Judge: Glenn R. Salter, Case: 21-1205475, Date: 2022-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Disqualify Counsel

The motion of cross-defendants Ascendant International, Inc., dba Re/Max Luxury Properties and Lucy Qian-Liu Scott to disqualify the Zeutel Law Group from representing both Mu and Milne is DENIED without prejudice.

There is no showing of a fiduciary or confidential relationship between the Zeutel Law Group and the moving parties, thus it appears they do not have any standing to bring the motion to disqualify on that ground.

Rather, they seem to argue that the court should exercise its inherent power under Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(5), to disqualify counsel.  (See In re Complex Asbestos Litigation (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 572, 575.)  The argument is that Zeutel cannot represent both the owner (Mu) and the real estate agent (Milne) because Mu should be suing Milne based on an alleged misrepresentation as to the condition of the property.  In short, the suggestion is that the interests of these two parties are adverse, and that the moving parties could be adversely affected if Mu tries to pin the blame for any damages on Milne.

Attorney Zuetel has filed a declaration indicating that the clients signed a Joint/Multiple Client Disclosure and Consent form, acknowledging there were no existing or potential conflicts of interest in representing both.  (No copies of the consent forms have been submitted, but the court does not find a reason to require them at this point.  That analysis may change later if other facts are disclosed that suggest the court should see them.  The court further notes that the pleadings have not yet been set.)

The court has also considered the court’s files and the arguments made by the moving parties.  For now, the court accepts the declaration of attorney Zeutel and that all the necessary formalities for such consents were followed, and it concludes at this point, based on its understanding of the underlying facts, that attorney disqualification is not now appropriate.  However, the court suggests that counsel read the cautionary language on page 901 of Klemm v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 893.

Motion for Protective Order

The motion of cross-defendants Ascendant International, Inc., dba Re/Max Luxury Properties and Lucy Qian-Liu Scott for a discovery protective order is DENIED.

No good cause has been shown.  The moving parties suggest a protective order is necessary because there were a lot of discovery requests.  However, there is no showing they have not had sufficient time to respond.

The moving parties also suggest—and this seems to be their primary argument—that discovery should be delayed until the motion to disqualify is resolved.  But why the motion to disqualify should delay the service of discovery responses eludes the court.  No authority has been cited for such a proposition.  No suggestion has been made the propounding parties are not entitled to the responses, or that current counsel should not see the responses.

The request of cross-complainants Yuan Mu and Nancy Milne for sanctions is GRANTED.  The moving parties shall pay cross-complainants $1,500 in discovery sanctions within 30 days.

Demurrer

The demurrer of cross-defendants Ascendant International, Inc., dba Re/Max Luxury Properties and Lucy Qian-Liu Scott to the cross-complaint of Yuan Mu is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave.

The sole basis for liability against these cross-defendants appears to be found in Paragraphs 37 and 38.  In essence, Mu alleges the allegedly exaggerated complaints by the tenants were to have Mu sell the property at a below market price.  However, it appears from the pleadings that may have been the plan of Razipour and Sadeghi and their agent, Razani.  There are no facts pled that demonstrate that these cross-defendants encouraged the sale or stood to benefit in any way.  The facts of the “scheme” do not appear to be pled as to them.

Finally, counsel are reminded to meet and confer as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 prior to the filing of any subsequent demurrer.

Case Management Conference

On the court’s own motion, the Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to February 23, 2023, at 8:30 am.  The case is not yet at issue.

Notice

The responding parties to these motions and the demurrer shall give notice.