When can a lawyer be disqualified?

Useful Resources for Lawyer’s Disqualification

Recent Rulings on Lawyer’s Disqualification

KATHLEEN JOHNSON V. THOMAS WOOLSON, ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Disqualify Counsel Tentative

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

YANG LAW, P.C. VS ROYA ANSARI

Ansari alleges that during the Underlying Action, Yang Law failed to inform her of valuable claims, failed to engage in meaningful discovery, assigned inexperienced attorneys to the matter, billed over $100,000 for matters of no value, failed to disqualify Nicholas Barton (“Barton”), the CPA of Ansari’s ex-husband who had come in as co-counsel of record for Ansari’s ex-husband in the Underlying Action, and forced Ansari to accept a settlement in the Underlying Action by threatening to substitute out as counsel

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

KIMBERLY A. ZAMBELL VS CHARLES E. HILL, AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY

Hill suggests that Driscoll should be disqualified as Plaintiff’s counsel in this litigation because Driscoll did not attach the third page of the March 8, 2020 letter “that contained defendant’s signature and the listing of the exhibits (i.e., the Hart & King termination letter [dated August 9, 2019])” in his opposition to Hill’s Special Motion to Strike Complaint Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

JONATHAN D KRAUT VS. LEVI QUINTANA, AN INDIVIDUAL

(6) An arbitrator making the award either: (A) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification 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

    Jan 15, 2021

RAUL ACEVES, ET AL. V. LEGACY PARTNERS, INC., ET AL.

On May 4, 2020, LP’s counsel proposed a schedule whereby Plaintiffs would appear for depositions on July 28 and 29 and LP would provide supplemental discovery responses on August 5, 2020. Counsel agreed that Plaintiffs would have 45 days after service of the supplemental responses to schedule an informal discovery conference with the Court and two more weeks to file any motion to compel. The parties also met and conferred about substantive discovery issues.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

BATTAGLIA VS RIVERSIDE TRANSIT ANGENCY

Notably in the present case, RTA seeks to disqualify Berkstresser but does not seek to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel as the recipient of confidential information – that is, RTA seeks to use the alleged conveyance of confidential/privileged information as an evidentiary tool to remove an obstacle to summary judgment of Plaintiff’s action. In this regard, RTA misreads Shadow Traffic (and similar cases).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

CREAMER VS. ATCHISSON

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR DISQUALIFY THE LAW FIRM OF LAW OFFICES ANDREW WOLF FILED BY MARILYN ATCHISSON * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel is denied. Plaintiffs, a husband, wife and child, sued defendants over habitability claims arising in early 2017. Defendants posit that an unwaivable conflict of interest has arisen among the plaintiffs because, years after this lawsuit was filed, one of them is alleged to have committed crimes against the other two.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP INC VS VALU MART CO

On September 29, 2020, the Court granted a motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel. According to Plaintiff, new counsel began representing Plaintiff on or about October 1, 2020. (Motion at p. 1.) On October 1, 2020, the Court signed the parties’ Case Management Order for Phase 2. Plaintiff argues that with new counsel, the pre-trial dates in the Case Management Order need to be continued so that the new counsel can become familiar with the case and can take discovery.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

OSMO, INC. VS. KIM

The Court denies Defendant/Cross-Complainant Diane Kim’s Motion to Disqualify Limnexus LLP as Counsel for Osmo. A court has inherent power “[t]o control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every manner pertaining thereto.” [CCP § 128(a)(5)]. This includes the power to disqualify counsel in appropriate cases. [In re Complex Asbestos Litig. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 572, 575.]

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

RENE SERNAS VS WKS RESTAURANT CORPORATION

“In exercising its discretion to disqualify counsel under the advocate-witness rule, a court must consider: (1) whether counsel's testimony is, in fact, genuinely needed; (2) the possibility [opposing] counsel is using the motion to disqualify for purely tactical reasons; and (3) the combined effects of the strong interest parties have in representation by counsel of their choice, and in avoiding the duplicate expense and time-consuming effort involved in replacing counsel already familiar with the case.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

TERRY HERRERA, ET AL. VS FULL CIRCLE REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

When faced with disqualifying an attorney for an alleged conflict of interest, courts have considered such interests as the clients' right to counsel of their choice, an attorney's interest in representing a client, the financial burden on the client of replacing disqualified counsel, and any tactical abuse underlying the disqualification proceeding. (In re Complex Asbestos Litigation (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 572, 586.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

ROSE DIPLOMAT LLC VS MARY NELSON ET AL

In its order granting the motion to vacate, the Court concluded that one of the arbitrators had not disclosed grounds for disqualification. Those ground were accepting employment on other matters with defense counsel’s firm while the arbitration was pending without disclosing the financial relationship, as well as ex parte communications between defense counsel and the arbitrator, which the arbitrator did not disclose.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC ET AL. VS THONG NGUYEN ET AL.

The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

NELSON VS. RILEY

Attorney for the Nelsons have moved this Court to disqualify Vernon Goins based on conflicting declarations regarding ownership of the property at issue from John Riley II and the Rileys. Neither the Rileys nor John Riley II have sought disqualification of counsel. Rather the Nelson’s attorney’s motion to disqualify Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

LUCA FOSCHINI VS SHALINI ANANDA

On August 18 and 20, 2020, counsel for Ananda substituted out leaving Ananda self-represented. On November 2, 2020, Ananda filed this motion to disqualify attorney Coles as counsel for Foschini. Ananda asserts that Coles improperly acted as a mediator at a mediation occurring on November 17, 2017, and therefore is disqualified from representing any party without written waivers of the conflict.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MOBILE FARMING SYSTEMS, INC. VS. PROBST

Finally, plaintiffs told the court at the August 13, 2020 Status Conference that they want to move forward with this case despite the stay of two other cases pending the appeal of the court granting motions to disqualify counsel. Defendant Probst is ordered to give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

LISA GOODRICH VS GUILLERMO EDUARDO PADILLA JR ET AL

The peremptory challenge, although submitted by counsel for both cross-defendants, does state that it is brought on behalf of Erik Goodrich, with the box checked “Cross Defendant.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

MOBILE FARMING SYSTEMS, INC. VS. PROBST

Finally, plaintiffs told the court at the August 13, 2020 Status Conference that they want to move forward with this case despite the stay of two other cases pending the appeal of the court granting motions to disqualify counsel. Defendant Probst is ordered to give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CITY OF INDUSTRY VS MARK RADECKI ET AL

Disqualification In this same motion, the Perez Defendants also move to disqualify David M. Gilmore as counsel for Plaintiff. (Motion, p. 2:8-9.) However, in their reply, Perez Defendants assert that “[a]s for the Perez Defendants’ request to disqualify Mr. Gilmore, that request is now moot given Plaintiff’s dismissal and Mr. Gilmore’s apparent acknowledgment that Plaintiff will not appeal the dismissal.” (Reply, p. 4:11-13.) The Court DENIES the Perez Defendants’ motion to disqualify David M.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MEENA ZAREH M D VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

On February 28, 2019, the court denied Defendants’ joint motion for terminating sanctions and disqualification of Plaintiff’s attorney. Defendants’ joint motion for terminating sanctions was brought on the grounds that Plaintiff had allegedly produced an edited version of the text messages she exchanged with Wusirika.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

WAGNER JR VS CONSOLIDATED ENTERTAINMENT INC

Counsel for plaintiff is ordered to destroy the inadvertently disclosed email. Defendants' requests for disqualification and sanctions are denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CITY OF INDUSTRY VS MARK RADECKI ET AL

Disqualification In this same motion, the Perez Defendants also move to disqualify David M. Gilmore as counsel for Plaintiff. (Motion, p. 2:8-9.) However, in their reply, Perez Defendants assert that “[a]s for the Perez Defendants’ request to disqualify Mr. Gilmore, that request is now moot given Plaintiff’s dismissal and Mr. Gilmore’s apparent acknowledgment that Plaintiff will not appeal the dismissal.” (Reply, p. 4:11-13.) The Court DENIES the Perez Defendants’ motion to disqualify David M.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NUCCO LLC VS NON-NEWTONIAN MANAGEMENT LLC

Conclusion For the reasons stated, Nucco's motion to disqualify NNM's counsel is DENIED without prejudice. Nucco is directed to serve notice on all parties within two court days of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOHN YANNOULATOS, ET AL. VS RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

COUNSEL ARE STRONGLY URGED TO SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING. IF AN APPEARANCE IS NECESSARY, COUNSEL ARE STRONGLY URGED TO APPEAR REMOTELY VIA LA COURT CONNECT RATHER THAN APPEAR IN PERSON. On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff Jill LaFace filed a Complaint against Ralphs Grocery Company, The Kroger Co., and Does (this action is hereinafter referred to as “LaFace”). On November 12, 2019, bench trial commenced in LaFace before Judge Patricia Nieto.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RITA HOLLYWOOD SKYLINE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS EMC PARTNERS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On the same day, Hollywood Skyline and Regency Sponsor filed a Motion to Disqualify EMC’s Counsel Skar Kirsh, LLP. Discussion MOTION TO SEAL Unless the law requires confidentiality, court records are presumed to be open to the public, pursuant to a potent “open court” policy undergirded by the First Amendment and favoring the public nature of court proceedings.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c); NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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.