Legal Opinion
Cal. Self-Insurers' Sec. Fund v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Decided January 26, 2018No. G054981PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
*548*1068Petitioners California Self-Insurers' Security Fund (the Fund) and Nixon Peabody LLP (Nixon Peabody or the firm) seek a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying Nixon Peabody from representing the Fund in the instant case. Petitioners argue the trial court mistakenly believed it was compelled by law to disqualify the firm; the court instead should have made further factual findings and exercised its discretion. Real parties in interest contend disqualification was mandatory and therefore no discretion needed to be exercised.
We conclude, for the reasons…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Deparment of Corporations. v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1999
- Flatt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- City & County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2006
- Adams v. Aerojet-General Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- Cal Pak Delivery, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- O'Gara Coach Co. v. Ra, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- City of San Diego v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Wu v. O'Gara Coach Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2024
- City of San Diego v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.