joint defense in California

2023Co. (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 397 , 402 ; Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 509, 511 .) “The discretion granted to the court must necessarily be broad and will not be interfered with on appeal, except for an abuse thereof.” (National Electric Supply Co. v. Mt.

1982Whether separate actions shall be consolidated for trial is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. ( Fellner v. Steinbaum (1955) 132 Cal. App.2d 509, 511 [ 282 P.2d 584 ].) That consolidation in the present case was not an abuse of discretion is shown by Estate of Bliss (1962) 199 Cal. App.2d 630 [ 18 Cal. Rptr. 821 ], wherein it was held that a will contest and an action to set aside an inter vivos gift made by the testator to the proponent of the will were properly consolidated for purp

2016Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 562 .) Unity of Interest API contends the three defendants had a "unity of interest" in a joint defense and they "filed joint answers, motions and responses." It suggests the trial court erred by not denying their defense costs and litigation expenses for counsels' joint representation of the prevailing and losing defendants under the unity of interest doctrine.

2015Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 563-564 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 695 ] [“Respondents supported their fee requests with declarations describing the joint defense and the division of labor, with billing records to establish the hours of work.

2021This suggestion is reinforced by Moebius’s statement that the County and Hefner maintained a joint defense and common interest while “working toward a resolution” of the petition, indicating the suit was resolved without extensive litigation. 19 Further, Moebius carefully referred to “any correspondence” (italics added) shared by the Hefner firm and the County as covered by 19 This circumstance may explain why the County did not assert the exemption under section 6254, subdivision (b), for “[r]ecords pertaining to pending litigation to which the public agency is a party . . . until the pending

2021This suggestion is reinforced by Moebius’s statement that the County and Hefner maintained a joint defense and common interest while “working toward a resolution” of the petition, indicating the suit was resolved without extensive litigation. 19 Further, Moebius carefully referred to “any correspondence” (italics added) shared by the Hefner firm and the County as covered by 19 This circumstance may explain why the County did not assert the exemption under section 6254, subdivision (b), for “[r]ecords pertaining to pending litigation to which the public agency is a party . . . until the pending

2006Joint defendants and Parklane do not contend they are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to the three stated causes of action, unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 16700 et seq.), [6] interference with prospective economic advantage, [7] and unfair competition in violation of the UCL. [8] Rather, they argue *358 that they are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code section 798.85 (hereinafter, Section 798.85), the attorney fees and costs provision of the MRL. "`An order granting or denying an award of attorney fees

2006Joint defendants and Parklane do not contend they are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to the three stated causes of action, unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 16700 et seq.), [6] interference with prospective economic advantage, [7] and unfair competition in violation of the UCL. [8] Rather, they argue *358 that they are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code section 798.85 (hereinafter, Section 798.85), the attorney fees and costs provision of the MRL. "`An order granting or denying an award of attorney fees

2025The Effect of Consolidation on an Action If there are pending actions before the court that involve “a common question of law or fact,” section 1048 permits the trial court to “order a joint hearing or trial” or to “order all the actions consolidated.” (§ 1048, subd. (a).) “Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147 .) When two actions are c

2025The Effect of Consolidation on an Action If there are pending actions before the court that involve “a common question of law or fact,” section 1048 permits the trial court to “order a joint hearing or trial” or to “order all the actions consolidated.” (§ 1048, subd. (a).) “Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147 .) When two actions are c

2015(Id. at p. 914.) This common-interest doctrine "does not mean there is 'an expanded attorney-client relationship encompassing all parties and counsel who share a common interest.'" (Ibid.) In the trial court, Overland's attorney cited United States v. Henke (9th Cir. 2000) 222 F.3d 633 , 637 for the proposition that "entering into a joint defense agreement establishes an implied in fact attorney-client relationship between all defendants and attorneys who are parties to the agreement . . . ." However, in Oxy Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874 , the appellate

2010Thus, all . . . communications among the joint defense group members and/or their clients in connection with the joint defense group members’ representation of their respective clients are conducted and protected pursuant to California Evidence Code section 912(d) . . . .” “Typically, a joint defense agreement protects information shared by defendants after a lawsuit has been filed, and it serves the purpose of protecting from disclosure the joint defendants’ trial strategies and preparation.” (OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 893 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 ]

2025The Effect of Consolidation on an Action If there are pending actions before the court that involve “a common question of law or fact,” section 1048 permits the trial court to “order a joint hearing or trial” or to “order all the actions consolidated.” (§ 1048, subd. (a).) “Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147 .) When two actions are c

2000Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), authorizes the trial court, when appropriate, to "order a joint hearing or trial" or to "order all the actions consolidated." Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment. ( Sanchez, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at

2015(Id. at p. 914.) This common-interest doctrine "does not mean there is 'an expanded attorney-client relationship encompassing all parties and counsel who share a common interest.'" (Ibid.) In the trial court, Overland's attorney cited United States v. Henke (9th Cir. 2000) 222 F.3d 633 , 637 for the proposition that "entering into a joint defense agreement establishes an implied in fact attorney-client relationship between all defendants and attorneys who are parties to the agreement . . . ." However, in Oxy Resources California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874 , the appellate

2003An attorney represents a client— for purposes of a conflict of interest analysis—when the attorney knowingly obtains material confidential information from the client and renders legal advice" ( SpeeDee Oil, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1148 , 86 Cal. Rptr.2d 816 , 980 P.2d 371 ; see also U.S. v. Henke (9th Cir.2000) 222 F.3d 633 , 637 [a joint defense agreement establishes an implied attorney client relationship with the co-defendant, and the extension of the attorney-client privilege therein may create a conflict where information obtained in confidence is related to subsequent litigation].) Unde

2007(See MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 412, 422 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 755 , 115 P.3d 41 ] [discussing judicial estoppel].) However, plaintiff’s argument did not alter the foundation of the case as framed by plaintiff, namely, that the illegal conspiracy and acts denied it the ability to sell mobilehomes.

2007(See MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 412, 422 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 755 , 115 P.3d 41 ] [discussing judicial estoppel].) However, plaintiff’s argument did not alter the foundation of the case as framed by plaintiff, namely, that the illegal conspiracy and acts denied it the ability to sell mobilehomes.

2006Joint defendants and Parklane do not contend they are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to the three stated causes of action, unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 16700 et seq.), [6] interference with prospective economic advantage, [7] and unfair competition in violation of the UCL. [8] Rather, they argue *358 that they are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code section 798.85 (hereinafter, Section 798.85), the attorney fees and costs provision of the MRL. "`An order granting or denying an award of attorney fees

2006Joint defendants and Parklane do not contend they are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to the three stated causes of action, unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 16700 et seq.), [6] interference with prospective economic advantage, [7] and unfair competition in violation of the UCL. [8] Rather, they argue *358 that they are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code section 798.85 (hereinafter, Section 798.85), the attorney fees and costs provision of the MRL. "`An order granting or denying an award of attorney fees

2006Joint defendants and Parklane do not contend they are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to the three stated causes of action, unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 16700 et seq.), [6] interference with prospective economic advantage, [7] and unfair competition in violation of the UCL. [8] Rather, they argue *358 that they are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code section 798.85 (hereinafter, Section 798.85), the attorney fees and costs provision of the MRL. "`An order granting or denying an award of attorney fees

2006Joint defendants and Parklane do not contend they are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to the three stated causes of action, unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 16700 et seq.), [6] interference with prospective economic advantage, [7] and unfair competition in violation of the UCL. [8] Rather, they argue *358 that they are entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code section 798.85 (hereinafter, Section 798.85), the attorney fees and costs provision of the MRL. "`An order granting or denying an award of attorney fees

2025The Effect of Consolidation on an Action If there are pending actions before the court that involve “a common question of law or fact,” section 1048 permits the trial court to “order a joint hearing or trial” or to “order all the actions consolidated.” (§ 1048, subd. (a).) “Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147 .) When two actions are c

2025The Effect of Consolidation on an Action If there are pending actions before the court that involve “a common question of law or fact,” section 1048 permits the trial court to “order a joint hearing or trial” or to “order all the actions consolidated.” (§ 1048, subd. (a).) “Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147 .) When two actions are c

2024(See Villano v. Waterman Convalescent Hospital, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1189, 1200 (Villano) [in appeal of stipulated judgment, “the appellant has ‘“the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” [Citation.] One aspect of that burden requires that the appellant develop the fullest possible evidentiary record before seeking review’”].) 21 To the extent the Trustee contends the trial court erred by finding it would “bear the burden to demonstrate that it has paid indemnification for the relevant Directors, including demonstrating it complied with all statutory requirements or

2023The statute provides: “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (See, e.g., State of California v. Altus Finance (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1284, 1293 [cases consolidated for discovery and pretrial matters]; Austin B. v. Escondido Unified School Dist., supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 870 [cases Plaintiff’s detriment or otherw

2023The statute provides: “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (See, e.g., State of California v. Altus Finance (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1284, 1293 [cases consolidated for discovery and pretrial matters]; Austin B. v. Escondido Unified School Dist., supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 870 [cases Plaintiff’s detriment or otherw

2023(See In re Marriage of Deal (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 613 , 622 [“Under well- established rules of appellate procedure, . . . the appellant . . . has the burden to provide an adequate record on appeal and to affirmatively show error”]; see also Hotels Nevada, LLC v. L.A. 13 Pacific Center, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 336, 348 [“ ‘Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the] appellant”].) We do not know, for example, that Moi’s counsel made only a special as opposed to general appearance at the June 2, 2022 hearing to contest the Firm’s petitio