On 02/19/2014 DAYCO FUNDING CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ISSAC NORMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LISA HART COLE, NANCY L. NEWMAN, ALLAN J. GOODMAN and H. CHESTER HORN, JR.. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****2089
02/19/2014
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Santa Monica Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LISA HART COLE
NANCY L. NEWMAN
ALLAN J. GOODMAN
H. CHESTER HORN, JR.
DAYCO FUNDING CORPORATION
DAYANI DAVOUD
DAYANI SHAHIN OHEBSION
NORMAN ISAAC
MAHBAN HAMID
MORADSHAHI ALI
FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO
ALPER ANDREW K.
AFFELD GRIVAKES ZUCKER LLP
LEICHTER KEVIN J.
Court documents are not available for this case.
Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Second Amended Complaint Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Summons Filed Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Miscellaneous-Other Filed by Attorney for Defendant
Ex-Parte Application (TO STAY THE 08/28/15 ORDER PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF NORMAN'S WRIT OF MANDATE AND TO CLARIFY THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE 08/28/15 ORDER ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant
Order Filed by Attorney for Defendant
Notice of Ruling Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (OF DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMP. AND MOTION TO STRIKE ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Notice (OF COURT-REQUESTED COPY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Defendant
NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Notice (RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ) Filed by Clerk
Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Request for Judicial Notice (IN CONNECTION WITH HEARING ON DAYCO FUNDING CORPORATION'S DEMURRER TO AMENDED VERIFIED ANSWER AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL OF ISSAC NORMAN ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Demurrer (TO AMENDED VERIFIED ANSWER AND DEMAND FOR JURTY TRIAL OF ISSAC NORMAN TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Answer (VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL "FILED BY FAX ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant
Cross-complaint filed Filed by Attorney for Defendant
Answer (AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL; ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant
Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
Complaint Filed
Case Number: SC122089 Hearing Date: February 27, 2020 Dept: P
Dayco Funding Corporation v. Isaac Norman, Case No. SC122089
Hearing Date: February 27, 2020
Attorney Leichter’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
Kevin J. Leichter filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for defendant Isaac Norman. Based
on an attached declaration, Leichter seeks to have the court find no conflict, deny the motion, and allow him to continue his representation. Leichter’s current law partner, Larry Ecoff, previously represented plaintiff Dayco Funding Corp. and its principal H. Sean Dayani in unrelated matters. Leichter states plaintiff has not waived any potential conflict, so he asks the court to determine whether Ecoff’s prior representation of an adverse party requires his withdrawal.
An attorney’s conflict is imputed to the law firm as a whole. City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 839, 847. In California, simultaneous representation of two clients with adverse interests creates a per se conflict of interest, justifying automatic disqualification. Blue Water Sunset LLC v. Markowitz (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 477, 487. Simultaneous representation is disqualifying, regardless of whether the simultaneous representations are related. People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1147. The burden is on the party seeking disqualification. Shen v. Miller (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 48, 56.
Leichter argues Ecofff’s representation of Dayco was in the past and is unrelated to the current action. Plaintiffs argue Ecoff still represents Dayco, creating a current conflict of interest imputed by law to Leichter. The reply argues plaintiffs show no evidence proving the existence of an existing attorney-client relationship.
Dayani’s declaration states Ecoff represents him personally, as well as Dayco, and he contacted Ecoff “numerous times regarding legal advice for myself, my family and our various businesses and continue[s] to do so.” Dayani Decl. at ¶¶4-6. Though Leichter argues the declaration is ambiguous, it states Ecoff continues to provide legal advice to Dayani regarding Dayco. This establishes an attorney-client relationship between Ecoff and Dayani that is attributable to Leichter. Plaintiffs carry the burden to show concurrent representation and an existing conflict of interest. GRANTED.