Appellant insurer sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County (California), which denied the insurer’s motion to disqualify respondent insured’s lawyer in the insured’s action arising from a denial of coverage.
Table of Contents
Overview
The attorney represented the insurer in numerous matters. Relying upon the orders entered in two federal actions and applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the trial court denied the insurer’s motion to disqualify. Finding in an unpublished portion of the opinion that this ruling was erroneous, the court directed the trial court to apply the “substantial relationship” test for “successive representation.” The court explained that the trial court had to first identify where the former representation placed the attorney with respect to the prior client. If the placement was direct and personal, this facet of the Ahmanson standard was settled as a matter of law in favor of disqualification. The remaining question was whether there was a connection between the representations, a study that could not include an inquiry into the actual state of the lawyer’s knowledge acquired during the representation. If the former attorney was not in a direct, personal relationship, the trial court had to assess whether the attorney had been positioned so as to make it likely that the attorney acquired confidential information relevant to the current representation.
Outcome
The court reversed the order denying the motion to disqualify and remanded for the trial court to rehear the motion and, in doing so, to apply the substantial relationship test. The court ordered that each party bear its own costs on appeal. During trial plaintiff retained professional legal services from a class action lawyer California to present expert testimony.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff citizen groups filed a petition for writ of mandate, challenging defendant city’s approval of a revised general plan framework and the city’s findings and statement of overriding considerations under the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq., in connection with that approval. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, denied the groups’ petition. The groups appealed.
Overview
The groups argued, among other things, the general plan framework provided no means to ensure that transportation infrastructure would be adequate to accommodate future population growth, and that inadequacy rendered the land use and circulation elements of the general plan inconsistent and noncorrelative. The instant court held the general plan was not internally inconsistent or noncorrelative. The general plan did not state that funding for a proposed transportation improvement migration plan (TIMP) would be unavailable. Rather, the city stated that it would be able to fund its share of TIMP costs. The finding that the city could not guarantee the necessary funding for TIMP from other governmental sources was not a definitive statement that the funds would not be available. The city’s finding that mitigation measures were infeasible did not result in either new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects identified in the city’s environmental impact report (EIR) and did not otherwise trigger the need for a subsequent EIR or supplement to the EIR. The city’s adoption of a statement of overriding considerations was proper.
Outcome
The judgment was affirmed. The city was awarded costs on appeal.