Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

litigationattorneystatuteappealtrialmotionmateriality
attorneystatuteappealtrialmotion

Related Cases

Ridder v. City of Springfield, 109 F.3d 288, 36 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1288, 1997 Fed.App. 0094P
View Case »
People v. Lee, 31 Cal.4th 613, 74 P.3d 176, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 402, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7310, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9124
View Case »
McKibbins v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2013 WL 5550124
View Case »
Kluger v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 4145902
View Case »
Keck and Associates, P.C. v. Vasey, 359 Ill.App.3d 566, 834 N.E.2d 486, 295 Ill.Dec. 905
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Khani v. Ford Motor Co., 215 Cal.App.4th 916, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4204, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5399

Facts

On August 11, 2011, Behnam Khani, represented by attorney Payam Shahian and his law firm, Strategic Legal Practices, sued Ford Motor Company and its dealer, Galpin Motors, Inc., under the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for defects in a 2008 Lincoln Navigator. Ford's counsel requested Shahian's withdrawal from the litigation, citing his previous defense of Ford in lemon law cases. Ford subsequently filed a motion to disqualify Shahian and his firm, claiming that Shahian had been privy to confidential information during his prior representation. The trial court granted the disqualification motion, leading to this appeal.

On August 11, 2011, Khani, represented by Shahian and his law firm, Strategic Legal Practices, sued Ford Motor Company (Ford) and its dealer, Galpin Motors, Inc., under the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ.Code, § 1790 et seq., popularly known as California's Lemon Law) for defects in a 2008 Lincoln Navigator.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in disqualifying Shahian and his law firm based on his prior representation of Ford in lemon law cases.

Whether the trial court erred in disqualifying Shahian and his law firm based on his prior representation of Ford in lemon law cases.

Rule

To disqualify an attorney based on prior representation, the former client must show that the subjects of the successive representations are substantially related, meaning the attorney had a direct professional relationship with the former client involving legal issues closely related to the current representation.

In order to disqualify the attorney, the former client must show that the subjects of the successive representations are substantially related.

Analysis

The Court of Appeal analyzed the trial court's ruling and determined that it had abused its discretion by concluding that the prior lemon law cases were substantially related to Khani's case solely because they involved claims under the same statute. The appellate court emphasized that the substantial relationship test requires a comparison of both the legal issues and the materiality of the information the attorney received during the earlier representation. The evidence presented by Ford did not demonstrate that any confidential information relevant to Khani's case was at issue.

The trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the prior cases were substantially related to the current case just because they involved claims under the same statute.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's disqualification order, concluding that the prior representation did not warrant disqualification as there was no substantial relationship between the cases.

Since we conclude that the court abused its discretion in disqualifying Shahian and his law firm, we do not decide whether Ford impliedly waived attorney disqualification by not filing its motion in a timely fashion.

Who won?

Behnam Khani and his trial counsel prevailed in the appeal because the Court of Appeal found that the trial court had abused its discretion in disqualifying Shahian based on insufficient evidence of a substantial relationship.

The Court of Appeal, Epstein, P.J., held that prior representation of manufacturer on claims under same statute was insufficient for disqualification.

You must be