3d DCA Watch -- I've Got Those Bunker Dweller Evidentiary Blues.

I think the bunker dwellers may have emerged briefly from the darkness for their annual "sun" day (hey, vitamin D is important!), as there was only one opinion of note on the civil side:

Gutierrez v. Rubio:

Judge for yourself whether this is or is not a conflict:

This matter arises out of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit against Rubio for breach of contract. In 2010, the plaintiffs engaged attorney Wolfe and his firm to file suit against Rubio in state court, alleging she breached a contract for an entertainment appearance in 2010. In September 2012, Rubio hired Felipe Restrepo (“Restrepo”) as her personal assistant. She fired him less than two months later, in October 2012. Restrepo then hired Wolfe to represent him in an unrelated claim against Rubio in federal court.

Court says where there are conflicting affidavits you have to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve the conflicts:

Here, no testimony was presented, only affidavits, and those affidavits disagree on such material issues as whether Restrepo had access to and did obtain any proprietary information, whether such information was passed on to Wolfe, and if so, whether that information gave Wolfe an unfair tactical advantage in the litigation between the plaintiffs and Rubio. As such, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by considering solely the conflicting affidavits and by not conducting an evidentiary hearing to resolve the conflicting factual issues.

That seems pretty fundamental, don't you think?