Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01590/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01590-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESA LUCARELLI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PAUL DILLARD, LETHEL POLK, and DOES

ONE THROUGH TEN, inclusive,

Defendants /

No. C-05-1590 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S

COUNSEL; VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is the motion, filed August 30, 2005 by defendants Paul Dillard and

Lethel Polk, by which defendants seek disqualification of plaintiff Theresa Lucarelli’s

counsel, Gregory S. Walston (“Walston”) and Michael Williams (“Williams”). Plaintiff has

filed opposition, to which defendants have replied. Having read and considered the papers

filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate

for decision on the papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled for October 7, 2005, and rules

as follows.

Defendants seek disqualification under the successive representative doctrine. 

Under that doctrine, “[w]here an attorney successively represents clients with adverse

interests, and where the subjects of the two representations are substantially related, the

need to protect the first client’s confidential information requires that the attorney be

disqualified from the second representation.” See People ex. rel. Dep’t of Corporations v.

Case 3:05-cv-01590-MMC Document 26 Filed 09/27/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc., 20 Cal. 4th 1135, 1146 (1999). Here, however,

defendants offer no evidence, or even contend, that they have been represented by

Walston or Williams in any capacity, and, consequently, are not entitled to an order of

disqualification. See Strasbourger Pearson Tulcin Wolfe Inc. v. Wiz Technology, 69 Cal.

App. 4th 1399, 1404, 1409 (1999) (holding “attorney-client relationship must have existed

before disqualification is proper”; reversing order disqualifying plaintiff’s counsel where

defendant failed to establish it ever had attorney-client relationship with plaintiff’s counsel). 

Further, even assuming, arguendo, defendants could rely on an attorney-client relationship

between a third party and plaintiff’s counsel, defendants, for the reasons stated in plaintiff’s

opposition, have failed to show that the subject of any such prior relationship involved facts

similar or related to those alleged by plaintiff in her complaint against defendants.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to disqualify is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01590-MMC Document 26 Filed 09/27/05 Page 2 of 2