Currency v. Wertheim CA2/1

Filed 7/24/14 Currency v. Wertheim CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

CURRENCY CORPORATION, et al., B249808 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. BC441026) WERTHEIM, LLC, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Mayer Brown, Michael L. Resch and Donald M. Falk for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Law Offices of Robert S. Besser and Robert S. Besser; Lauren M. Greene; Armen Manasserian for Defendants and Respondents. ___________________________________

During the pendency of a prior appeal in this matter the trial court entered an order disqualifying plaintiff’s counsel, which order was also appealed. In the meantime, we entered a reversal in the first appeal, which led the trial court to dismiss the case. Counsel for plaintiffs, not joined by plaintiffs themselves, request we entertain the second appeal notwithstanding the dismissal and reverse the disqualification order, contending the order might carry over to other actions pending between the parties. We decline to do so. The disqualification issue is moot and the appeal dismissed. BACKGROUND Appellant Currency Corporation (Currency) made scores of small loans to a borrower, respondent Maibell Page, over the course of a dozen years, each memorialized by a note and secured by Page’s income. Of all the notes memorializing loans, only one contained an arbitration provision. Page and her assignee, respondent Wertheim, LLC, (collectively “Page”), instituted arbitration proceedings against Currency pursuant to that one note, and the arbitrators determined that the provision in that note applied to all the other notes. The arbitrators then determined Currency violated the terms of every note, and awarded Page $672,122. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County confirmed the award, and Currency appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, Page filed a motion in the trial court to disqualify Currency’s counsel, Michael Resch and Mayer Brown, LLP. The trial court granted the motion, and Currency appealed that order as well. In the meantime, we concluded the arbitration provision pertained to only the note that contained it, and reversed the order confirming the $672,122 award. The trial court subsequently dismissed the action. Although the disqualification order and ensuing appeal appear moot following dismissal, Currency’s counsel, Resch and Mayer Brown, urge us to exercise our discretion and reverse their disqualification. Counsel offers two reasons for the request: (1) the same controversy may recur because there are several actions currently pending