Kaucher v. Remedy Law Group CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Aug 7, 2024 No. B331055Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to disqualify opposing counsel under Rule 3.7, as the client provided informed written consent and the moving party failed to demonstrate that the attorney's testimony was genuinely needed or that his continued representation would cause prejudice or undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion to disqualify counsel under Rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Whether the moving party demonstrated that opposing counsel's testimony was genuinely needed or that his representation caused cognizable injury or detriment.

Disposition. Affirmed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Remedy’s motion to disqualify opposing counsel.”

“Kaucher consented to have Hocker as her advocate, even if he testifies at trial. (Rule 3.7(a)(3).) Her decision must be honored because there is no showing of detriment to Remedy or potential injury to the integrity of the judicial process.”

“Remedy did not show that Hocker’s testimony is genuinely needed.”

Filed 8/7/24 Kaucher v. Remedy Law Group CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ELLIE KAUCHER, B331055

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 21STCV27319)

REMEDY LAW GROUP, LLP, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel S. Murphy, Judge. Affirmed. Yee & Associates, Steven R. Yee and Karlfeldt Su for Defendants and Appellants. Browning|Hocker and Robert N. Hocker for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________________

Remedy Law Group, Andranik Tsarukyan, and Armen Zenjiryan (Remedy) are being sued by plaintiff Ellie Kaucher for malpractice, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. Remedy moved to disqualify opposing counsel Robert Hocker. Citing rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (rule 3.7), Remedy said it intends to call Hocker as a witness at trial.1 The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Remedy’s motion to disqualify opposing counsel. Kaucher consented to have Hocker as her advocate, even if he testifies at trial. (Rule 3.7(a)(3).) Her decision must be honored because there is no showing of detriment to Remedy or potential injury to the integrity of the judicial process. Remedy did not show that Hocker’s testimony is genuinely needed. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Allegations in Kaucher’s Complaint Kaucher was a provost at Phillips Graduate University (PGU). In 2017, she was terminated in retaliation for disclosing an illegal scheme to PGU’s directors. PGU also retaliated against two coworkers who supported Kaucher. Kaucher hired counsel to sue PGU for wrongful termination. Though Kaucher was represented by counsel, Remedy solicited her to use its services. When she questioned its plan to represent her and her coworkers concurrently, Remedy denied

Kaucher v. Remedy Law Group CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ELLIE KAUCHER, B331055

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ASHMANN-GERST, J.

HOFFSTADT, J.

AI Brief