Forrest

Forrest v. Baeza

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 794·58 Cal. App. 4th 65·67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 857·97 Daily Journal DAR 12541·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7806
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 2, 1997A075264California6,491 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

This case raises issues pertaining to a motion to disqualify the attorney simultaneously representing two closely held, family-run corporations, and two of the corporations’ three shareholders. The trial court granted the motion to disqualify the attorney from representation of the corporate parties, but allowed him to continue his representation of the individuals. The minority director/shareholder appeals, contending the court erred in failing to grant the disqualification motion in full. The corporations, on cross-appeal, urge the trial court erred in granting the motion at all.

Statement of the Case and Facts

This case involves a dispute between the three shareholders of Ba-Cel, Inc. (a corporation primarily engaged in the business of automobile towing and now known as Michael W. Forrest, Inc.), and Elgin Auto Body, Inc. (a corporation primarily engaged in the business of automobile body repair and now known as Forrest Auto Body, Inc.). The corporations are each owned in equal measure by Michael W. Forrest, his wife, Sandra Forrest, and Sandra Forrest’s brother, Ritch Ricetti. The three shareholders were each officers and directors of the corporations until…

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.