arrow left
arrow right
  • NICK NICHOLS VS CITY OF BURBANK ET AL Civil Rights (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • NICK NICHOLS VS CITY OF BURBANK ET AL Civil Rights (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 12/30/2020 09:55 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by V. Dunn,Deputy Clerk 1 COREY W. GLAVE (State Bar No. 164746) Attorney at Law 2 632 S. Gertruda Ave Redondo Beach, CA 90277 3 Phone: (323) 547-0472 E-mail: POAattorney@aol.com 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 Nick Nichols 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES-NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT 8 9 NICK NICHOLS, ) Case No. EC064617 Plaintiff/Petitioner, ) Assigned for all purposes to 10 vs. ) Hon. Judge Ralph C. Hofer ) 11 CITY OF BURBANK, a municipal entity; ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BURBANK POLICE DEPARTMENT, a ) TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL 12 public entity; MARK SCOTT, in his ) ALFONSO ESTRADA AND THE LAW official and individual capacity; SCOTT ) FIRM OF ATKINSON, ANDELSON ET 13 LACHASSE, in his individual and official ) AL; DECLARATION OF TOMAS capacity; and DOES 1 through 20, ) PEREZ; DECLARATION OF RICHARD 14 inclusive, ) SHINEE Defendants. ) 15 ) ) Date: January 22, 2021 16 ) Time 8:30 a.m. ) Dept. NCG-D. 17 ________________________________ ) RES ID: 349939233317 18 TO THE COURT, DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 19 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 22, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter 20 as the matter may be heard in Department D of the above entitled Court, located at 600 21 E Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206, Plaintiff Nick Nichols will and hereby does move for 22 an order disqualifying attorney Alfonso Estrada and the law firm of Atkinson, Andelson, 23 Loya, Ruud & Romo from representing the Defendants in this action.. 24 This Motion is made on the grounds that Attorney Alfonso Estrada is “switching 25 sides” in this conflict as he was the labor defense attorney for Plaintiff Nichols’ police 26 partner Tomas Perez in the Porto I and II disciplinary appeal. Because an attorney has 27 a duty of undivided loyalty to his client and because an attorney’s dual representation of 28 1 __________________________________________________________ Motion to Disqualify Counsel