Gutierrez vs. General Motors LLC

Defendant argues that Mr. Brown is a necessary percipient witness because he personally signed the lien against Defendant’s property and he is the only individual who can testify as to his authority to record the lien, why the lien was recorded when the Association’s status was suspended, internal communications, and how the disputed amounts were calculated. In his Second Amended Cross-Complaint, Defendant alleges that the lien recorded against his property is invalid and void and based on inaccurate accounting practices. Defendant further argues that disqualification is necessary because Mr. Brown and CLA are deeply entangled in Plaintiff’s collection practices.

The Court finds that Defendant’s arguments that Mr. Brown is a necessary percipient witness due to his involvement in recording the lien and representing Plaintiff in collections efforts are not persuasive. Mr. Brown’s authority from Plaintiff to record the lien has no bearing on the validity of the lien or the amendment thereto that was filed while the Association was on a suspended status. Further, any “internal communications” between Plaintiff and Mr. Brown regarding his recording of the lien on Plaintiff’s behalf would undoubtedly fall within the scope of the attorney-client relationship and be protected by the attorney-client privilege. (Evid. Code, § 954.)

Moreover, Mr. Brown’s testimony is not required in relation to Defendant’s allegations that the lien is based on improper accounting and the amount of the lien was miscalculated. Rather, testimony regarding how the Association calculated the amount and the Association’s accounting practices would more appropriately be obtained via the deposition of the Association’s person(s) most knowledgeable. Thus, the first factor weighs against disqualification.

As to the second factor for consideration, Plaintiff points out that Defendant has known of Mr. Brown’s and CLA’s representation of the Association over a year before the Motion to Disqualify was filed. However, there is no other evidence aside from this delay to suggest that Defendant is using his Motion for purely tactical reasons. Thus, the Court finds that this factor is neutral.

The last factor, however, also weighs against disqualification. Plaintiff undisputably as a strong interest in representation by counsel of its choice and trial in this matter is currently set for November 23, 2026. This matter has been pending for a year and a half. Requiring Plaintiff to obtain new counsel now would come at significant expense and require duplicative efforts for new counsel to become familiar with the case in preparation for trial. In short, the Court finds that Plaintiff would be highly prejudiced by the granting of this Motion.