Wayfer

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

24 Plaintiff originally filed suit in the Superior Court of 25 California, County of San Joaquin. See Notice of Removal, ECF

1This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled for January 7, 2025. No. 1. Defendant then timely removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. See id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This controversy arises out of Plaintiff’s slip and fall while at Defendant’s store. See Notice of Removal at 2. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence and premises liability. See id. Defendant now moves to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel, Downtown L.A. Law Group (“DTLA”). See Mot. Defendant argues that Anthony Werbin, a DTLA attorney who previously represented Defendant, has not been timely and effectively screened. See id. at 1-2. Plaintiff counters that Mr. Werbin is not affiliated with this case and has been screened. See Opp’n at 4-5. II. OPINION A. Legal Standard Motions for disqualification…