`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 688 Filed 05/25/21 Page 1 of 11
`
`MICHAEL A. SHERMAN (SBN 94783)
`masherman@stubbsalderton.com
`JEFFREY F. GERSH (SBN 87124)
`jgersh@stubbsalderton.com
`WESLEY W. MONROE (SBN 149211)
`wmonroe@stubbsalderton.com
`VIVIANA BOERO HEDRICK (SBN 239359)
`vhedrick@stubbsalderton.com
`STUBBS ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP
`15260 Ventura Blvd., 20th Floor
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`Telephone:
`(818) 444-4500
`Facsimile:
`(818) 444-4520
`
`Attorneys for PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`(Excluding Post Judgment Debtor
`Collection Proceedings)
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PERSONALWEB
`PURSUANT TO CLIENT INSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`IN RE PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC, ET., AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF
`STUBBS ALDERTON & MARKILES
`AND THEODORE (“TED”) MACEIKO
`TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`PURSUANT TO CLIENT INSTRUCTION
`DECLARATIONS OF JEFFREY F.
`GERSH AND MICHAEL A. SHERMAN
`FILED IN SUPPORT; [PROPOSED]
`ORDER
`Hearing: __July 1, 2021_
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Judge:
`Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICE, INC.,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`v.
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, et
`al.,
` Defendants.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, et
`al.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`4838-3604-8523, V. 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 688 Filed 05/25/21 Page 2 of 11
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 1, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
`may be heard before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, of the United
`States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, 280 South First Street,
`San Jose, California 95113, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP and Theodore (“Ted”) Maceiko of
`Maceiko IP (collectively, “SAM”), will and hereby does move the Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rule
`11-5(a) and in compliance with California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16, to withdraw as counsel
`for PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”) as a result of having been terminated from
`representing PersonalWeb in any matters in connection with the within action other than the pending
`appeals. This Motion is based on this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
`Declarations of Jeffrey F. Gersh and Michael A. Sherman, all the pleadings and records on file in this
`action, and any further argument or evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing on this
`matter, should the Court choose to hold a hearing.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: May 25, 2021
`
`
`STUBBS, ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Michael A. Sherman
`Michael A. Sherman
`Jeffrey F. Gersh
`Wesley W. Monroe
`Viviana Boero Hedrick
`Sandeep Seth
`
`Attorneys for PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`(Excluding Post Judgment Debtor
`Collection Proceedings)
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
`PURSUANT TO CLIENT INSTRUCTION
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`4838-3604-8523, V. 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 688 Filed 05/25/21 Page 3 of 11
`
`Dated: May 25, 2021 MACEIKO IP
`
`By: /s/ Theodore S. Maceiko
`Theodore S. Maceiko (SBN 150211)
`ted@maceikoip.com
`MACEIKO IP
`420 2nd Street
`Manhattan Beach, California 90266
`Telephone: (310) 545-3311
`Facsimile: (310) 545-3344
`Attorneys for PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
`PURSUANT TO CLIENT INSTRUCTION
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`4838-3604-8523, V. 2
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 688 Filed 05/25/21 Page 4 of 11
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5, SAM seeks to withdraw as counsel of record for
`PersonalWeb at the request of its client in this closed case, as PersonalWeb has discharged SAM as
`its counsel in the proceedings before this Court and has retained other counsel, Ronald Richards, to
`represent it in the post judgment collection proceedings brought by Amazon and Twitch (collectively
`“Amazon”). Mr. Richards has specifically advised SAM that it is not authorized to do any work in
`connection with such post judgment collection proceedings on behalf of PersonalWeb, which is all
`that remains before this trial court. SAM remains counsel for PersonalWeb in the pending appeals
`only. As PersonalWeb has terminated SAM’s representation of it as its counsel in this case, SAM
`cannot continue to remain as counsel of record for PersonalWeb. SAM has provided written notice of
`its intent to withdraw as counsel to all parties who have appeared in this case.
`SAM previously filed a motion to withdraw on May 12, 2021 (Dkt. 674) but later withdrew it
`(Dkt. 684) and thereafter PersonalWeb filed a consent motion to substitute PersonalWeb, in pro per,
`in place of SAM (Dkt. 679) as a result of the Court’s suggestion at the case management conference
`on May 13, 2021 that in pro per substitution by PersonalWeb was permissible because PersonalWeb
`did not need counsel other than to appear in court. (Gersh Decl., Ex. C, CMC Hearing Transcript, at
`10:23-25; 16:20-23) (“You know a party -- a debtor doesn’t have to have a lawyer. They could be
`representing themselves.”; “And, you know, if PersonalWeb wants your firm clearly out of the way
`on this issue, then it will appear and file a substitution signed by PersonalWeb, and signed by you.
`There’s a really streamlined way to do it.”) However, on May 19, 2021, the Court denied the motion
`to substitute. (Dkt. 685 (“While the Court may have suggested at the recent case management
`conference that this [in pro per] substitution was permissible, a more searching review of civil
`procedure indicates otherwise. A corporation or other artificial entity must be represented by licensed
`counsel.”) As a result, SAM hereby refiles this motion to withdraw as counsel (with additional
`authorities) and respectfully requests that the Court issue an order granting withdrawal.
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
`PURSUANT TO CLIENT INSTRUCTION
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`4838-3604-8523, V. 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 688 Filed 05/25/21 Page 5 of 11
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) permits withdrawal of counsel by “order of Court after written notice
`has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all other parties who have appeared in the
`case.” Pursuant to the California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16(a)(4), an attorney “shall
`withdraw” where the client discharges the lawyer or otherwise terminates the representation.
`“It is axiomatic that an attorney cannot continue to represent a client in a lawsuit in
`contravention of that client’s explicit instruction to the contrary.” Trulis v. Barton, 107 F.3d 685,693
`(9th Cir. 1995). Under California law, a client’s right to discharge its counsel “is absolute.” Fracases
`v. Brent, 6 Cal. 3d 784, 790, 100 Cal. Rptr. 385, 494 P.2d 9 (1972); accord Federal Sav. and Loan
`Ins. Corp. v. Angell, Holmes & Lea, 838 F.2d 395, 395–396 (9th Cir. 1988) (“the law of California []
`holds that a client’s power to discharge an attorney, with or without cause, “is absolute”) and Heller
`Ehrman LLP v. Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP, 527 B.R. 24, 31 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“It has long been
`recognized in California that the client’s power to discharge an attorney, with or without cause, is
`absolute.”); see also Shuang Zhang v. Parfet, No. 16-CV-04333-LHK, 2017 WL 1739163, at *2 (N.D.
`Cal. May 4, 2017) (granting withdrawal of counsel where representation terminated by the client).
`Indeed, acknowledging that under California law, a client’s right to no longer be represented
`by its counsel of record “is absolute”, this Court granted a motion to withdraw as counsel where
`counsel was terminated by its entity client, even though (1) the entity client had not retained new
`counsel nor had its new counsel entered an appearance on its behalf, and (2) despite recognizing that
`an entity may not appear pro se in any action. See Senah, Inc v. Xi'an Forstar S&t Co, Ltd, No. 13-
`CV-04254-BLF, 2016 WL 3092099, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) (granting entry of default judgment
`even though the entity defendant did not have any counsel of record after “[u]nexpectedly, Defendant’s
`counsel sought to withdraw after being terminated by Defendant, which the Court allowed....The Court
`issued several orders to Defendant explaining that withdrawing from this litigation [and not obtaining
`new counsel] could result in default judgment being entered against it....Having satisfied itself that
`Defendant was fully advised of the consequences of its actions, the Court proceeded with the case.”)
`and see also No. 13-CV-04254-BLF, Dkt. 133 (Order Granting Emergency Motion to Withdraw as
`Counsel for Defendant Xi’an Forstar S&T Co., Ltd. Pursuant to Client Instruction.)
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
`PURSUANT TO CLIENT INSTRUCTION
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`4838-3604-8523, V. 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 688 Filed 05/25/21 Page 6 of 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`4838-3604-8523, V. 2
`
`Other courts in this district have likewise granted motions to withdraw as counsel where the
`entity client has terminated its counsel or otherwise indicated that its counsel is not authorized to do
`any work on the case and the entity was not represented by licensed counsel nor had substitute counsel
`enter an appearance, despite the fact that a corporation may only appear in the federal courts through
`licensed counsel. See Louisiana Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, No. 09-CV-
`03529 JSW (NC), 2013 WL 12173032, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2013) (Granting Arent Fox LLP’s
`motion to withdraw where its entity client requested that counsel “cease all legal work and withdraw
`as counsel in this action” even though the client did not have new counsel of record nor had retained
`new counsel); Vedatech, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. C 04-1249 VRW, 2008 WL
`2790200, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2008) (“An attorney may be allowed to withdraw without offending
`the rule against corporate self-representation. The effect of withdrawal is to leave the corporation
`without representation and without the ability to practice self-representation. For the uncooperative
`corporate client who has not been willing to bring in new counsel, granting of the withdrawal motion
`will put extreme pressure on it to obtain new counsel of record for should it fail to do so it risks
`forfeiture of its rights through nonrepresentation.”) citing Ferruzzo v. C & D Enterprises, Inc., 104
`Cal.App.3d 501, 504, 163 Cal.Rptr. 573 (Cal.App.1980).
`Here, SAM must be permitted to withdraw because PersonalWeb (i) does not wish for SAM
`to represent it in post judgment collection proceedings (which is all that remains in this case), (ii) has
`discharged SAM as its counsel in any further proceedings in this action before this Court, and (iii) has
`retained other counsel to represent it in the post judgment collection proceedings. (Gersh Decl., ¶ 2.)
`(As PersonalWeb has terminated SAM’s representation in this case, SAM only remains as counsel for
`PersonalWeb at this time in connection with the pending appeals in the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit, Case Nos. 19-1918, 20-1566, 21-1858, and the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`pending in the United States Supreme Court, Case No. 20-1394). (Gersh Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3.)
`Moreover, unlike the entity clients in Senah, Louisiana Pac., and Vedatech, where the entity
`clients did not have new counsel, PersonalWeb has engaged Ronald Richards of the Law Offices of
`Ronald Richards and Associates, APC to represent it in all post judgment collection proceedings.
`(Gersh Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Indeed, Mr. Richards, in his capacity as counsel retained by PersonalWeb
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
`PURSUANT TO CLIENT INSTRUCTION
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 688 Filed 05/25/21 Page 7 of 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`4838-3604-8523, V. 2
`
`to represent it in any and all post judgment collection proceedings, sent an email communication to
`SAM attorneys expressly informing them that SAM is “not authorized to do anything post judgment”
`and that SAM “is only engaged for the appeal.” (Id., Ex. B.) Where the client itself requests that its
`counsel cease representing it, withdrawal is appropriate and necessary. Trulis, 107 F.3d at 693;
`Fracases, 6 Cal. 3d at 790; Senah, 2016 WL 3092099, at * 1; Louisiana Pac. Corp., 2013 WL
`12173032, at *2; Bragel Int’l Inc. v. Stickeebra, 2018 WL 8244001, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018).
`At the CMC, Todd Gregorian, Amazon’s counsel, indicated to the Court that Amazon intends
`to oppose this motion, without giving any reason for doing so. (Ex. C, CMC Transcript, at 18:21.)
`Since then, SAM attorney Michael A. Sherman has asked Mr. Gregorian “the basis on which you will
`be opposing a motion to withdraw when the client has told you through his new attorney he has
`engaged other counsel and we have no authority to act? Please send me whatever authority you have
`to support your position.” (Sherman Decl., ¶ 2 and Ex. D (May 19, 2020 email from Michael A.
`Sherman to Todd Gregorian).) In response, Mr. Gregorian made a general reference to the authorities
`cited by this Court (presumably pertaining to the inability of an entity to represent itself in Federal
`Court), and hinted at the existence of unspecified 9th Circuit authority which prohibits attorneys to
`withdraw where it would “delay or impair judgment enforcement”, without providing any specifics as
`to the circumstances in which such a ruling was made. (Sherman Decl., ¶ 3 and Ex. E.) While these
`general statements do not clarify the legal merits of Amazon’s opposition, presumably Amazon will
`attempt to argue that it will somehow be prejudiced by SAM’s withdrawal as counsel of record or that
`the withdrawal will delay resolution of this case or otherwise harm it. However, none of those concerns
`exist here.
`First, as is discussed in detail above, PersonalWeb has retained Mr. Richards as its counsel for
`post judgment collection proceedings, and Mr. Richards (in addition to the client itself) has explicitly
`directed SAM to not take any action post judgment and thus do no work on this case because SAM is
`not retained as counsel for any post judgment matters. Second, as this case is closed and terminated,
`there is no risk that withdrawal will “delay resolution of the case” since judgment has been entered
`and the case, resolved. Lastly, Amazon may argue that it will be prejudiced by the withdrawal, or that
`the withdrawal will harm the administration of justice by somehow affecting Amazon’s right to
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
`PURSUANT TO CLIENT INSTRUCTION
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 688 Filed 05/25/21 Page 8 of 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`4838-3604-8523, V. 2
`
`enforce its judgment if SAM does not remain counsel of record. Such a position is without basis.
`Amazon may proceed to obtain judgment debtor discovery as provided in controlling California law
`regardless of whether SAM remains counsel of record in this case. The Court has already
`acknowledged that it does not have authority to order a judgment debtor examination and terminated
`its order authorizing same because it was misled as to the fact that PersonalWeb is located in Texas,
`more than 150 miles from the San Jose courthouse (Ex. C, 3:8-23.) The Court even directed Mr.
`Gregorian to domesticate the judgment in Texas where PersonalWeb is located, and as of the filing of
`this motion, it is unknown if Amazon has done that. As such, forcing SAM to remain in this case
`(given PersonalWeb’s retention of other counsel to represent it in these post judgment matters, and
`given its discharge of SAM as its counsel and explicit instruction to not do anything in connection
`therewith), will not facilitate Amazon’s attempt to conduct a judgment debtor exam of PersonalWeb
`or seek post judgment collection discovery, because Amazon cannot serve a valid judgment debtor
`exam order based on the California judgment on PersonalWeb or SAM in California anyway. See Cal.
`Civ. Proc. §§ 708.160 and 708.010 et seq. And, whatever theoretical and/or ambiguous “prejudice”
`Amazon might attempt to identify, requiring counsel to continue to represent a client in the face of the
`explicit instructions to the contrary by the client, is improper. Trulis, 107 F.3d at 693; Fracases, 6
`Cal. 3d at 790.
`Similarly, Amazon’s desire to obtain written discovery into the finances and assets of
`PersonalWeb as a judgment debtor does not justify keeping SAM in this case as counsel of record.
`Amazon can serve PersonalWeb with such discovery via PersonalWeb’s registered agent, as Amazon
`has seemingly already done before. (See Dkt. 670.) And should Amazon’s counsel deem it necessary
`to speak to an attorney, versus a client representative of PersonalWeb, it can contact Mr. Richards who
`has already advised Amazon’s counsel in writing that it represents PersonalWeb in post-judgment
`collection proceedings. (See Ex. B.) That Mr. Richards has not entered an appearance in this case
`does not prevent Amazon from contacting him. Indeed, Amazon already mailed its written judgment
`debtor collection discovery to Mr. Richards (Dkt. 668), and Mr. Gregorian has communicated with
`Mr. Richards via email (Dkt. 671-9), although Mr. Gregorian has refused to speak with Mr. Richards,
`despite Mr. Richard’s offer to do so, to discuss post judgment debtor collection issues. (Dkt. 673-5.)
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
`PURSUANT TO CLIENT INSTRUCTION
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 688 Filed 05/25/21 Page 9 of 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`4838-3604-8523, V. 2
`
`Accordingly, whatever challenges Amazon may experience in judgment enforcement efforts are
`challenges that do not credibly rise to the level of “prejudice”, and are challenges that Amazon is
`seemingly interested in inflicting upon itself for what appears to be the sole purpose of “forcing” SAM
`to stay in the case through fabricated “prejudice”. There will be no harm caused to the administration
`of justice if the Court grants this Motion.
`Importantly, this district has granted motions to withdraw as counsel where the client instructed
`counsel to do no further work in the case, even though the opposing party in the case opposed the
`withdrawal motion. In Optrics Inc. v. Barracuda Networks Inc., 2020 WL 1815690, at *1-2 (N.D.
`Cal. Feb. 28, 2020), defendant Barracuda opposed a motion to withdraw as counsel because such a
`“late withdrawal would delay resolution of the case and prejudice Barracuda” where Barracuda’s
`counterclaims were still unresolved (emphasis added). The court disagreed, and granted the motion to
`withdraw. (Id.) In so holding, the court explained that plaintiff’s counsel “must be allowed to
`withdraw” even though Barracuda characterized the motion to withdraw as “a last-ditch effort by
`Optrics and counsel to avoid responsibility for their abuses of the discovery process”, and the motion
`to withdraw was filed shortly after “a long-anticipated motion for sanctions against both Optrics and
`the movants”, because the right to discharge one’s attorney “is absolute.” (Id.)
`Like the plaintiff in Optrics , PersonalWeb has discharged SAM as its counsel of record in this
`action because it does not wish for SAM to represent it in post judgment collection proceedings, which
`is all that remains in this case. But unlike the plaintiff in Optrics, no claims or counterclaims remain
`unresolved in this case, and no “long-anticipated” discovery abuse motions are pending. And yet, even
`in a case where judgment was still not entered and discovery disputes relating to the claims in the
`underlying action (and not judgment debtor collection discovery) were abundant, a motion to withdraw
`was properly granted. (Id.)
`Optrics is instructive, and supports the Court granting this motion to withdraw. PersonalWeb’s
`right to discharge SAM as its counsel is absolute. Amazon cannot dictate who PersonalWeb choses to
`represent it. That Amazon wants to collect on its judgment does not require PersonalWeb to forego its
`choice of counsel, nor SAM to remain counsel of record where its own client has discharged it.
`Amazon will not suffer any prejudice by the Court allowing SAM to withdraw, because Amazon can
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
`PURSUANT TO CLIENT INSTRUCTION
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 688 Filed 05/25/21 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`proceed with its post judgment collection efforts in Texas, can proceed to enforce orders by service
`directly on PersonalWeb’s agent for service of process, and can chose at any time to pick up the phone
`and call Mr. Richards, who has already indicated a willingness to speak with Amazon’s counsel
`regarding these and other issues.
`Instead, Amazon continues to try to force SAM’s continued participation in this case by having
`filed a motion before this Court for leave to seek sanctions against SAM, even though SAM complied
`with the local rules and informed this Court and Amazon’s counsel that it was no longer counsel for
`PersonalWeb in this proceeding by (1) informing Amazon in writing repeatedly that it did not
`represent PersonalWeb for post judgment collection proceedings (Dkt 671-2 - 671-5), (2) notifying
`the Court and counsel of its inability to represent PersonalWeb in its CMC statement (Dkt 671), (3)
`having filed its original motion to withdraw (Dkt 674), and (4) filing the consent motion (Dkt 679),
`which shows PersonalWeb’s discharge of SAM. The Court should not allow Amazon to try to force
`SAM to make the choice between violating its ethical obligations and taking action on behalf of
`PersonalWeb, when the client has expressly forbidden SAM to do so, or to conduct itself ethically, as
`SAM has done, and then have to respond to Amazon’s threats of potential sanctions for something it
`has no control over. SAM should not be placed in this untenable position of staring at a sanctions
`request in an instance where it is in no way engaged in any conduct even remotely sanctionable,
`ironically with a client that has discharged it and in a circumstance it has no control over.
`III. CONCLUSION
`Based on the foregoing, SAM respectfully requests the Court grant this Motion and permit it
`
`to withdraw from this case, effective immediately.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: May 25, 2021
`
`
`STUBBS, ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
`PURSUANT TO CLIENT INSTRUCTION
`
`By: /s/ Michael A. Sherman
`Michael A. Sherman
`Jeffrey F. Gersh
`Wesley W. Monroe
`Viviana Boero Hedrick
`Sandeep Seth
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`4838-3604-8523, V. 2
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 688 Filed 05/25/21 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`Attorneys for PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`(Excluding Post Judgment Debtor
`Collection Proceedings)
`
`
`Dated: May 25, 2021 MACEIKO IP
`
`By: /s/ Theodore S. Maceiko
`Theodore S. Maceiko (SBN 150211)
`ted@maceikoip.com
`MACEIKO IP
`420 2nd Street
`Manhattan Beach, California 90266
`Telephone: (310) 545-3311
`Facsimile: (310) 545-3344
`Attorneys for PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
`PURSUANT TO CLIENT INSTRUCTION
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`4838-3604-8523, V. 2
`
`