U.S. District Judge Stephen M. McBride on May 15 denied J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation LLC's motion to remove Michael Licata, Daniel Bonnet, and their firm, Martin & Bonnett PLLC, from the case.
JET argued the lawyers violated Arizona ethical rules by posing as potential customers to obtain information about FASTRAK Technologies, a software provider that tracks driver work and pay.
Licata emailed FASTRAK in September 2025 asking if trip records could be exported with per-trip compensation data.
When a customer service representative named Jessi asked what company he was with, Licata replied: "Hi, trying to figure out if the compensation reports exportable from Fasstrack [sic] can be linked up to the trip record associated with the trip. I am doing research on reservation systems."
Licata also sent a follow-up email stating: "I know this functionality exists for Santa Cruz, wondering if this is also feasible in Fasstrak [sic]."
Santa Cruz is a competitor to FASTRAK.
Licata used his personal email and did not identify himself as an attorney or mention the pending litigation.
In December, Licata scheduled a virtual meeting with Jessi.
He informed her he was a lawyer of the call and invited Bonnet to join.
Jessi demonstrated the software under the impression the lawyers were starting a limousine company.
At the end of the meeting, Licata and Bonnet requested a copy of the video, telling Jessi they were "in litigation with one of your customers."
JET argued the conduct violated Rules 4.1, 4.3, 7.1, and 8.4 of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.
The court applied Arizona law, noting disqualification is an "extreme remedy" subjected to "strict scrutiny."
"The central question in any disqualification inquiry is whether there will be harm, going forward in a case, from an attorney's representation of a client," McBride wrote.
JET claimed it was damaged by having to expend billable hours to investigate the lawyers' conduct and consult with FASTRAK to correct misstatements.
The company also argued it would be disadvantaged if the lawyers used information obtained under false pretenses to support motions to compel.
McBride found JET failed to establish "substantial and irreparable harm."
The court noted the information obtained was "relatively benign" and consisted of general details about software capabilities.
"Resources are expended any time a motion is filed, and thus, cannot amount to an extreme circumstance justifying disqualification," McBride wrote.
The judge questioned the extent of the burden on JET, noting the interactions involved less than 10 short emails and one product demonstration.
"Only one of the emails included substantive information about FT," McBride wrote.
The court also found JET's concern about future evidentiary issues "speculative."
"JET has not demonstrated how ordinary litigation tools such as discovery and other evidentiary mechanisms are ineffective to remedy any injury caused by Counsel in this matter," McBride wrote.
The judge emphasized that ethical violations do not automatically warrant disqualification.
"It is not this Court's role to impose sanctions for the ethical obligations imposed by, and policed by, the State Bar of Arizona," McBride wrote.
The court vacated oral argument scheduled for June 2, 2026.