Merle Norman Cosmetics, Inc. v. United States District Court, Central District of California, James L. Kemper, Real Party in Interest

Good Law
856 F.2d 98·1988 WL 90487·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 12016
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 2, 198888-7109California1,557 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

This case arises on a petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioners, the defendants in the underlying litigation, challenge the district court’s denial of their motion to disqualify attorney Joel Bennett from representing plaintiff James Kemper. Petitioners seek disqualification primarily because of Bennett’s alleged connection with John Scholl, who previously represented petitioner Merle Norman Cosmetics while a partner in a law firm with Elwood Kendrick and George Netter. Scholl was the attorney chiefly responsible for the Merle Norman account, and when he left the Kendrick firm in 1975, he took the account with him. However, petitioners also allege that while Merle Norman was still a client of the firm, Kendrick and Netter, individually, did some work on its account. We assume that to be the case for purposes of this proceeding.

Bennett joined the Kendrick firm after Scholl and Merle Norman departed. In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, the firm underwent several changes in name and partnership. In January 1986, Bennett and the firm, in its final form, filed an antitrust complaint against petitioners on behalf of Retail Cosmetic Concepts, Inc. Petitioners sought to disqualify…

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.