Western United Service v. Greenblatt
Filed 6/27/06 Western United Service v. Greenblatt CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| WESTERN UNITED SERVICE CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FREDRIC J. GREENBLATT et al., Defendants and Appellants. | B174416 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC207526) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James R. Dunn, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Lisa L. Loveridge and Lisa L. Loveridge for Defendants and Appellants.
Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro and Mark G. Krum for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________________________
Fredric J. Greenblatt, individually and doing business as Greenblatt, Linde & Associates, appeals from the October 23, 2003 order granting his motion for reconsideration and, upon reconsideration, affirming the August 26, 2003 order compelling Greenblatt to disgorge $75,000 advanced as a retainer by nominal defendant Western United Service Corporation (Western), because he was disqualified from representing defendant Matt Rubin and Western.[1] Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the order.
The motion to disgorge was made ostensibly by Western. The real party in interest is Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP (Christensen), Western's attorneys of record. It is uncontroverted that Western's status as a suspended California corporation barred Western from litigating its claim for return of the $75,000 from Greenblatt. As we shall discuss, Western's incapacity to litigate, however, is no defense to the ability of Christensen, its assignee, to pursue Western's claim against Greenblatt. We conclude that a suspended corporation's incapacity to litigate is inconsequential to its assignee's standing to sue on a corporate claim.
BACKGROUND
On March 23, 1999, Anthony Smith filed a complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, misappropriate of trade secrets, fraud, constructive trust and accounting against Rubin, Western, and Dental Technology, Inc. (DTI), and in which Scott Ford was designated as a real party in interest (Smith Action).
In pertinent part, the complaint alleged: Western specialized in the â€
