Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Gestion Lican v. Winell, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Gestion Lican Inc. and cross-defendants Jean-Pierre Mortreux and Brigitte Mortreux’s motion to disqualify is denied.

“A trial court . . . may not order disqualification simply to punish a dereliction that will likely have no substantial continuing effect on future judicial proceedings.  The significant question is whether there exists a genuine likelihood that the status or misconduct of the attorney in question will affect the outcome of the proceedings before the court.”  (McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1083, 1120, cleaned up.)

Here, the email did not affect the arbitration.  “The evidence [was] closed” before the email was submitted to the arbitrator, who took no action on it.  (See Allison decl. Ex. D.)  

And the email has no reasonable probability of affecting the outcome of this proceeding.  It is neither “material,” “directly at issue,” nor of “critically importance.”  (Wu v. O'Gara Coach Co., LLC (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1069, 1083 [successive representation].)  As far as the court can tell, the email is entirely immaterial.

While the moving parties assert Mr. Gerber has been using the email to develop his theories, they also state he is doing so by taking it out of context.  (Mot. at p. 2; Reply at p. 13.)

Gestion Lican shall give notice.