Amaya v. King Pak Farms

Filed 5/23/06  Amaya v. King Pak Farms CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County.  Arthur  E. Wallace, Judge.

            Thomas Anton & Associates, Inc., and Thomas  J. Anton for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

            Klein, DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball, Barry  L. Goldner and James  M. Duncan for Movant and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

            This case has already been through a first trial and two appeals.  Here, we consider whether the trial court erred in granting a motion to disqualify the law firm that has represented the plaintiffs throughout all of the proceedings and, as well, an associate attorney more recently employed by that firm.  The attorney previously was employed by another law firm, one that represented a defendant in this case, until that defendant settled with the plaintiffs, which occurred after the first trial and the appeals.  The settlement between the plaintiffs and the defendant resulted in a dismissal of that defendant (former defendant) from the lawsuit with prejudice.  Other defendants, and a new defendant, remain.  The law firm that represented the former defendant, however, is no longer involved.  The former defendant is now represented by a firm that also represents the new defendant.  That firm filed the disqualification motion on behalf of the former defendant.

            The trial court found that the former defendant remained â€