Doe v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
36 Cal. App. 5th 199 (2019)

- Written by Kate Douglas, JD
Facts
Jane Doe (plaintiff) worked in the campus police department at Southwestern College. Doe sued Southwestern Community College District (district) (defendant), campus police officer Ricardo Suarez (defendant), and two other district employees (defendants) for sexual assault and sexual harassment. Doe alleged that Suarez had also sexually harassed two other female district employees, one of whom was Andrea P. Allegations regarding Suarez’s harassment of other employees was presumably relevant to Doe’s claim because Suarez’s conduct placed the district on notice. Doe’s attorney, Manuel Corrales Jr., contacted Andrea P., who was still a district employee, about Suarez’s alleged harassment. Although the district offered to represent Andrea P., there was no evidence that she had accepted that offer or that she had retained other counsel at the time Corrales contacted her. Upon learning of this contact, the district, Suarez, and the two other district employees moved to disqualify Corrales, arguing that Corrales violated California Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2, which generally prohibited an attorney from communicating with a person whom the attorney knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter. The trial court granted the disqualification motion. Doe petitioned the court of appeal for a writ of mandate.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dato, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.