Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 22-1246349, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

The Motion by Plaintiff, Arnold Starr, through his conservator Jonathan Starr, to Disqualify Alexander Conti, Esq. and Conti Law (“Conti”) as Counsel for Defendant M. Thomas Ashbrook (“Ashbrook”) is DENIED.

An essentially identical motion was filed in the Starr – Trust matter in OCSC 2019-01117553 (the “Probate Action”), which was denied on 10/24/22, in a detailed ruling with which this Court concurs. For the same reasons, this Motion is also DENIED. 

As explained in that ruling, the party seeking disqualification has the burden to establish the attorney-client relationship. (Lynn v. George (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 630, 638-639, citing Koo v. Rubio’s Restaurants, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 719, 729.) To meet that burden, Plaintiff here must present “substantial evidence” that Conti either formed a confidential relationship with Arnold or obtained confidential information from Arnold. (Id.) Plaintiff has failed to meet that burden here, as explained in the 10/24/22 ruling in the Probate Action. None of the proffered exhibits in this matter include evidence of any attorney-client relationship between Conti and Arnold. None include any evidence that Conti acted as co-counsel with Snell & Wilmer for Arnold. None include any evidence of any substantive communication between Snell & Wilmer and Conti regarding Arnold. None include any evidence of any communication between Conti and Arnold. To the extent that any of the evidence could be considered circumstantial evidence in support of Plaintiff’s claims, that evidence has been sufficiently refuted. (See Declarations of Conti (ROA 118), Powell (ROA 112), Ashbrook (ROA 110) and O’Hare (ROA 114).)

Plaintiff also argues that disqualification is proper because

Conti obtained Arnold’s confidential information from Snell & Wilmer. But as Plaintiff has not met his burden as to the assertion of an attorney-client relationship between Arnold and Conti or a co-counsel relationship between Conti and Snell & Wilmer, there is no presumption that Conti obtained any of Arnold’s confidential information from Snell & Wilmer. (In re Complex Asbestos Litigation (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 572, 587.) The court, therefore, looks to the evidence presented by Plaintiff in support of his assertion that Conti improperly obtained Arnold’s confidential information. The evidence before the court does not support Plaintiff’s assertion. Plaintiff has again failed to meet his burden here, as explained in the 10/24/22 ruling in the Probate Action.

Requests for Judicial Notice and Objections

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 44) is GRANTED as to Exhibits 1-5. Ashbrook’s Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 125) is GRANTED as to Exhibits A-G. Ashbrook’s Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 189) is GRANTED as to Exhibit A. Ev. Code §452(d).

Ashbrook’s Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Gordon Stuart (ROA 120) is OVERRULED as to Objections 1-29.

Ashbrook’s Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Jonathan Starr (ROA 121) is OVERRULED as to Objections 1-13.

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Alexander Conti (ROA 131) is OVERRULED as to Objections 1-32.

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of M. Thomas Ashbrook (ROA 132) is OVERRULED as to Objections 1-13.

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Mark Powell (ROA 133) is OVERRULED as to Objections 1-5.

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of William S. O’Hare (ROA 134) is OVERRULED as to Objections 1-9.

Ashbrook’s Objection to Jonathan Starr’s Reply (ROA 176) is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff’s Objection to Ashbrook’s Objection to Jonathan Starr’s Reply (ROA 178) is OVERRULED.

Ashbrook to give notice.