URS Corp. v. Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture
G055271
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- URS Corporation and AECOM (appellants) and Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture (respondent) litigated construction disputes arising from a State Route 91 project.
- Respondent moved to disqualify appellants’ counsel, Pepper Hamilton LLP, alleging improper access to confidential/mediation documents; trial court granted disqualification on July 31, 2017.
- Appellants appealed and sought a stay in the trial court; the trial court denied an automatic stay and appellants petitioned this Court for a writ of supersedeas.
- The appellate panel issued a temporary broad stay, requested further briefing, and considered whether an appeal of a disqualification order automatically stays enforcement of that order and/or all trial proceedings.
- The court limited review to legal issues (automatic stay under Code Civ. Proc. § 916 and scope) and declined to resolve a discretionary stay under § 923 without further factual development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appeal of an order disqualifying counsel automatically stays enforcement of that order | Appellants: yes — appeal stays enforcement | Respondent: no — no automatic stay | Held: Yes — appeal automatically stays enforcement of the disqualification order |
| Whether the automatic stay extends to all trial court proceedings | Appellants: yes — stay all proceedings pending appeal | Respondent: no — proceedings continue | Held: No — stay does not automatically extend to all trial court proceedings; only enforcement and proceedings that would affect the disqualification appeal may be stayed |
| Whether a disqualification order is a mandatory or prohibitory injunction (affects stay rule) | Appellants: mandatory — it forces replacement of counsel and changes status quo | Respondent: prohibitory — it merely restrains future participation and preserves a prior status quo | Held: Mandatory — disqualification upsets the status quo at time of motion and is treated as a mandatory injunction for stay purposes |
| Whether to grant a discretionary stay of all proceedings under § 923 | Appellants: request stay due to irreparable harm and merit | Respondent: oppose — lack of merit, delay, alternate counsel available | Held: Petition for discretionary stay denied without prejudice; court declines to rule now and encourages stipulation or trial-court motion first |
Key Cases Cited
- Meehan v. Hopps, 45 Cal.2d 213 (Cal. 1955) (attorney disqualification orders can be treated as injunctive and collateral orders, supporting immediate appealability)
- Reed v. Superior Court, 92 Cal.App.4th 448 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (appeal of denial of disqualification does not automatically stay trial proceedings)
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (Cal. 2005) (§ 916 automatic stay protects appellate jurisdiction by preserving status quo and preventing actions that would render appeal futile)
- Kettenhofen v. Superior Court, 55 Cal.2d 189 (Cal. 1961) (distinguishing mandatory and prohibitory injunctions; appeals stay mandatory but not prohibitory injunctions)
- Feinberg v. One Doe Co., 14 Cal.2d 24 (Cal. 1939) (courts look to substance, not form, to classify injunctions)
- Quiles v. Parent, 10 Cal.App.5th 130 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (standard of review for supersedeas petitions; de novo review of legal questions)