Plaintiff sued Debtors, one of whom had worked for Plaintiff as an account representative, to determine the dischargeability of debt that included debt assigned to Plaintiff by one of its customers.   Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel, which had also represented the customer, on the ground that if the amount paid by Plaintiff to the customer for her claims turned out to exceed the amount of any debt owed by Defendants to the customer, Plaintiff might sue the customer to recover the difference.  The Court denied the motion because the motion was based on speculation, not an actual conflict, and because Defendants had not timely filed a motion to disqualify, having raised the issue in January 2007 in state court litigation.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION