Broidy

Vivitar Corp. v. Broidy

Good Law
143 Cal. App. 3d 878·192 Cal. Rptr. 281·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 1822
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 14, 1983Civ. 66265California2,413 words

Opinion

Opinion

Compton, J.

This appeal is taken from an order of the superior court disqualifying and prohibiting the law firm of Klinger and Leevan from representing plaintiffs in an action filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. We reverse.

The issue presented is whether a conflict of interest requiring recusal of counsel exists when counsel for a trustee in bankruptcy is retained to represent some of the bankrupt’s general creditors in an action brought in the state court against one of the other general creditors. We hold that no cognizable conflict of interest exists which warrants disqualification of counsel in the state court action.

Northridge Camera and Sound, Inc., was a California corporation formed to carry on the business of selling at retail photographic equipment and accessories. Steven Broidy (Broidy) was the sole stockholder of Northridge Camera from its inception in 1977. In 1979, Broidy transferred all of the outstanding stock to his son. During the operation of the business, several camera companies provided photographic equipment to the corporation on credit. Plaintiffs are five of such suppliers.

In 1980, Northridge Camera was adjudged a bankrupt and Curtis B.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.