Summary: The legal dispute involves Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, the County of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva. Quinn Emanuel was engaged by the Sheriff and his department to represent them in a lawsuit initiated by the County concerning the reappointment of a previously dismissed Deputy Sheriff, Mandoyan. A conflict of interest arose when the County Counsel, who had previously advised both parties, found themselves in a position of advising the Board to sue the Sheriff and his department over the Mandoyan issue. Consequently, the Sheriff was permitted to select independent counsel and opted for Quinn Emanuel. Despite the legal services provided by Quinn Emanuel, the defendants have not remunerated any fees or costs. As a result, the firm is pursuing a lawsuit for breach of contract, services rendered/quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, and open book account. The crux of the lawsuit pertains to the legitimacy of Quinn Emanuel's representation of the Sheriff and his department, the necessity for a written agreement with the County for payment, and the County Counsel's conflict of interest. Quinn Emanuel was initially engaged under Government Code section 31000.6(a) to assist the Sheriff in a case where the County Counsel had a conflict of interest. However, the County threatened to withhold payment unless Quinn Emanuel agreed to certain conditions, which the firm declined. Another law firm, O’Melveny & Myers (OMM), contended that Quinn Emanuel could not represent either party. Subsequently, Quinn Emanuel filed an application seeking a declaration of conflict and confirmation of counsel, which was denied by the court. The County endeavored to disqualify Quinn Emanuel, but the court dismissed this attempt. Quinn Emanuel withdrew from the case in January 2020 and demanded payment for services rendered, which the County denied. The lawsuit is seeking remuneration for the legal services provided by Quinn Emanuel. The firm is pursuing compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. They have also requested a trial by jury.

Full Screen

United States of America v. Robert Hunter Biden

Summary: Hunter Biden is currently embroiled in a lawsuit, accused of purchasing a Colt Cobra revolver in October 2018 while allegedly using illegal substances. Despite denying drug use on the necessary paperwork, if found guilty, he could face a maximum of 25 years in prison along with substantial fines. Biden's defense team contends that the charges are politically driven, asserting that Biden's temporary possession of an unloaded firearm did not constitute a public safety risk. They intend to contest the charges, leveraging an agreement with the prosecution, recent federal court decisions, and potential Second Amendment defenses. This case could potentially ignite wider discussions about Second Amendment rights, especially as the Supreme Court is poised to deliberate on a related issue concerning gun ownership for individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Opinions are divided among political and legislative figures, with some speculating that advocates of the Second Amendment might oppose the law that prohibits gun ownership for drug users.