§Why CasetextPricing

Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

REPLY

20 Cited authorities

  1. People ex Rel. Dept., Corps. v. Speedee O. Chg. Sys

    20 Cal.4th 1135 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 538 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where trial court resolved disputed facts, appellate courts review for abuse of discretion, but where there are no disputed factual issues, appellate courts review the trial court's determination as a question of law

  2. Flatt v. Superior Court

    9 Cal.4th 275 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 365 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"

  3. Cardinale v. Golinello

    43 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 222 times
    Affirming disqualification of small firm characterized by cross current of discussion and ideas among all attorneys on all matters, and all firm files were open and available to all lawyers

  4. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court

    126 Cal.App.4th 1253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 71 times
    Upholding disqualification under California's “divided loyalties” rule where the named plaintiff was a lawyer represented by the law firm at which he worked, and co-counsel on his case also partnered with his law firm in similar lawsuits

  5. Adams v. Aerojet-General Corp.

    86 Cal.App.4th 1324 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 79 times
    Rejecting the contention that an attorney has "presumptive knowledge [about the former client and relevant legal issues] based solely on his former membership in a law firm which represented the former client"

  6. Cal Pak Delivery, Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

    52 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that the value of pre-breach fees could not be decided until the case's conclusion, because only then would it be clear whether attorney's services proved of value to his former clients' recovery, and whether any recovery for services was appropriate

  7. Unified Sewerage Agency, Etc. v. Jelco Inc.

    646 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 109 times
    Finding informed consent because client continued representation after being twice alerted of conflict by attorney

  8. Truck Ins. Exchange v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

    6 Cal.App.4th 1050 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 76 times
    In Truck Insurance Exchange v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 6 Cal. App. 4th 1050, 1057 (1992), the defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (FFIC), which was the firm's first-acquired client, successfully moved to disqualify the firm from representing the plaintiff Truck, which was the later-acquired client.

  9. Blue Water Sunset, LLC v. Markowitz

    192 Cal.App.4th 477 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 28 times
    Holding interests were adverse where each side claimed ownership rights to the exclusion of the other

  10. Elan Transdermal Ltd. v. Cygnus Therapeutic Systems

    809 F. Supp. 1383 (N.D. Cal. 1992)   Cited 53 times
    In Elan Transdermal Limited v. Cygnus Therapeutic Systems, 809 F. Supp. 1383 (N.D.Cal. 1992), a large law firm undertook to sue a former client for patent infringement.