Pineda v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-06113
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Pineda v. Costco, Judge White denied Costco’s motion to disqualify plaintiff’s lawyers because their screening procedures were sufficient.
Costco’s motion to remove Downtown L.A. Law Group as Pineda’s counsel was denied, so the firm remained her counsel in this case.
What happened
In Pineda v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Juliana Margarita Pineda sued Costco for negligence and premises liability after slipping and falling in a Costco store. She was represented by Downtown L.A. Law Group, whose attorney Anthony Werbin had previously represented Costco.
Costco argued that Werbin had received confidential information about related slip-and-fall matters and that his conflict should disqualify the entire law firm. Werbin said Costco had not given him confidential or proprietary information. The firm also described procedures designed to prevent him from accessing Costco cases and files.
Judge Jeffrey White found that Werbin’s earlier work for Costco was substantially related to this case, but ruled that the firm’s screening procedures were sufficient to overcome the presumption that the conflict applied to the whole firm. The court denied Costco’s motion and vacated the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Pineda v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · No. 4:23-cv-06113
- Jeffrey White
- Feb. 2, 2024
Background
Juliana Margarita Pineda, a minor represented by her guardian ad litem Mercedes Pineda, sued Costco Wholesale Corporation for negligence and premises liability after slipping and falling in a Costco store in Hayward, California. Pineda was represented by Downtown L.A. Law Group (DTLA).
One of DTLA’s attorneys, Anthony Werbin, had previously represented Costco while working at another firm. Costco moved to disqualify DTLA, arguing that Werbin had confidential attorney-client information about Costco’s slip-and-fall matters, including litigation strategy, and that his conflict should be attributed to the entire firm.
Werbin stated that Costco had never provided him with confidential or proprietary information. He also stated that, after joining DTLA, he worked on one Costco case before DTLA established an ethical wall to screen him from Costco cases. DTLA described a December 2021 change to its software and file-management system under which attorneys work in separate teams and cases and files are not shared among teams.
Analysis
The court relied on its legal analysis in a prior related proceeding involving DTLA and Costco. The court found a substantial relationship between Werbin’s prior representation of Costco and the current case. It noted that Costco had not submitted the same type of declaration about shared defense strategies that it had submitted in the prior related proceeding, but concluded that the facts concerning Werbin’s prior representation had otherwise not changed.
The court then considered whether DTLA’s ethical wall rebutted the presumption of vicarious disqualification—the presumption that one lawyer’s conflict disqualifies the lawyer’s entire firm. The court identified typical screening measures, including separating attorneys and files, prohibiting discussion of confidential matters, preventing access to confidential information, restricting the screened attorney’s share of profits, and providing continuing professional-responsibility education.
The court concluded that DTLA’s screening procedures were sufficient to overcome the presumption. Unlike the procedures in the prior related proceeding, DTLA had put these procedures in place before Pineda filed this case.
Ruling
Judge Jeffrey White denied Costco’s motion to disqualify DTLA. The court also vacated the February 9, 2024 hearing and directed the parties to appear for the initial case management conference on March 15, 2024, with their joint statement due March 8, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.