When can a lawyer be disqualified?

Useful Resources for Lawyer’s Disqualification

Recent Rulings on Lawyer’s Disqualification

126-150 of 2169 results

THE MOTIVA GROUP INC VS GLOBAL IMPACT GROUP INC

In addition, a suspended corporation is disqualified from participating in litigation. Palm Valley Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Design MTC (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 553, 559.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THE MOTIVA GROUP INC VS GLOBAL IMPACT GROUP INC

In addition, a suspended corporation is disqualified from participating in litigation. Palm Valley Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Design MTC (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 553, 559.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CHARLENE TANG VS 829 FLOWER, LLC , ET AL.

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT PHYSICAL DISTANCING AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR NON-TRIAL AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING THIS MOTION. The Court makes the following disclosure: Judge Elaine Lu recently purchased a vacant duplex.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

C. FREDERICK WEHBA VS GREGORY M. BORDO

The receiving attorney assumes the risk of disqualification when that attorney elects to use the documents before the parties or the trial court has resolved the dispute over their privileged nature and the documents ultimately are found to be privileged.” McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1083, 1092–93 (obligations created under State Fund apply regardless of how or from whom counsel inadvertently received privileged documents).

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PEOPLE EX REL. CALONNE V. PINI

Depending on the circumstances, a disqualification motion may involve such considerations as a client’s right to chosen counsel, an attorney’s interest in representing a client, the financial burden on a client to replace disqualified counsel, and the possibility that tactical abuse underlies the disqualification motion. [Citations.] Nevertheless, determining whether a conflict of interest requires disqualification involves more than just the interests of the parties.” (People ex rel.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

NICOLE BRAZIER VS. ROBERT DOUGLAS FREY MD

Ruling on Motion For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to disqualify Offenbacher, but DENIES the motion to disqualify the SCR firm as counsel of record for defendants: (1) Rule 3-310 of the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from representing a client whose interests are adverse to those of a former client.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

NICOLE BRAZIER VS. ROBERT DOUGLAS FREY MD

Ruling on Motion For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to disqualify Offenbacher, but DENIES the motion to disqualify the SCR firm as counsel of record for defendants: (1) Rule 3-310 of the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from representing a client whose interests are adverse to those of a former client.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

NASSER SEDAGHAT VS TARZANA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

David Sedaghat’s motion to disqualify counsel Stewart J. Levin is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HORACE WILLIAMS JR. ET AL. VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING ET AL.

On December 9, 2029, a Remittitur was received by the Court from the Court of Appeal ordering that an appeal initiated by plaintiff’s notice of appeal of July 5, 2019 from an order striking plaintiff’s Fourth Statement of Disqualification was dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable order. The Remittitur states that respondents are to recover costs on appeal. The motions, including the instant motion, along with several other motions, were set for hearing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

WARDAK VS. WLOW PARTNERS LLC

App. 4th 477, the appellate court disqualified counsel from representing the LLC, but allowed counsel to continue to represent the other defendants. 192 Cal. App. 4th at 490-92. That remedy if applied here would merely disqualify Brower from representing WLOW. But a review of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which asserts both direct and derivative claims, shows that plaintiff did not name WLOW as a defendant in any of its nine causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

WARDAK VS. WLOW PARTNERS LLC

App. 4th 477, the appellate court disqualified counsel from representing the LLC, but allowed counsel to continue to represent the other defendants. 192 Cal. App. 4th at 490-92. That remedy if applied here would merely disqualify Brower from representing WLOW. But a review of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which asserts both direct and derivative claims, shows that plaintiff did not name WLOW as a defendant in any of its nine causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

JUSTIN HICKS VS BRETT SUTHERLIN, ET AL.

.: 3 Discover Motion C/O: 8-5-21 POS: OK Trial Date: 8-23-21 SUBJECT: MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL MOVING PARTY: Defendant/X-Complainants Fusionzone Automotive, LLC, Brett Sutherlin and Karen Sutherlin RESP. PARTY: None as of 10-13-20 TENTATIVE RULING Defendants/X-Complainants Fusionzone Automotive LLC, Brett Sutherlin and Karen Sutherlin’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel is GRANTED. I.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALL OF US OR NONE-L A CHAPTER ET AL VS L A UNIFIED SCHOOL DI

A potential petitioner is “entitled to receive counsel and assistance from all rehabilitative agencies, including the adult probation officer of the county and all state parole officers.” (§ 4852.04.) In the proceedings before the trial court, the petitioner is entitled to the assistance of appointed counsel. (§ 4852.08.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

KEVIN MODA VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC ET AL

However, Defendants’ reliance upon CCP § 170.3(b)(4) is misplaced as Judge Meiers did not recognize her own disqualification. Rather, the disqualification resulted from Judge Meiers’ failure to respond to the statement of disqualification. (Hayward v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

KRIESEL VS. HOLLAND

Failure to move in a timely manner to disqualify counsel may waive the right to disqualify, particularly when the delay has been extreme or unreasonable and created unreasonable prejudice to the opponent. [Liberty Nat'l Enterprises, L.P. v. Chicago Title Ins.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

MARSHALL GELLER VS ST. CLOUD CAPITAL II, LLC ET AL.,

of which the arbitrator was then aware; or (B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

SHAHROKH MOKHTARZADEH, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION VS ELNAZ HOUSHMAND NAGHASHAN, ET AL.

There is nothing in section 3439.04 that excludes attorneys’ fees debt or otherwise would disqualify SMPLC as a creditor under the UFTA. Accordingly, this argument is without merit. The Demurrer is OVERRULED as to this argument.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LEILA M LIM VS MAWI C LASET ET AL

. §664.6, the Court will provide all parties with an opportunity to seek a continuance: (1) to bring a disqualification motion before proceeding with the hearing and/or (2) to consider whether to bring such a motion for disqualification of the court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SUPERIOR COURT VS. BRENT OSTER FL COMPLAINT

—and this alone may disqualify him from relief in the causes of action he describes.8 However, that does not inform the decision made here by this Court. 7 The Silberg case references Prosser, Law of Torts 3rd ed. 1964. See Id. at 213-215 “The principal purpose of section [47(b)] is to afford litigants and witnesses the utmost freedom of access to the courts without fear of being harassed subsequently by derivative tort actions . . .

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

KUTA V. COLORTOKENS, INC.

CT’s legal counsel contacted Kuta to discuss the structuring of a severance agreement. (Patel decl., exh. 1.) Included in this discussion was a possible consulting agreement. (Id.) When Kuta did not respond to CT’s counsel, CT’s counsel then sent an email discussing the Promissory Note and terminated the proposed consulting agreement. (Id.) Kuta has not responded to the email and has not made any payments on the loan. (UMFs 18-20.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

LAKE LINDERO HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. VS CAROLINE FERADAY

Further, any comments by this Court about the factual and legal issues in the case, and the court’s rulings and findings – tentative or otherwise -- are not as a matter of law legal grounds for disqualification for cause. The pleadings demonstrate on their face no legal grounds for disqualification. Insofar as they purport to be statements of disqualification for cause, they are stricken pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 170.4, subdivision (b).

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

REGAL CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC VS UNIVERSAL HERBAL CENTER, INC.

the appearance by, the temporary judge first learned or arising after the temporary judge has made one or more rulings, but before the temporary judge has completed judicial action in the proceeding, the temporary judge, unless the disqualification or termination is waived, must disqualify himself or herself.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

MITCHENER VS. CLEAR START TODAY

Defendant Clear Start Today’s Motion to Disqualify West Coast Employment Lawyers, APLC as Class Counsel for Other Aggrieved Employees (ROA 20) is DENIED. Defendant has failed to demonstrate any conflict between Plaintiff and any aggrieved employees. The emails between counsel, exchanged before a lawsuit was filed, show that the initial $200,000 demand was only for Plaintiff’s individual claims, which included a proposed claim for wrongful termination.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

EDWARD CONTRERAS VS UVONNA DENISE ESKRIDGE, ET AL.

App. 4th 655, 663. “’The court must weigh the combined effect of a party’s right to counsel of choice, an attorney’s interest in representing a client, the financial burden on a client of replacing disqualified counsel and any tactical abuse underlying a disqualification proceeding against the fundamental principle that the fair resolution of disputes within our adversary system requires vigorous representation of parties by independent counsel unencumbered by conflicts of interest.’”

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

DCR MORTGAGE 7 SUB 2, LLC, VS NORTH AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,, ET AL.

Having been so advised, all parties (through Counsel) stated: (1) that they waive any right to bring a disqualification motion, and (2) that they wish to proceed with the hearing today. Procedural Background On March 20, 2020, Plaintiff DCR Mortgage 7 Sub 2, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against defendants North American Title Insurance Company and North American Title Company (collectively “Defendants”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 87     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.