SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 05/03/2017 TIME: 10:50:00 AM DEPT: C11
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David T. McEachen
CLERK: Myra Nakata
REPORTER/ERM: None
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: None

CASE NO: 30-2016-00870777-CU-FR-CJC CASE !NIT.DATE: 08/22/2016

CASE TITLE: Avenal Finance, LLC vs. King
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Fraud

EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: 72582329

EVENT TYPE: Under Submission Ruling

APPEARANCES

There are no appearances by any party.

The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 04/28/2017 and having fully
considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now
rules as follows:

The Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel is DENIED. As an alternative, the court will report this matter
to the California State Bar. The Motion for Joinder is GRANTED, but is also DENIED on the merits.
The transcript of the telephone conversion between counsel appears to support a finding that Frank
Lizarraga, Esq. committed extortion and violated Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-100 (A).

In an appropriate case, the trial court may exercise its inherent power to control the conduct of its
ministerial officers to disqualify an attorney in an action before it. ... Issues of disqualification often arise
when an attorney has a conflict of interest, such as when the attorney has been exposed to confidential
information of a former client who is in an adverse position in current litigation." Sheller v. Superior Court
(2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1697, 1710-11.

"'[T]he significant question is whether there exists a genuine likelihood that the status or misconduct of
the attorney in question will affect the outcome of the proceedings before the court. Thus, disqualification
is proper where, as a result of a prior representation or through improper means, there is a reasonable
probability counsel has obtained information the court believes would likely be used advantageously
against an adverse party during the course of the litigation. Though such information cannot be
unlearned, and the lawyer who obtained it cannot be prevented from giving it to others, disqualification
still serves the useful purpose of eliminating from the case the attorney who could most effectively
exploit the unfair advantage.," McDermott, Will & Emery v. Superior Court, No. G053623, 2017 WL

DATE: 05/03/2017 MINUTE ORDER Page 1

DEPT: C11 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Avenal Finance, LLC vs. King CASE NO: 30-2016-00870777-CU-FR-CJC

1382132, at 20 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2017).

This case differs from the traditional case meriting disqualification. There are no reported cases arises
from these violations. There is no indication that the alleged extortion or violation of Rules of
Professional Conduct, Rule 5-100 (A) would have a continuing effect on this litigation.

Court orders clerk to give notice.

DATE: 05/03/2017 MINUTE ORDER Page 2

DEPT: C11 Calendar No.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
Central Justice Center
700 W. Civic Center Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92702
SHORT TITLE: Avenal Finance, LLC vs. King

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ELECTRONIC CASE NUMBER:

SERVICE 30-2016-00870777-CU-FR-CJC

l certify that l am not a pa1ty to this cause. I certify that a true copy of the above Minute Order dated 05/03/17 has been
placed for collection and mailing so as to cause it to be mailed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid pursuant to
standard court practice and addressed as indicated below. This certification occurred at Santa Ana, California on 5/3/17.
Following standard court practice the mailing will occur at Sacramento, California on 5/4/17.

LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY S. BENJCE

3080 BRISTOL STREET 630
COSTA MESA, CA 92626

Clerk of the Court, by:

, Deputy

I certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that the following document(s), Minute Order dated 05/03/17, have
been transmitted electronically by Orange County Superior Court at Santa Ana, CA. The transmission originated from
email address on May 3, 2017, at 1:46: 19 PM PDT. The electronically transmitted document(s) is in accordance with rule
2.251 of the California Rules of Court, addressed as shown above. The list of electronically served recipients are listed
below:

LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY S. BEN ICE, A LIZARRAGA LAW FIRM, APC

PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION FLIZARRAGA@LIZARRAGALA W.COM
JSB@JEFFREYBENICE.COM

ROMERO LAW, APC SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

FIRM@ROMEROLA W.COM JHUA@SWLA W.COM

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. SNELL & WlLMER L.L.P.

JSJNGLETARY@SWLA W.COM TBROSNAN@SWLA W.COM

Clerk of the Court, by:

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/ELECTRONIC SERVICE

V3 1013a (,June 2004) Code ofCiv. Procedure,§ CCP1013(a)