Subscribe NOW

In an unlawful scheme to assert control over a California company, attorneys associated with Catanzarite Law Corporation engaged in a series of judicial and non-judicial acts under license of The State Bar of California. The information is known to The State Bar of California, yet it continues to allow injury to members of the public and protect its attorneys.

Citing the first amended complaint in OCSC 30-2021-01237499-CU-PN-CJC with citations and references from Fincanna Capital Corp. v. Cultivation Tech., No. G058700 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2021) ("FinCanna" or "G058700") and Cultivation Techs. v. Duffy, No. G059457 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2021) ("CTI v. Duffy"):

“[A]ll the facts relevant to the issue of [Catanzarite’s] disqualification were undisputed.  There was no need for the court to prematurely consider and resolve other factual disputes,” thereby “rending many causes of action moot before trial.” (FinCanna at p. 23)  

“Irrespective of the “nature of the lawsuits, involving parties with conflicting interests, and a corporation with adversarial directors [Catanzarite’s role in these lawsuits] supported mandatory disqualification as a matter of law” (Id. at p. 25)  

“Due to the undisputed contentious nature of their dispute, it would be absurd to suggest [Catanzarite] could simultaneously represent these two factions of shareholders. Similarly, there was no need to determine which faction controlled CTI to disqualify Catanzarite for simultaneously purporting to act as corporate counsel while pursuing a derivative action filed against the corporation.” (Id. at 24) Recall, the same circumstances apply to MFS since September 14, 2018, although that was not the topic of the Court of Appeal’s review in G058700 (FinCanna). 

“Catanzarite improperly took sides in a shareholder dispute by filing the Scottsdale Action to promote the interests of [Tolled Defendants and others in alleged collusion] by stopping CTI’s insurance company from providing a defense or indemnity to [Plaintiff and others] in the Mesa Action” (Id. at p. 22) Catanzarite did the same thing with MFS by dismissing the Tolled Defendants without court approval in an unauthorized settlement agreement in January 2019 that involved alleged extortion and securities fraud.  

Catanzarite’s “contentions” that its “purported” clients “benefited from Catanzarite’s legal tactics are disingenuous” (Id. at p. 25)  Catanzarite relies upon “twisted logic” (Id. at p. 28) in representing adverse parties, and the Tolled Defendants “cannot waive the conflict on behalf of the inanimate corporate entity, CTI [nor MFS],” (Id. at p. 28)  

The Court of Appeal questions how Catanzarite’s post-dated conflict waivers signed by Tolled Defendants “would be relevant to a mandatory disqualification for ongoing concurrent representation of clients with conflicting interests” (Id. at p. 27), and   “[i]t would be meaningless in derivative litigation to allow the consent of the parties defendant to exculpate the practice of dual representation, for most often it would be officers and directors [here, also Tolled Defendants] who would force the corporation’s consent.” Comment, Independent Representation for Corporate Defendants in Derivative Suits (1965) 74 Yale L.J. 524, 528.) (Forrest v. Baeza (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 77)  

Catanzarite’s conduct was “plainly disloyal to the corporation [CTI],” (FinCanna) and now Catanzarite is representing MFS again despite appearing for CTI corruptly and willfully.  

“Catanzarite tainted all litigation involving CTI after purporting to represent the corporation and at the same time prosecuting a derivative shareholder action against CTI.” (FinCanna, p. 30) 

As Defendants with The State Bar of California are aware, Catanzarite did the same with MFS. As such, the Court of Appeal affirmed “the court’s orders, disqualifying Catanzarite from representing CTI, CTI Subsidiaries, and the group of shareholder plaintiffs in the Mesa Action.” (FinCanna, p. 31).  

“Particularly troubling was Catanzarite’s active role in helping its clients forcibly remove CTI’s directors, after Catanzarite was unable to achieve this same result in the MFS Action’s section 709 hearing” (FinCanna p. 25) and through the alleged securities fraud and extortion for signature and property of Tolled Defendants on January 23, 2019 involving Catanzarite when its standing to pursue the Pinkerton Action was challenged.  

“Catanzarite inserted itself as corporate counsel while at the same time conspiring with a faction of shareholders seeking to oust elected board members.” (Id.) Catanzarite did the same thing with MFS in January 2019 after serving MFS with “over 500” discovery requests, and Tolled Defendants and MFS with “over 5,000” total discovery requests.  

“Violations of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct [are] not constitutionally protected. Catanzarite’s disqualification was mandatory because it was simultaneously representing clients with conflicting interests. It is improper for Catanzarite to now suggest this unethical conduct is somehow protected petitioning activity.” (Id. at p. 11)  

Respecting the January 23, 2019 shareholder consent (EXHIBIT F) in which Catanzarite caused O’Connor to sign a fraudulent document claiming MFS to be CTI’s sole shareholder under “apparent extortion or coercion” (CRPC 7.3(b)(2) and later Catanzarite’s “active role” in helping its clients remove CTI’s directors in May 2019, “[w]e conclude the published written consents do not relate to protected activity,” (Id. at p. 14)