GREAT LAKES CONSTRUCTION v. BURMAN
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>GREAT LAKES CONSTRUCTION v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b<br /> >GREAT LAKES</b><b<br /> ><br /> CONSTRUCTION v. BURMAN</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/27/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF<br /> APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SECOND APPELLATE<br /> DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION THREE<br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>GREAT LAKES CONSTRUCTION, INC. et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff,<br /> Cross-Defendants, Cross-Complainants and Respondents,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>JIM BURMAN et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendants,<br /> Cross-Complainants, Cross-Defendant and Appellants.<br /> <br/>__________________________________<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>THE DRAFTSMAN PLANNING AND DESIGN et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> Cross-Defendants and Respondents.<br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> B220034<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Los<br /> Angeles County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct.<br /> No. BC397732)<br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> APPEAL from<br /> an order of the Superior Court<br /> of Los Angeles<br /> County, Joseph R. Kalin, Judge. Reversed and remanded.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Graham<br /> & Associates and Bruce N. Graham for Defendants, Cross-Complainants,<br /> Cross-Defendant and Appellants.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Law Offices<br /> of Harvey Stern and Harvey I. Stern for Plaintiff, Cross-Defendants,<br /> Cross-Complainants and Respondents.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Liner Grode<br /> Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor, David M. Cohen, and Susan<br /> A. Swingle for Cross-Defendants and Respondents.<br /> <br clear=all<br /> ><br /> <br/>INTRODUCTION<br /> <br/>Attorneys who<br /> jointly represent clients in the same action owe a duty of undivided loyalty to<br /> each of their clients and are subject to disqualification if an unwaivable<br /> conflict exists arising from the joint representation. We address whether a non-client may enforce<br /> this duty of loyalty and move to disqualify opposing counsel. In this case, the parties seeking disqualification<br /> were not present clients, former clients, or prospective clients, and they had<br /> no prior confidential relationship with opposing counsel. They moved to disqualify opposing counsel<br /> Graham & Associates, and Bruce N. Graham, a member of the firm (Graham),<br /> from jointly representing their adversaries, appellants Jim and Maartje Burman<br /> (the Burmans) and Ted Kipers. The moving<br /> parties acknowledge that their motion is not based upon California law, but rather on what they<br /> refer to as a minority view in <i >Colyer v.<br /> Smith</i> (C.D.Cal. 1999) 50 F.Supp.2d 966, permitting a non-client to move to<br /> disqualify opposing counsel. While the<br /> decision of a federal district court is not binding on this Court, we do not<br /> read <i >Colyer's</i> minority rule as<br /> dispensing with the standing requirements. <br /> Here, the non-client, moving parties have no legally cognizable interest<br /> in Graham's undivided loyalty to his clients. <br /> Therefore, the moving parties lacked standing to bring this motion to disqualify. We reverse the disqualification order.<br /> <br/>FACTUAL<br /> AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND<br /> <br/> This<br /> is a contractor-homeowner dispute that began on the Internet when homeowner<br /> Maartje Burman posted comments criticizing Great Lakes Construction, Inc. She later retracted her comments but<br /> redirected her Internet criticism to Hampton Builders, Inc., the contractor<br /> hired to remodel the Burmans' residence. <br /> The dispute moved from the Internet to the courts and expanded to<br /> several parties directly and indirectly involved in the Burmans' remodeling<br /> project.<br /> <br/>1. <br /> <i >Background<br /> Giving Rise To The Disqualification Motion</i><br /> <br/> The<br /> Burmans hired The Draftsman Planning and Design, Mike Trifunovich, and Scott<br /> Christiansen to prepare drawings and engineering specifications for their<br /> remodeling project. Based upon these<br /> prepared plans, the Burmans hired Hampton Builders. Hampton Builders hired Kipers as a<br /> subcontractor. Kipers' subcontract<br /> contains an indemnification provision, which is the basis of the disqualifying<br /> motion.<b ><b >[1]</b></b><br /> <br/><i >a. <br /> </i><i >The<br /> Complaint</i><br /> <br/>Hampton Builders<br /> and Great Lakes filed suit against the Burmans, alleging<br /> libel in connection with Maartje Burman's Internet postings; breach of contract<br /> for the balance due under the contract; and on common counts to recover for<br /> Hampton Builders' services on the remodeling project.<br /> <br/><i >b. <br /> </i><i >The<br /> Burmans' And Kipers' Cross-Complaint</i><br /> <br/>The Burmans filed<br /> a cross-complaint against Great Lakes, as the alter ego<br /> of Hampton Builders, Hampton Builders, Mike Ross, Faramarz Moshfegh, and Harvey<br /> Stern. The Burmans alleged that Hampton<br /> Builders failed to perform the terms of the contract, abandoned the project,<br /> and failed to pay Kipers who placed a lien on the project and stopped work. The Burmans further alleged that the project<br /> was plagued with numerous building code violations arising from the design and<br /> substandard workmanship. The Burmans<br /> asserted causes of action against Hampton Builders and Great Lakes<br /> for breach of contract, negligence, and fraud. They also sought to rescind the contract with<br /> Hampton Builders.<br /> <br/>The Burmans<br /> asserted causes of action for breach of contract and negligence against The<br /> Draftsman Planning and Design, Alisha Spears, Mike Trifunovich, and Scott<br /> Christiansen, based upon the allegedly defective plans.<br /> <br/>Kipers asserted<br /> causes of action in the cross-complaint against Hampton Builders for breach of<br /> an oral contract, and against both Hampton Builders and Great Lakes<br /> for common counts. He did not bring a<br /> contract cause of action.<br /> <br/><i >c. <br /> </i><i >Hampton</i><i ><br /> Builders' Cross-Complaint</i><br /> <br/>Hampton Builders<br /> then filed a cross-complaint against Kipers, alleging breach of contract,<br /> interference with contract, express contractual indemnity, equitable indemnity,<br /> and declaratory relief. Hampton Builders<br /> alleged that pursuant to the subcontract, Kipers agreed to supervise the<br /> project, obtain all permits, schedule and be present for inspections, and<br /> guarantee all subcontractor work, labor, and materials for a period of one year<br /> from the date of completion.<br /> <br/>Hampton Builder's<br /> express contractual indemnity cause of action against Kipers is based upon the<br /> indemnification provision in the subcontract. <br /> The indemnification provision states: <br /> â€