Howard v. Clark Construction CA4/3

Filed 5/23/24 Howard v. Clark Construction CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

NATHANIEL HOWARD,

Plaintiff, G063094

v. (Super. Ct. No. PSC1901153)

CLARK CONSTRUCTION - GROUP OPINION CALIFORNIA, LP, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents;

KENNETH J. MELROSE et al.,

Objectors and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Manuel Bustamante, Jr., Judge. Dismissed. Motion to augment record denied. Motion to dismiss granted. Law Office of Kenneth J. Melrose and Kenneth J. Melrose for Objectors and Appellants. Everett Dorey, Seymour B. Everett, III, Samantha E. Dorey, Christopher D. Lee; Bullard; Brown & Beal, Jeremy E. Beal, Hans C. Ruschke; Horvitz & Levy and Steven S. Fleischman for Defendants and Respondents.

Clark Construction Group - California, LP and Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc. (collectively defendants) brought a motion to disqualify counsel representing plaintiff Nathaniel Howard—including the Law Offices of Brian D. Witzer and the Law Office of Kenneth J. Melrose (collectively appellants). The motion was based on undisputed facts that attorney Yangkyoung Lee, who worked with appellants on this matter, had also, years earlier, worked for about 20 hours on behalf of defendants in the same matter. The trial court granted the disqualification motion, finding a conclusive presumption demanded disqualification. After appellants appealed, Howard and defendants settled the underlying lawsuit, which was then dismissed by the court. Because there is no appellate relief to be granted, we dismiss this appeal as moot. For any collateral disputes about the issues underlying this appeal, there is to be no issue or claim preclusion based on the trial court’s disqualification order nor our dismissal of this appeal. FACTS I. The Disqualification Order In the underlying litigation, Howard sued defendants in February 2019, alleging liability for a workplace injury (the lawsuit). Shortly after Witzer filed the lawsuit on Howard’s behalf, Melrose “began to work the case up” with Witzer.1 Two months after the lawsuit began, Lee worked for Bullard, Brown & Beal—one of the law firms that represented defendants in the underlying litigation—for “‘less than a month.’” During that time, in April 2019, Lee worked on the lawsuit for “approximately 20 hours” on behalf of defendants. More than three years later, in December 2022, Lee began an independent contractor relationship with Witzer. They had a conversation where Witzer “asked [Lee]