Legal Opinion
Nalian Truck Lines, Inc. v. Nakano Warehouse & Transportation Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 27, 1992No. B061732PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DEVICH, Acting P. J.
Is it proper for an attorney to communicate ex parte with a former member of a corporate adversary’s “control group”? We conclude that rule 2-100 of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct 2 permits such communications. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order disqualifying a law firm which engaged in such conduct.
Background
On September 16,1987, Nalian Truck Lines, Inc. (NTL), filed a complaint against Nakano Warehouse & Transportation Corp. (Nakano) alleging that, due to a fire caused by Nakano’s negligence in the building occupied by both companies, NTL…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1987
- TRIPLE a MACHINE SHOP, INC v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Mills Land & Water Co. v. Golden West Refining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1986
- Schaeffer Land Trust v. San Jose City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Concat Lp v. Unilever, PlcDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2004
- Continental Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Crenshaw v. Mony Life InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2004
- La Jolla Cove Motel & Hotel Apartments, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2015
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.