Khani v. Ford Motor Company

Filed 4/2/13; pub. order 4/25/13 (see end of opn.)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

BEHNAM KHANI et al., B239611

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC466626) v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Amy D. Hogue, Judge. Reversed. Strategic Legal Practices, Payam Shahian, Gielegheim & Associates and Neil Gielegheim, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Baker & Hostetler, Mary L. Arens, Rosslyn Hummer, and Jack Samet for Defendants and Respondents. ______________________________

Behnam Khani and his trial counsel, Payam Shahian and Strategic Legal Practices, appeal from an attorney disqualification order. We reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On August 11, 2011, Khani, represented by Shahian and his law firm, Strategic Legal Practices, sued Ford Motor Company (Ford) and its dealer, Galpin Motors, Inc., under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq., popularly known as California‘s Lemon Law) for defects in a 2008 Lincoln Navigator. On September 16, 2011, Ford‘s counsel sent a letter to Shahian, requesting his withdrawal from the litigation on the ground that he previously had defended Ford in lemon law cases. On October 4, 2011, Shahian responded, refusing to withdraw. On December 31, 2011, Ford filed a motion to disqualify Shahian and his law firm. The motion was accompanied by the declaration of Brian Takahashi, a partner at the law firm Bowman and Brooke, which employed Shahian between June 2004 and July 2007. Bowman and Brooke was Ford‘s corporate counsel, and during his tenure there Shahian worked on 150 cases, including California Lemon Law cases. According to Takahashi, Shahian was ―privy to confidential client communications and information relating to the defense of‖ such cases, as well as to ―pre-litigation strategies, tactics, and case handling procedures.‖ Shahian provided unspecified ―input‖ to Ford‘s Office of General Counsel and Consumer Affairs and communicated regularly with Ford about lemon law cases. The court granted the disqualification motion, ruling that the legal issues in lemon law cases are substantially similar, and presuming that Shahian‘s previous work exposed him to confidential information about Ford‘s handling of such cases. The court did not address Shahian‘s argument that Ford had waived its right to seek his disqualification. This timely appeal followed. DISCUSSION ―Generally, a trial court‘s decision on a disqualification motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. [Citations.] If the trial court resolved disputed factual issues, the reviewing court should not substitute its judgment for the trial court‘s express or implied