215 Cal. App. 4th 916
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Khani, represented by Shahian/Strategic Legal Practices, sued Ford and Galpin Motors under California Lemon Law for defects in a 2008 Lincoln Navigator.
- Ford moved to disqualify Shahian in September-October 2011, citing Shahian's prior work for Ford on lemon law cases.
- Shahian refused to withdraw; Ford filed a motion to disqualify supported by a declaration from Takahashi of Bowman and Brooke.
- Trial court granted disqualification, holding that lemon law issues were substantially related and that Shahian had access to confidential Ford information.
- Appellants appeal the disqualification order, arguing lack of substantial relationship and insufficient evidence of material confidential information; the appellate court reverses.
- Disposition: the disqualification order is reversed and appellants recover costs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prior lemon law representations created a substantial relationship. | Khani argues no material relationship; prior cases not dispositive. | Ford asserts Shahian's prior lemon law work would expose confidential information material to current case. | Disqualification not supported; no substantial relationship shown. |
| Whether exposure to generic lemon law playbook information suffices for materiality. | Khani contends any playbook info is irrelevant without materiality. | Ford contends playbook-like information is material given similarity of issues. | Playbook information alone not enough; must be material to current issues. |
| Whether the trial court properly applied the substantial relationship standard (not automatic because of same statute). | Khani argues statutory similarity does not equal substantial relation. | Ford argues ongoing lemon law practice creates related issues. | Court abused its discretion by treating same statute as automatically substantial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobra Solutions, Inc. v. City of San Francisco, 38 Cal.4th 839 (Cal. 2006) (balancing current vs former client confidences in disqualification)
- Jessen v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., 111 Cal.App.4th 698 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (substantial relationship requires evidence that prior and current issues are connected)
- Farris v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 119 Cal.App.4th 671 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (clarifies materiality and rejects a playbook approach to substantial relationship)
- Flatt v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 275 (Cal. 1994) (disqualification standards and confidences principles)
- H. F. Ahmanson & Co. v. Salomon Brothers, Inc., 229 Cal.App.3d 1445 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (confidential information and related duties in representation)
- Banning Ranch Conservancy v. Superior Court, 193 Cal.App.4th 903 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (limits automatic disqualification for broadly similar matters)