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

plaintiffattorneymotionleaseclass action

contractplaintiffwillclass action

Related Cases

Sharma v. VW Credit, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 1163801

Facts

Mr. Gaja Sharma leased a 2005 Audi A4 for his daughter, Varsha Sharma, from a dealership that later assigned the lease to VW Credit, Inc. (VCI). After Mr. Sharma's death in 2010, VCI repossessed the vehicle and the plaintiffs filed a class action against VCI, alleging violations of various California laws regarding notice and debt collection practices. Brandon Block, the plaintiffs' counsel, had previously worked for VCI's current counsel and represented VCI in several cases while at that firm.

The plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that VCI violated the Rees–Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act, Cal. Civ.Code § 2981, et seq., by 'fail[ing] to provide borrowers under conditional sales contracts with statutorily-mandated notice of their legal rights and obligations after repossession of vehicles.'

Issue

Whether Brandon Block should be disqualified from representing the plaintiffs due to a conflict of interest arising from his previous work with VCI's current counsel.

Rule

The court applied California's Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rule 3-310(E), which prohibits an attorney from accepting employment adverse to a former client without informed written consent if the attorney has obtained confidential information material to the employment.

Rule 3–310(E) provides that '[a] member shall not, without the informed written consent of the client or former client, accept employment adverse to the client or former client where, by reason of the representation of the client or former client, the member has obtained confidential information material to the employment.'

Analysis

The court determined that a substantial relationship likely existed between Block's current representation and his prior work for VCI, which raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest. However, the court also noted that VCI's delay in filing the disqualification motion was excessive and that Block had made significant progress in the case during that time, which would result in prejudice to the plaintiffs if the motion were granted.

The Court finds that a substantial relationship likely exists between the subjects of Block's current representation and his prior representations of VCI.

Conclusion

The court denied VCI's motion to disqualify Block, concluding that the unreasonable delay in filing the motion and the resulting prejudice to the plaintiffs outweighed the potential conflict of interest.

Accordingly, the Court finds that VCI has offered no satisfactory explanation for its delay, and it now turns to consider whether the delay will prejudice the plaintiffs.

Who won?

Brandon Block and the plaintiffs prevailed in the case because the court found that VCI's delay in filing the disqualification motion was unreasonable and would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The Court finds that Block has demonstrated evidence of unreasonable delay and resulting prejudice.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Chrispens v. Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc., 257 Kan. 745, 897 P.2d 104

Koch v. Specialized Care Services, Inc., 437 F.Supp.2d 362

Laremont-Lopez v. Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity Center, 968 F.Supp. 1075

Whittaker Corporation v. United States, 825 F.3d 1002, 82 ERC 1725, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6129, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5687

Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky, P.C. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 436 Mass. 347, 764 N.E.2d 825