Mr. Matson

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that declined to appoint independent counsel for the corporate plaintiff in a shareholder dispute.

The court found that the moving parties failed to establish conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

On a procedural motion concerning the mode of hearing for a motion for leave to appeal, the court held that the amended Rule 62.02(2), effective January 1, 2015, required the leave motion to be heard in writing without attendance of parties or lawyers.

The responding parties argued for an oral hearing based on counsel correspondence, alleged prejudice, and Rules 1.04 and 2.03, but the court found procedural enactments apply retrospectively absent contrary language.

The court distinguished authority granting relief from strict compliance with new expert report rules, finding no comparable trial fairness concern.

The leave motion was directed to proceed in writing and no costs were awarded.

In a corporate governance dispute among shareholders and directors of closely held corporations, the individual plaintiffs moved for an order appointing independent counsel to oversee and control the corporate plaintiffs.

The applicants argued that independent counsel was necessary to represent the corporations’ interests where conflicts existed between shareholders and directors.

The court held that appointing independent counsel would add cost and delay while providing no practical benefit, particularly because the corporate claims had been stayed and any counsel would require instructions from directors who were defendants in the litigation.

The court concluded that such counsel would face an unavoidable conflict of interest and could not act effectively.

The motion was therefore dismissed.