MacHado

MacHado v. Superior Court

Good Law
148 Cal. App. 4th 875·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 394·2007 Daily Journal DAR 3739·55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 902·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2944
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 20, 2007C052442California4,119 words

Opinion

Opinion

Morrison, J.

Petitioner Joe J. Machado challenges an order disqualifying his counsel, Ed Freidberg, in a pending action. The motion was filed by a nonparty, Michael Atherton, Freidberg’s former client and business partner. We conclude that although ordinarily a nonparty must file a separate action to prevent former counsel from continuing with an adverse representation, in this case Atherton has standing to make the motion because he is alleged to be the alter ego and coconspirator of a party, and because this case was filed in order to evade a prior disqualification order in a related case in which Atherton is a named party. We also conclude, contrary to some published authority, that because a disqualification order may be appealed immediately, it may not be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment. For this reason, the prior disqualification order in the related case is a final order for purposes of issue preclusion. Because the disqualification motions in the two cases raised the same issues, review of the merits of the latter order is precluded. We deny the writ.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This matter involves three superior court cases, which we refer to as the…

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.