Pineda v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 2, 2024
• Docket: 4:23-cv-06113
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JULIANA MARGARITA PINEDA, a minor Case No. 23-cv-06113-JSW by and through her Guardian Ad Litem 8 MERCEDES PINEDA, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 Plaintiff, DISQUALIFY DOWNTOWN L.A. LAW GROUP AS PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL v. 10 Re: Dkt. No. 12 11 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant. 12

13 Now before the Court for consideration is Defendant Costo Wholesale Corporation’s 14 (“Costo”) motion to disqualify Downtown L.A. Law Group (“DTLA”) from representing Plaintiff 15 in this action. The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the 16 record in this case and finds the motion can be resolved without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. 17 L.R. 7-1(b). The Court VACATES the hearing scheduled for February 9, 2024, and it DENIES 18 Costco’s motion. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff has sued Costco for negligence and premises liability after she slipped and fell in 21 a Costco store located in Hayward, California. (Notice of Removal, Ex. A, Compl. at ECF p. 11.) 22 Plaintiff is represented by DTLA. One of DTLA’s attorneys, Anthony Werbin, represented 23 Costco while at his previous firm. Costco asserts that he possesses confidential attorney-client 24 information belonging to Costco that is substantially related to these proceedings and that his 25 conflict must be imputed to DTLA. 26 Costco attests that Werbin represented Costco on slip and fall matters and developed 27 1 confidential and privileged documents, and developed litigation strategy on Costo matters. ((See, 2 e.g., Declaration of Leigh Ann Ruijters (“Ruijters Decl.”), ¶¶ 2, 5-7.) Werbin attests that he “was 3 never provided with any confidential or proprietary information” by Costco during his previous 4 employment. (Declaration of Anthony Werbin (“Werbin Decl.”), ¶ 9.) Werbin also attests that 5 since he joined DTLA he has worked on one Costco case, which was before DTLA instituted an 6 ethical wall to screen him from any Costco cases. (Id. ¶ 11; see also Declaration of Elina 7 Shakhbazyan (“Shakhbazyan Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-10.) 8 The Court will address additional facts as necessary in the analysis. 9 ANALYSIS 10 The undersigned previously granted a motion to disqualify DTLA in a similar case against 11 Costco, Sierra v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 630 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (N.D. Cal. 2022). The Court 12 incorporates by reference the legal standards set forth in that Order. Id. at 1204-05. In Sierra, 13 Costco submitted a declaration from its counsel attesting that she and Mr. Werbin “shared defense 14 strategies and tactics for defendant constructive notice claims asserted against Costco[.]” Id. at 15 1206. Although Costco did not submit a similar declaration in this case, apart from the passage of 16 time, the facts about Mr. Werbin’s previous representation have not changed. Accordingly, for the 17 reasons articulated in Sierra, the Court concludes there is a substantial relationship between Mr. 18 Werbin’s prior relationship of Costco and the current case. Id. at 1205-06. 19 The Court now turns to whether DTLA has rebutted the presumption of disqualification 20 through its reliance on the screening procedure it has put in place. “The typical elements of an 21 ethical wall are: [1] physical, geographic, and departmental separation of attorneys; [2] 22 prohibitions against and sanctions for discussing confidential matters; [3] established rules and 23 procedures preventing access to confidential information and files; [4] procedures preventing a 24 disqualified attorney from sharing in the profits from the representation; and [5] continuing 25 education in professional responsibility.” Kirk v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 183 Cal. App. 4th 776, 26 810 (2010). 27 In December 2021, DTLA implemented a change to its software and file management ] manages its cases by dividing into teams and cases and files are not shared among the teams. 2 || (Shakhbazyan Decl. 7, 10.) In contrast to the facts in Sierra, those screening procedures were 3 || putin place before this case was filed. See Sierra, 630 F. Supp. 3d at 1207. The Court also 4 || concludes those screening procedures are sufficient to overcome a presumption of vicarious 5 disqualification. 6 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Costco’s motion. The parties shall appear as scheduled 7 || for the initial case management conference on March 15, 2024, and their joint case management 8 conference statement shall be due by March 8, 2024. 9 IT ISSO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: February 2, 2024 / / / Nts JEEFREY . WHITE} V2 Uptited Sues Distrig/ Judge 13 /

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28