In June, Atkinson/Walsh attorneys filed a motion to disqualify Pepper Hamilton from representing URS and AECOM, claiming the opposing counsel improperly accessed documents that Atkinson/Walsh provided solely for pretrial mediation. URS and AECOM claimed Pepper Hamilton didn’t violate any confidentiality agreement by accessing the documents, but the lower court sided with Atkinson/Walsh and disqualified them. URS and AECOM appealed, and filed a writ requesting the order, as well as the entire case, be stayed.
In Wednesday’s opinion, the court of appeal said that under the case law, mandatory injunctions requiring an affirmative action that changes the status quo are automatically stayed on appeal while prohibitory injunctions, which restrain parties from taking action and keep the status quo, are not.
“While acknowledging the difficulty of this issue, we conclude that appellants accurately identify the pertinent ‘status quo,’” the opinion said. “An order disqualifying an attorney from continuing to represent a party in ongoing litigation is a mandatory injunction because it requires affirmative acts that upset the status quo at the time the disqualification motion was filed.”
In the appellate matter, Atkinson/Walsh is represented by Horitz & Levy’s Lisa Perrochet, Eric Boorstin, Hanson Bridgett and Scott Hennigh. O’Melveny & Myers’ Charles Lifland, Dawn Sestito and Catalina J. Vergara represent URS and AECOM.
