| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 05/22/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE 4 24CV443623 Riley’s Remodeling & MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Design v. Joseph and Geriann Please control click or scroll down to Line 4 Shaw LINE 5 24CV445907 Jin Yin MOTION TO STRIKE v. Xiaoxiao Liu Please control click or scroll down to Line 5 LINE 6 25CV464704 Dennis Perry DEMURRER v. Morgan Hill Farmers Market et al Please control click or scroll down to Line 6
Calendar line 4
Riley’s Remodeling & Design v. Joseph and Geriann Shaw
Defendant’s motion to disqualify Last, Faoro & Whitehorn as attorneys of record.
A motion to disqualify counsel implicates competing interests, including a party’s right to chosen counsel, the attorney’s interest in representing a client, and the need to maintain ethical standards and public trust in the integrity of the judicial process. (See People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc..)
California law recognizes that duties of confidentiality may arise from preliminary consultations with prospective clients even where no formal attorney-client relationship is ultimately formed. (Id.; see also Rule 1.18 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.) However, disqualification is not automatic merely because a consultation occurred. The court must determine whether the prior consultation and the present representation are substantially related such that confidential information material to the current matter would normally have been imparted to the attorney. (See Flatt v. Superior Court.)
Where a substantial relationship is established, courts may apply a conclusive presumption that confidential information was transmitted. However, the presumption does not arise solely from the existence of a preliminary consultation. Rather, the moving party must first demonstrate a relationship and factual circumstances sufficient to support application of the substantial relationship test.
Here, Defendant presents evidence that Defendant consulted with Attorney Faoro regarding issues generally involving contractor payment disputes and lien rights arising from the same underlying dispute at issue in this litigation. Defendant further argues that the consultation itself is sufficient to invoke the substantial relationship test and resulting presumption that confidential information was disclosed.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The evidence submitted reflects that the consultation was preliminary and limited in nature. The evidence further reflects that Defendant did not retain Attorney Dennis L. Faoro or the firm, did not identify the opposing parties, and did not discuss specific litigation strategy, factual admissions, settlement positions, or other confidential information material to the present action. While Defendant correctly notes that a court need not inquire into the actual content of privileged communications once the substantial relationship test applies, the threshold question remains whether the nature of the consultation was such that confidential information material to the present matter would ordinarily have been disclosed.
On the facts presented, Defendant has not met that burden.
The Court acknowledges that the consultation involved the same general contractor dispute and related lien-right issues now before the Court. However, generalized discussions concerning legal rights or broad categories of disputes, without disclosure of material confidential
information or facts demonstrating a substantive professional relationship, are insufficient to warrant the drastic remedy of disqualification.
The Court therefore finds Defendant has not established a prior relationship giving rise to the conclusive presumption that Attorney Faoro or the firm of Last, Faoro & Whitehorn received confidential information material to the present litigation.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff to prepare the final order accompanied by Form EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing.
- oo0oo –