Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case 22SMCV01853 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV01853, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01853 Hearing Date: May 5, 2023 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Von Neitsch v. Naysan, Case No. 22SMCV01853

Hearing Date 5/5/2023

Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Defendants’ Counsel for Conflict of Interest

In this dental malpractice matter, plaintiff Von Neitsch alleges defendant’s counsel is representing Kouroush Maddahi, DDS, with whom she consulted about her injuries, in unrelated litigation. Plaintiff argues Dr. Maddahi consulted with her regarding her injuries allegedly caused by defendants herein and may be called as a witness. Plaintiff argues Dr. Maddahi may be reluctant to testify on her behalf given his attorney-client relationship with defense counsel, and/or may share her confidential information with counsel. She moves to disqualify defense attorneys Yee Lam and Brian P. Kamel.

A party who is not a client or former client nonetheless has standing to bring a motion to disqualify, where “the ethical breach is manifest and glaring[.]” Kennedy v. Eldridge (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1203. A non-client seeking to disqualify opposing counsel must show harm arising from a “legally cognizable interest which is concrete and particularized, not hypothetical.” Great Lakes Construction, Inc. v. Jim Burman et al. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1355.

Plaintiff fails to clear the high bar for non-clients seeking to disqualify opposing counsel. Dr. Maddahi is not a party to this action, and plaintiff has not provided evidence that he has a direct interest in its outcome. She characterizes him as a “possible” witness in this action. Per the opposition, plaintiff has consulted with at least nine dentists regarding the work done by defendant Naysan, so it is far from certain that Dr. Maddahi would testify in this matter. Finally, she has not shown his testimony is so essential to her case that the hypothetical prejudice to her would outweigh the profound prejudice defendants would suffer as a result of having their attorney disqualified. Plaintiff failed to show a concrete, non-speculative conflict of interest. Disqualification of opposing counsel is a drastic remedy not justified here. DENIED.