May 11, a local Ohio attorney who also represents the plaintiffs learned one of the trial lawyers being relied upon to argue the complaint, Tim Howard, faces disbarment for a “startling number of violations of the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct.”
The other Florida attorney, Dick Collins, knew of the ongoing disbarment proceedings against Howard but did not disclose that information to the plaintiffs’ local lawyer, Nathan Hunter. Collins filed a motion with the court Wednesday offering to withdraw, adding however he has experience in class action litigation that would be valuable to the case.
No ruling on the 120-day extension request was available among online filings as of deadline Thursday for Weapons Complex Morning Briefing.
The two out-of-state lawyers, who the plaintiffs now seek to remove, were granted “pro hac vice” or “for this occasion only” permission to practice in the federal district court in Ohio in February. The motions filed by the plaintiffs at that time, said both were “in good standing” with Florida’s highest court.
The federal district court was already considering motions to dismiss filed in March by defendants such as Centrus Energy and Lockheed Martin, among others. An amended complaint by the plaintiffs in January alleged defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). It also all claimed contractors and individual managers falsified records on workplace radioactive exposure to employees as well as off-site release of contamination.
The defendants countered that the plaintiffs’ claims are either filed too late, or lack a factual basis, or both. The plaintiffs want additional time to file another amended complaint.
