§Why CasetextPricing

REV 973 LLC v. John Mouren-Laurens, et al

REPLY

11 Cited authorities

  1. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 2,823 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff seeking to bring suit under a federal statute must show not only that he has standing under Article III, but also that his "complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law" invoked

  2. Federal Election Comm'n v. Akins

    524 U.S. 11 (1998)   Cited 778 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inability to procure information to which Congress has created a right in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 qualifies as concrete injury satisfying Article III's standing requirement

  3. Flatt v. Superior Court

    9 Cal.4th 275 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 364 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where the requisite substantial relationship exists, "access to confidential information by the attorney in the course of the first representation (relevant, by definition, to the second representation) is presumed and disqualification of the attorney's representation of the second client is mandatory; indeed, the disqualification extends vicariously to the entire firm"

  4. San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc.

    162 Cal.App.3d 358 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 245 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an insurance company must hire an independent attorney to represent its insured when the carrier reserves the right to deny coverage at a later date

  5. Cassel v. Superior Court (Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Pearson, L.L.P.)

    51 Cal.4th 113 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 86 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the privilege is absolute unless it is waived or its application would give rise to "extreme" situation such as denial of due process

  6. Erickson v. Newmar Corp.

    87 F.3d 298 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 120 times
    Holding that “an attorney who engages in prohibited communications violates the attorney's ethical duty to obey the obligations of the tribunal.”

  7. Colyer v. Smith

    50 F. Supp. 2d 966 (C.D. Cal. 1999)   Cited 107 times
    Holding plaintiff lacked standing to seek disqualification of defendant's counsel in light of counsel's asserted breach of duty to third party, where plaintiff failed to show asserted conflict "threaten[ed] [plaintiff's] individual right to a just determination of his claims"

  8. Zador Corp. v. Kwan

    31 Cal.App.4th 1285 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 58 times
    Upholding an advanced waiver in which the prospective, adverse client was specifically named

  9. State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Drobot

    192 F. Supp. 3d 1080 (C.D. Cal. 2016)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that, "without a proper waiver" a lawyer cannot drop a client like a hot potato

  10. United States v. Gov't of Guam

    CIVIL CASE NO. 02-00022 (D. Guam Aug. 13, 2013)

    CIVIL CASE NO. 02-00022 08-13-2013 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Defendant. Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood ORDER re Motion for Reconsideration This matter is before the court on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Government of Guam through the Cabot Mantanona LLP ("Cabot Mantanona") law firm. Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 1075. The motion requests the court to reconsider its prior ruling allowing the law firm to represent the Government of Guam for the limited purpose

  11. Section 1119 - Admissibility of statements, admissions, or writings; confidentiality

    Cal. Evid. Code § 1119   Cited 238 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no writing prepared for the purpose of mediation is admissible in a civil action in which testimony can be compelled