Manfredi & Levine v. Superior Court

Good Law
66 Cal. App. 4th 1128·78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 494
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 23, 1998B117626California2,851 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kevin H. Louth, Ventura, Pyfrom & Associates and Gregory C. Pyfrom, for: Real Parties in Interest Gary Podolny and Julie Podolny.

Steven and Sandra Barles, in pro. per., for Real Parties in Interest.

GILBERT, Associate Justice.

Here, trial counsel moved to be relieved because of an ethical conflict. When counsel told the court he would not disclose any information concerning the conflict, the court summarily denied the motion. There was no abuse of discretion and we deny the writ of mandate.

Real parties Steven and Sandra Barles ("the Barleses") retained petitioner law firm, Manfredi & Levine, ("Manfredi"), as their counsel. On August 15, 1996, they filed a lawsuit against real parties Gary and Judy Podolny ("the Podolnys"). Following months of intense litigation, the parties stipulated that the matter be heard in binding arbitration.

After seven days in arbitration, the Barles filed bankruptcy and obtained a stay of the proceedings. On October 29, 1997, the Podolnys obtained a vacation of the bankruptcy stay and sought to resume arbitration proceedings.

Manfredi claims that on November 7, 1997, it received unsolicited and confidential information. The information led it to…

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.