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

plaintiffattorneydepositionequityinjunctionappealtrialmotionfiduciarycivil proceduremotion to dismiss
plaintiffattorneyequityinjunctionappealtrialmotioncivil proceduremotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, 17 Misc.3d 1105(A), 851 N.Y.S.2d 57 (Table), 2007 WL 2822423, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 51832(U)
View Case »
In re Kunstler, 914 F.2d 505, 59 USLW 2242, 17 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1215
View Case »
Miller v. Angliker, 848 F.2d 1312
View Case »
Watson v. South Shore Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, 2012 IL App (1st) 103730, 965 N.E.2d 1200, 358 Ill.Dec. 721
View Case »
Oxford Systems, Inc. v. CellPro, Inc., 45 F.Supp.2d 1055
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Meehan v. Hopps, 45 Cal.2d 213, 288 P.2d 267

Facts

The action was initiated by the receiver of the Rhode Island Insurance Company and the California Insurance Commissioner against Stewart B. Hopps, a former director, for an accounting and other relief on behalf of the company's policyholders, creditors, and stockholders. The plaintiffs alleged that Hopps had violated his fiduciary duties by managing the company's affairs for his personal gain. After a deposition was scheduled, Hopps objected to the questioning by the plaintiffs' counsel, claiming that they had previously represented him and that he had shared confidential information with them. He subsequently filed a motion to enjoin the counsel from further participation in the case.

The action was initiated by the receiver of the Rhode Island Insurance Company and the California Insurance Commissioner against Stewart B. Hopps, a former director, for an accounting and other relief on behalf of the company's policyholders, creditors, and stockholders.

Issue

Whether the trial court's order denying Hopps' motion to disqualify and enjoin plaintiffs' counsel is appealable.

The sole question is whether the trial court's order is appealable.

Rule

An appeal may be taken from an order refusing to grant or dissolve an injunction under section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Hopps correctly contends that the motion for a restraining order falls within section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that an appeal may be taken ‘* * * 2. From an order * * * refusing to grant or dissolve an injunction * * *.’

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the order denying Hopps' motion was appealable under section 963. It concluded that the motion for a restraining order was indeed an invocation of the court's equity power, as Hopps sought to restrain the plaintiffs' attorneys from participating in the case and from using confidential information. The court determined that the order was final for purposes of appeal because it left no further judicial action required regarding the rights of the parties concerning opposing counsel.

The court analyzed whether the order denying Hopps' motion was appealable under section 963. It concluded that the motion for a restraining order was indeed an invocation of the court's equity power, as Hopps sought to restrain the plaintiffs' attorneys from participating in the case and from using confidential information.

Conclusion

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal, affirming that the order denying Hopps' motion was appealable.

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal, affirming that the order denying Hopps' motion was appealable.

Who won?

The prevailing party was Stewart B. Hopps, as the court ruled that the order denying his motion to disqualify counsel was appealable.

The prevailing party was Stewart B. Hopps, as the court ruled that the order denying his motion to disqualify counsel was appealable.

You must be