Schimmel v. Levin
125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 506
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Community Health sought arbitration on behalf of its entities; court disqualified Kennaday for possessing Schimmel’s confidential Cabana material and struck Kennaday’s pleadings; 60-day window to refile by Community Health; appeal concerns whether striking was proper or court should rule on arbitration petition first; prior Cabana v. Community Health litigation involved Kennaday and Wilke Fleury; Schimmel accused Kennaday of conflicts due to successive representation; current dispute centers on arbitration agreement and disqualification impact on arbitration petition.
- Schimmel’s employment with Community Health and allegations of misconduct prompted board concerns; Cabana case previously involved Kennaday’s representation; mediation occurred; settlements reached in Cabana; arbitration agreement relevant to current dispute.
- Kennaday filed to compel arbitration (June 12, 2009); Schimmel moved to disqualify Kennaday (Aug. 2009); trial court tentatively disqualified Kennaday, then issued final order disqualifying and struck Community Health’s arbitration pleadings; 60-day window granted to refile; Community Health appealed.
- Trial court weighed disqualification grounds and potential prejudice to Schimmel; court exercised inherent supervisory power to strike pleadings to avoid unfair advantage; court did not abuse discretion in disqualifying counsel or striking filings.
- Judgment affirmed; Schimmel to recover costs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether striking the arbitration petition was proper | Schimmel | Community Health | Affirmed; striking proper |
| Whether the stay of arbitration was appealable | Schimmel | Community Health | Affirmed appealability; stay treated as denial of arbitration |
| Whether the disqualification was supported by the record | Schimmel | Community Health | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether striking pleadings after disqualification was proper | Schimmel | Community Health | Affirmed; court has power to regulate proceedings to prevent unfairness |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry v. Alcove Investment, Inc., 233 Cal.App.3d 94 (Cal.App. 1991) (order staying arbitration is the functional equivalent of an order refusing to compel arbitration)
- Sanders v. Kinko’s, Inc., 99 Cal.App.4th 1106 (Cal.App. 2002) (an order denying a petition to compel arbitration is appealable)
- People v. Miller, 185 Cal.App.2d 59 (Cal.App. 1960) (inherent power to regulate proceedings; abuse of discretion standard)