> >
| Case Name | California Self-Insurers\' Security Fund v. The Superior Court of Orange County (Activcare Living) | |
|---|---|---|
| Date | 01/26/2018 | |
| Note | A California appellate court ruled that a law firm was not automatically disqualified from representing the state Self-Insurers’ Security Fund in an action for reimbursement. | |
| Citation | G054981 | |
| WCC Citation |
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE .  FILED: 01/26/2018 .   CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND et al. , Petitioners,  .   v. .   THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; ACTIVCARE LIVING et al. , Real Parties in Interest .  G054981 .   (Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00690574) .   OPINION .      Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, William D. Claster, Judge.  Petition granted.  *          *          *  .    Petitioners California Self-Insurersâ Security Fund (the Fund) and Nixon Peabody LLP (Nixon Peabody or the firm) seek a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying Nixon Peabody from representing the Fund in the instant case. (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 17, 23-24;3 Frazier v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal. App. 4th 23, 30. .                                         MOORE, J.
Download full case here.
Download full case here.