Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 21CHCV00095, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00095    Hearing Date: May 2, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 5-2-24

Case #21CHCV00095, Pacific Grove Association vs. Henry Martinez, et al.

Trial Date: 2-5-25

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Pacific Grove Association

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff has moved for an order disqualifying opposing counsel.

RULING: Motion to disqualify counsel is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Pacific Grove Association (Plaintiff) has moved for an order disqualifying the counsel of Defendants Henry Martinez and Veronica Martinez. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ counsel, Randall M. Awad, should be disqualified from representing Defendants’ because Awad is ineligible to practice law in the State of California. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Awad on January 19, 2024, notifying him that Plaintiff’s counsel had discovered that Awad was no longer eligible to practice law in the State of California after a search of the State Bar website. Plaintiff’s counsel asked who would be substituting in as counsel in this matter. Awad did not reply to that letter and has not filed the notice of his ineligibility to practice law in California.

ANALYSIS

California law permits a non-client to move for disqualification of opposing counsel under

certain circumstances. (Conservatorship of Lee C. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1084.) When an

attorney’s ethical breach is “manifest and glaring” and so “infects the litigation in which disqualification is sought that it impacts the moving party’s interest in a just and lawful determination of his or her claims,” a non-client may satisfy the standing requirement to bring a

motion to disqualify based on the attorney’s ethical violation. (Kennedy v. Eldridge (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1204). A judge may grant a non-client’s motion for disqualification when the opposing attorney’s continued representation threatens the moving party with a cognizable injury or would undermine the integrity of the judicial process. (Id. at 1205.)

Although courts do not disqualify attorneys for every instance of misconduct, ethical breaches require disqualification when it is necessary “to mitigate unfair advantage a party that might otherwise obtain if the [attorney] were allowed to continue representing the client.” (City of San Diego v. Superior Court (Hoover) (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 457, 471.) Rules of ethics under the California Rules of Professional Conduct are tools that judges use when deciding whether attorney disqualification is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. (Jarvis v. Jarvis (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 113, 135.)

In this case, Plaintiff has provided evidence that Defendant’s attorney, Awad, is no longer eligible to practice law in the State of California. (Famili Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) It would constitute an ethical violation and amount to the unauthorized practice of law if Awad were allowed to continue representing Defendants. Therefore, it is within the Court’s authority to disqualify Awad from representing Defendants.

Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify opposing counsel is granted.

Moving party to give notice.