Brianna Vigrass v. Avian Borden, et al.

The hearing is vacated, yet the matter remains on calendar on January 26, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department A to allow counsel for Petitioner to file a Second Amended Petition prior to said hearing date. If the Second Amended Petition is filed and confirmed by the Court in advance of the hearing date, the continued hearing date may be vacated.

6. CU0001662 Pankaj Gupta vs. Bamboo Ide8 Insurance Services et al

- Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel

Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel for Defendants’ Bamboo Ide8 Insurance Services (“Bamboo”) and Sutton National Insurance Company, Inc. (“Sutton”) is denied.

The Court finds Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this motion. Although trial courts have discretion to disqualify an attorney upon motion, case law makes clear that the moving party must have standing before such discretion is proper.

“A trial court's authority to disqualify an attorney derives from the power inherent in every court to control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto.’” People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1145 (internal citations omitted). “Disqualification motions involve a conflict between the clients' right to counsel of their choice and the need to maintain ethical standards of professional responsibility.

The paramount concern must be to preserve public trust in the scrupulous administration of justice and the integrity of the bar. The important right to counsel of one's choice must yield to ethical considerations that affect the fundamental principles of our judicial process.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

A “standing” requirement is implicit in disqualification motions. Generally, before the disqualification of an attorney is proper, the complaining party must have or must have had an attorney-client relationship with that attorney. Great Lakes Construction, Inc. v. Burman (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1356. In other words, the general rule is that motions to disqualify counsel by someone other than a client or former client are not permitted. “[N]o exception exists that permits a non-client without a legally cognizable interest to disqualify opposing counsel.”

Id. at 1354. “...absent an attorney-client relationship, the moving party must have an expectation of confidentiality.” Id. at 1356, citing DCH Health Services Corp. v. Waite (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 829. “Thus, some sort of confidential or fiduciary relationship must exist or have existed before a party may disqualify an attorney predicated on the actual or potential disclosure of confidential information. Id., citing Dino v. Pelayo (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 347.

At bar, Plaintiff has not demonstrated he has standing with respect to the instant motion. Moreover, the Court does not find a legally cognizable interest harmed by Defendants’ counsel’s joint representation exists. While Plaintiff may dislike the joint representation and the varied positions by counsel that may be taken with respect to each defendant, such does not rise to the level of mandating disqualification. It is notable, neither defendant has filed an answer at this stage. Thus, the assertions by Plaintiff as to inconsistent and irreconcilable positions resulting in an inability for this matter to move forward in a fair and just fashion has not occurred and may

2