Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 24SMCV01858, Date: 2024-09-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24SMCV01858 Hearing Date: September 24, 2024 Dept: O
Case Name:
Sardarian v. Waldorf=Astoria Management, LLC, et al.
|
Case No.: |
24SMCV01858 |
Complaint Filed: |
4-18-24 |
|
Hearing Date: |
9-24-24 |
Discovery C/O: |
N/A |
|
Calendar No.: |
8 |
Discovery Motion C/O: |
N/A |
|
POS: |
OK |
Trial Date: |
None |
SUBJECT: MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL
MOVING
PARTY: Defendants Kevin B. Hair
& Beauty, LLC, & Waldorf=Astoria Management LLC and Alagem Capital
Group LLC (by untimely joinder to the motion)
RESP.
PARTY: Plaintiff Ingrid
Sardarian
TENTATIVE
RULING
Defendants Kevin B. Hair & Beauty, LLC, Waldorf=Astoria
Management LLC and Alagem Capital Group LLC (by joinder to the motion) Motion
to Disqualify Counsel is DENIED.
Plaintiff provides a declaration stating it is their
“strong preference” to be represented by her current counsel. Defendants have failed to meet their burden
to show Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in ethical violations warranting disqualification.
Defendants Objections are not material to the disposition
of the motion, thus the Court declines to rule on them.
REASONING
“[D]isqualification of counsel is a prophylactic remedy
designed to mitigate the unfair advantage a party might otherwise obtain if the
lawyer were allowed to continue representing the client.” (City of San Diego
v. Superior Court (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 457, 470–471.) A “common theme”
among disqualifications is that “the status or misconduct which is urged as a ground
for disqualification will have a continuing effect on the judicial proceedings
which are before the court.” (Id., at p. 471.)
[T]he “substantial continuing effect” inquiry has been
regularly cited as the proper standard in addressing a request to disqualify
counsel in a variety of contexts.” (Id., at p. 472.) “Under this test,
there must be a “genuine likelihood” that the attorney's status or misconduct
“will affect the outcome of the proceedings before the court.” (Ibid.)