This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Modification: Wu v. O'Gara Coach Co., LLC

Ruling by

Dennis M. Perluss

Lower Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

Robert L. Hess
Modification


Court

California Courts of Appeal 2DCA/7

Cite as

2019 DJDAR 8015

Published

Aug. 23, 2019

Filing Date

Aug. 22, 2019

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Reversed


THOMAS WU,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

O'GARA COACH COMPANY LLC et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 

No. B289698

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC675388)

California Courts of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Seven

Filed August 22, 2019

 

THE COURT:

 

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 21, 2019 be modified as follows:

1. Delete the entire first paragraph of the opinion and replace it with the following:

In O'Gara Coach Co., LLC v. Ra (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1115 (Ra) this court reversed the trial court's order denying O'Gara Coach Company LLC's motion to disqualify Richie Litigation, P.C. and its attorneys from representing former O'Gara Coach senior executive Joseph Ra in litigation that included cross-actions between O'Gara Coach and Ra. We held O'Gara Coach was entitled to insist that Darren Richie, its former president and chief operating officer and a principal of Richie Litigation, honor his ethical obligation as a member of the California State Bar to maintain the integrity of the judicial process by refraining from representing former O'Gara Coach employees in litigation against O'Gara Coach when Richie possessed confidential attorney-client privileged information materially related to the matters at issue, even though that information had been obtained by Richie in his capacity as an officer of the client, not its lawyer. (See id. at pp. 1128-1129.)

2. There is no change in the judgment.

 

 

PERLUSS, P. J.

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.

#273809

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424