`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 691 Filed 06/08/21 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`J. DAVID HADDEN (CSB No. 176148)
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`SAINA S. SHAMILOV (CSB No. 215636)
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`MELANIE L. MAYER (admitted pro hac vice)
`mmayer@fenwick.com
`TODD R. GREGORIAN (CSB No. 236096)
`tgregorian@fenwick.com
`RAVI R. RANGANATH (CSB No. 272981)
`rranganath@fenwick.com
`CHIEH TUNG (CSB No. 318963)
`ctung@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`Silicon Valley Center
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone:
`650.988.8500
`Facsimile:
`650.938.5200
`
`Counsel for AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`OPPOSITION OF AMAZON.COM,
`INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`AND TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`COUNSEL BY STUBBS ALDERTON &
`MARKILES, LLP
`
`IN RE: PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION,
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 691 Filed 06/08/21 Page 2 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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`The motion of Stubbs Alderton and Markiles, LLP (“SAM”) to withdraw is improper and
`the Court should deny it, for at least two reasons. This motion marks SAM’s fifth filing requesting
`the identical relief. The Court has already ruled that PersonalWeb as an entity may not represent
`itself. Nothing has changed. SAM argues that there is no reason that PersonalWeb needs ongoing
`counsel because the clerk has administratively closed the file during the appeals. But that argument
`defies common sense. In addition to a potential remand, there are currently multiple pending
`discovery motions requiring PersonalWeb to respond through its counsel. PersonalWeb is also in
`violation of the Court’s order requiring it to turn over financial account information and documents.
`If this case had concluded in its entirety as SAM claims there would in fact be no need for counsel
`to withdraw. To the contrary, it is precisely because a member of the bar must remain responsible
`to the Court for PersonalWeb’s conduct that SAM seeks to withdraw.
`Next, and more important, counsel of record may not withdraw when doing so would
`prejudice other parties to the litigation, including prejudicing a party in its attempts to collect the
`judgment. The prejudice to Amazon is clear here—PersonalWeb openly defied the Court’s
`discovery order concerning judgment enforcement when it believed it could do so with no
`consequence to itself or its attorneys. It was only after Amazon pointed out that SAM could not
`remain counsel of record while also refusing service of case documents—and that doing so was
`sanctionable conduct—that SAM’s need to “partially” withdraw became urgent.
`Indeed, prejudicing Amazon in its collection efforts is precisely the point of the withdrawal.
`There has been no breakdown in the attorney-client relationship—SAM represents PersonalWeb in
`its other pending matters, including the appeals in this case. And SAM has offered the Court no
`supporting facts concerning its supposed limited scope engagement, including no facts about when
`it agreed to limit its representation (particularly after it originally invited Amazon’s counsel to
`confer on post-judgment matters without a word about any supposed limited-scope representation),
`what the specific terms are, or the reasons behind it. This is not a situation in which the client has
`put its attorney in a conflicted situation; PersonalWeb and SAM (who through SAM Ventures is
`itself an investor in and owner of PersonalWeb, and whose name partner Murray Markiles was a
`founding director of PersonalWeb, Inc.) are completely aligned. Amazon respectfully requests the
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 691 Filed 06/08/21 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`Court take a hard look at the circumstances here before it endorses this conduct.
`Finally, at a minimum, the Court should require the appearance of substitute counsel before
`withdrawal is permitted, a condition made simple here because PersonalWeb already retained
`Ronald Richards for this purpose over a month ago. The Court should also retain jurisdiction over
`SAM for purposes of discipline and sanctions, an ordinary condition on withdrawal that protects
`the integrity of the Court. Amazon has a pending request for sanctions against SAM and is
`evaluating its options for additional relief given SAM’s role in both the exceptional conduct that
`led the Court to award fees in the first place, and in obstructing enforcement of the judgment.
`
`I.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`The Court has awarded Amazon over $5.18 million in attorney fees and $214,421.07 in
`non-taxable costs. (Case No. 5:18-md-02834, Dkts. 648, 656.) Despite noticing its appeal of the
`award over two months ago (Dkt. 653), PersonalWeb has neither paid the judgment or posted a
`supersedeas bond to secure the judgment and stay enforcement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62. Nor has
`PersonalWeb provided any responses to post-judgment discovery. (Declaration of Todd Gregorian
`(“Gregorian Dec.”) ¶ 2.)
`In March, SAM told Amazon that PersonalWeb “is considering its options” for posting a
`bond and invited Amazon to follow up. (Dkt. 659-1.) Amazon did so, asking to meet and confer
`about securing the judgment and whether PersonalWeb had funds to do so. (Id.) PersonalWeb
`provided no information in response to this request. On April 19, Amazon served written discovery
`under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 and Cal. Civ. P. §§ 708.020-708.030, seeking information concerning
`PersonalWeb’s assets. (See Dkts. 659-3, 659-4.) SAM responded by stating that it does not
`represent PersonalWeb with respect to Amazon’s attempts to secure or enforce the judgment, and
`claimed that Amazon has “no authority” to serve them with documents to the extent they concern
`those issues. (Dkts. 661, 659-1.)
`On April 26, Amazon filed an ex-parte application for an order compelling a debtor’s
`examination and the production of documents relating to PersonalWeb’s assets. (Dkts. 661, 662.)
`On April 27, 2021, the Court ordered PersonalWeb to produce its bank and financial account
`information by May 7. (Dkt. 664.) It separately ordered PersonalWeb to appear for a debtor’s
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 691 Filed 06/08/21 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`examination on May 25, 2021. (Dkt. 665.) SAM received these orders through ECF but again
`asserted that service on them is ineffective. (Dkt. 673-1 at 3.) Amazon also provided the Court’s
`orders to Ronald Richards, an attorney who PersonalWeb purportedly retained in late April to resist
`enforcement of the judgment. Mr. Richards reported that he does not plan to appear in this case
`“except for post judgment motions if for some reason we need to involve the Court.” (Id. at 4.)
`After receiving the Court’s orders, he nonetheless instructed PersonalWeb’s counsel of record that
`they are “not authorized” by PersonalWeb “to do anything post judgment.” (Id. at 1.)
`On May 7, PersonalWeb did not produce any of its bank and financial account information
`as the Court ordered. On May 12, SAM moved to withdraw as counsel for PersonalWeb, stating
`that the client “knowingly and freely assents to termination of the representation.” (Dkt. 674.) On
`May 13, the Court held a case management conference, during which the Court made clear that
`corporate entities require representation by counsel, and expressed concern over the fact that Mr.
`Richards had not yet substituted as counsel. (See Transcript, May 13 CMC (“Transcript”) at 13:11-
`12 (“PersonalWeb is a company. It can’t represent itself.”); 9:17-18 (“I don’t know why Mr.
`Richards has not appeared”); 14:12-15 (“I have some concern about [] transferring this to Mr.
`Richards, or PersonalWeb deciding it’s not going to have counsel on this collection matter.”) The
`Court also stated that it would consider the motion to withdraw after Amazon filed its opposition.
`(Id. at 12:11-18.)
`SAM then took several steps to try to secure a clerk’s order approving its withdrawal before
`Amazon could oppose and the Court could consider the motion. On May 14, SAM filed a “Notice
`of Substitution” purporting to substitute itself with PersonalWeb appearing “in pro per.” (Dkt.
`678.) The notice listed a defunct UPS mailbox as the address where PersonalWeb could supposedly
`be contacted about this case going forward. (Id.; Gregorian Dec. ¶ 2.) On May 17, PersonalWeb
`re-filed this notice as a “motion” event in the Court’s filing system. (Dkt. 679.) On May 19, SAM
`also withdrew its original motion to withdraw. (Dkt. 684.) That same day, the Court denied the
`“motion” because “[a] corporation or other artificial entity must be represented by licensed
`counsel.” (Dkt. 685 (citations omitted).) PersonalWeb filed the current motion on May 25, still
`seeking to withdraw without substitute counsel. (Dkt. 688.)
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`3
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 691 Filed 06/08/21 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`On May 21, Amazon moved to compel PersonalWeb to comply with the Court’s April 27
`order. (Dkt. 687.) PersonalWeb and SAM did not respond by the June 4 deadline. On May 26,
`counsel for Amazon and SAM conferred on Amazon’s separate motion to compel PersonalWeb to
`respond to Amazon’s post-judgment interrogatories and requests for production, with Mr. Richards
`declining an invitation to participate. (Gregorian Dec. ¶ 3.) Amazon filed this motion on June 1,
`and it remains pending. (Dkt. 689.)
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`Legal Standard
`Counsel may not withdraw from an action without a court order, and only after counsel has
`provided written notice reasonably in advance to the client and to all other parties who have
`appeared in the case. Civ. L. R. 11-5(a). In considering a motion for withdrawal, courts consider
`the following factors: “(1) the reasons counsel seeks to withdraw; (2) the possible prejudice that
`withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm that withdrawal might cause to the
`administration of justice; and (4) the extent to which withdrawal will delay resolution of the case.”
`Deal v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. C 09-01643 SBA, 2010 WL 3702459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
`15, 2010).
`Corporate entities like PersonalWeb cannot appear in this Court without representation by
`counsel. Reading Int’l, Inc. v. Malulani Grp., Ltd., 814 F.3d 1046, 1053 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A
`corporation must be represented by counsel”); see also United States v. High Country Broad. Co.,
`Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (“A corporation may appear in federal court
`only through licensed counsel”); Dkt. 685 (order denying substitution of counsel); see also Civ. L.
`R. 3-9(b). “When withdrawal by an attorney from an action is not accompanied by simultaneous
`appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of the party to appear pro se, leave to withdraw may
`be subject to the condition that papers may continue to be served on counsel for forwarding
`purposes, unless and until the client appears by other counsel or pro se.” Civ. L. R. 11-5(b).
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`4
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 691 Filed 06/08/21 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`B.
`
` The Court should deny SAM’s motion to withdraw.
`1. Withdrawal would prejudice Amazon in its enforcement of the Court’s
`judgment.
`Allowing SAM to withdraw without substitute counsel would prejudice Amazon in its effort
`to enforce the Court’s judgment. Withdrawal is not permitted in such a circumstance. In WB
`Music Corp. v. Royce Int'l Broadcasting Corp., No. EDCV 16-600 JGB (SPx), 2019 WL 11638326
`(C.D. Cal. May 1, 2019), for example, the attorneys moved to withdraw after they failed to respond
`to post-judgment discovery requests and then claimed they no longer represented the debtors for
`that purpose, even though they remained counsel of record. When the court ordered the debtor
`clients to produce documents, counsel failed to comply. Id. at *2. The court found that the debtors
`had engaged in a “pattern of delay” and that the proposed withdrawal was “strategically calculated
`to delay the satisfaction of judgment.” Id. The court found that withdrawal would prejudice the
`creditors and cause undue delay in their efforts to collect, and denied the motion. Other courts have
`also recognized PersonalWeb and SAM’s tactic for what it is, denying the request to withdraw
`and/or sanctioning the counsel who attempted it. See Wyman v. High Times Prods., Inc., No. 2:18-
`cv-02621-TLN-EFB, 2020 WL 6449236, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2020) (withdrawal without
`substitute counsel would cause prejudice by inevitably delaying payment of the judgment and
`increasing costs to collect); Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Network Sols., Inc., No. CIV S-04-
`1971 MCE EFB, 2009 WL 3126409, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (issuing order to show
`cause to judgment debtor’s counsel why he should not be sanctioned for failing to respond to
`discovery and violating local rules for withdrawal).
`The facts here are indistinguishable and warrant the same finding of prejudice, denial of the
`motion to withdraw, and imposition of sanctions. SAM specifically invited discussion of post-
`judgment issues in March; it claimed that it did not represent PersonalWeb only after Amazon
`served its written discovery requests. (Dkt. 659 at 3). And to date, PersonalWeb has not satisfied
`any portion of the judgment; has not posted a supersedeas bond; has failed to respond to Amazon’s
`post-judgment discovery; has failed to comply with this Court’s April 27 order to produce asset
`information; has failed to respond to Amazon’s motion to compel compliance, and has failed to
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`5
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 691 Filed 06/08/21 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`substitute Mr. Richards as counsel. (Dkts. 661-1 ¶ 4, 673-1, 673-2, 673-7, 683.)
`Amazon also recently discovered that PersonalWeb’s principals, its CEO Michael Weiss
`and Kevin Bermeister, have colluded to place PersonalWeb into receivership for their benefit. On
`April 27, 2021, just a week after the Court awarded Amazon its supplemental attorney fees, various
`entities, including Brilliant Digital Entertainment, Inc.—a corporation controlled by Mr.
`Bermeister—sued PersonalWeb in the Superior Court of Los Angeles to force it into this
`receivership. (Gregorian Dec. ¶ 7, Ex. 1.) The court appointed a receiver on May 10, who will
`operate and/or liquidate PersonalWeb for the benefit of the plaintiff creditors to the exclusion of
`other creditors, such as Amazon. (Id. ¶ 8, Ex. 2.) The evidence also shows that PersonalWeb is
`not capitalized adequately to satisfy judgment. (Gregorian Dec. ¶ 6.) If not represented by counsel
`with an ethical duty as an officer of the Court, PersonalWeb will simply default, remain in contempt
`of the Court’s orders, and disappear into the ether should it not prevail in its appeals. As the cases
`show, this is by design, and the Court should not allow it.
`The Court should deny the motion for two additional reasons. First, Amazon has pending
`motions before the Court requiring counsel’s response: a motion to compel compliance (Dkt. 687)
`and motion to compel responses to discovery (Dkt. 689). Second, given Amazon’s pending request
`for sanctions and a contemplated motion for sanctions, the Court should, at a minimum, retain
`jurisdiction over SAM and order a response. Optrics Inc. v. Barracuda Networks Inc., No. 17-cv-
`04977-RS, 2020 WL 1815690, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2020) (“The Court [] will retain ancillary
`jurisdiction over the movants for purposes of the motion for sanctions.”).
`
`2.
`
`The Court should reject SAM’s purported reasons to withdraw as an
`attempt to obstruct enforcement of judgment.
`SAM’s arguments in support of unconditional withdrawal are meritless.
`First, SAM urges the Court that withdrawal is “appropriate and necessary” because the
`client has not authorized the representation to continue and has instead retained Mr. Richards for
`this purpose. (Mot. at 6.) But Mr. Richards has not appeared, and SAM continues to represent
`PersonalWeb in this case with respect to the merits. PersonalWeb’s right to discharge SAM—
`which, again, does not appear to have actually occurred here (see Gregorian Dec. ¶ 4)—is distinct
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`6
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 691 Filed 06/08/21 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`7
`
`from the considerations of prejudice and injustice that would result from SAM’s unconditioned
`withdrawal. The former does not entitle SAM to the latter. SAM claims that to avoid prejudice
`Amazon merely needs to contact PersonalWeb or Mr. Richards. It is difficult to understand how
`SAM can make that representation to the Court in good faith. As discussed above, SAM listed a
`false address for PersonalWeb in the substitution notice—a UPS retail store where PersonalWeb
`no longer even maintains a mailbox. And Mr. Richards has refused to appear as counsel (Dkt.
`673-1 at 5), failed to appear at the May 13 CMC, refused to confer on Amazon’s recent motion to
`compel, and has otherwise stopped responding to communications. (Gregorian Dec. ¶¶ 2-3.) SAM
`has no answer for why PersonalWeb has failed the simple task of substituting counsel, and the
`Court should reject its request to simply withdraw given the prejudice that would cause.
`Second, SAM claims, without any support, that Amazon will suffer no delays because the
`case file is administratively closed. (Mot. at 6.) This is incorrect. Courts have found prejudice and
`undue delay based solely on failure to satisfy judgment or to pay on a settlement agreement. WB
`Music Corp., 2019 WL 11638326, at *2 (denying motion to withdraw where “withdrawal of
`Counsel may be strategically calculated to delay the satisfaction of judgment”); Wyman, 2020 WL
`6449236, at *3 (finding that withdrawal without appearance of substitute counsel would “inevitably
`delay Plaintiff’s payment” and “increase Plaintiff’s costs associated with pursuing settlement
`payment”). The same prejudice would occur here. Moreover, there are two pending motions
`requiring resolution—Amazon’s motion to compel compliance (including a request for sanctions
`against SAM), to which PersonalWeb and SAM have failed to respond, and Amazon’s motion to
`compel discovery responses. (Dkts. 687, 689.) There are also two appeals pending before the
`Federal Circuit (Dkts. 587, 653), either one of which could result in a remand.
`Third, SAM asserts that denial of withdrawal will not delay Amazon’s enforcement efforts
`because “Amazon cannot serve a valid judgment debtor exam” under Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 708.160
`and 708.010 et seq. (Mot. at 7.) But the debtor’s exam is irrelevant. Amazon has also sought post-
`judgment discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69, and its motion to compel compliance
`with this Court’s April 27 order and motion to compel responses to written discovery remain
`pending. (See Dkts. 687; 679.) Amazon also intends to seek additional relief from the Court,
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 691 Filed 06/08/21 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`8
`
`including expressly as to SAM itself.
`Even if it were relevant, however, SAM’s assumption is incorrect. As its own authorities
`show, a district court’s jurisdiction under Cal. Civ. Proc. § 708.160 is a contested issue, and not
`only as to “debtors outside the United States” as SAM incorrectly claims. (See Dkt. 689 at 5.) In
`Vedatech, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Chief Judge Walker “easily reject[ed]” the same
`argument asserted by both Washington state and Japanese entities as “misguided” because §
`708.160(b) “does not apply to a foreign-based defendant”—e.g., an “out of state” debtor. No. C
`04-1249 VRW, 2008 WL 2790200, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2008), aff’d sub nom. Subramanian
`v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 494 F. App’x 817 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Mot. at 5 (citing
`Vedatech). In so holding, Judge Walker held that while Rule 69(a) adopts state law, nothing in the
`purpose of the rule “remotely suggests that a federal district court must cede jurisdiction to a state
`tribunal when a literal reading of the applicable state law indicates that enforcement proceedings
`must be held in a certain state court.” Id. (citing Ducheck v. Jacobi, 646 F.2d 415, 417 (9th Cir.
`1981); see also United States v. Feldman, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1118 (C.D. Cal. 2004)
`(“§ 708.160(b) does not apply to a foreign-based defendant”).
`Finally, SAM relies on Optrics, which counsels against the unconditioned withdrawal that
`SAM seeks. (See Mot. at 8.) There, entity plaintiff Optrics dismissed its complaint and terminated
`counsel, despite unresolved counterclaims and a forthcoming settlement conference. 2020 WL
`1815690, at *1. The court granted the motion, but only on six express conditions to mitigate the
`“substantial[] prejudice” to the defendant: (1) papers may be served on Optrics through counsel
`until substitute counsel appears; (2) Optrics must obtain new counsel within 30 days, or (3) the
`defendant may seek default judgment; (4) counsel and defendants must appear and respond to a
`pending motion for sanctions against them, particularly where counsel’s participation is
`“indispensable, given their role in the discovery dispute that gave rise to the motion,” and because
`counsel “cannot escape responsibility for these alleged improprieties by withdrawing at the
`eleventh hour”; (5) Optrics must participate in the motion for sanctions through counsel; and (6)
`Optrics must appear at the settlement conference with counsel or substitute counsel. Id. at *3.
`Here, in contrast, SAM seeks unconditional withdrawal. Should the Court grant the motion to
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 691 Filed 06/08/21 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`withdraw, it should do so only on similar conditions as those imposed in Optrics. At a minimum,
`the Court should require substitute counsel to appear and retain jurisdiction over SAM to resolve
`the pending request for sanctions and other requests for relief pertaining to SAM.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`9
`
`3. Withdrawal is improper as PersonalWeb may not represent itself.
`Given that entities cannot appear in this Court without representation by counsel, courts
`regularly deny motions to withdraw on this basis. See Arch Ins. Co. v. Sierra Equip. Rental, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-00617-KJM-KJN, 2016 WL 829208, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2016) (denying motion
`to withdraw where counsel “has not indicated he has attempted to locate substitute counsel or has
`attempted to advise Sierra of the potential consequences it would face in his absence.”); Chavez v.
`Won, No. 1:19-CV-595-JLT, 2020 WL 5642342, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2020) (“Withdrawal
`would place GIJ Enterprises “in immediate violation of local rules as they would no longer have
`counsel to represent them.”); Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. v. A-Z Wheels LLC, No. 13-CV-878 BEN
`(JMA), 2013 WL 12094184, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2013) (denying motion to withdraw
`because a corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel). The Court too
`should do so here; indeed, it has already denied SAM’s improper attempt to substitute PersonalWeb
`“in pro per.” (Dkt. 685.)
`The authorities upon which SAM relies to argue for a different result are inapposite. (See
`Mot. 4-6.) In the one case decided by this Court, 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), withdrawal was permitted
`where the emergency motion to withdraw was unopposed. Id. at Dkts. 131, 131-1, 132 The other
`cited authorities are similar, and involve a lack of prejudice to party opponents, irreconcilable
`conflicts between client and counsel, and other circumstances not present here. See Shuang Zhang
`v. Parfet, No. 16-CV-04333-LHK, 2017 WL 1739163, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2017) (granting
`unopposed motion to withdraw); 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
`unopposed motion to withdraw where the entity ceased to exist and filed a supporting statement,
`and where the motion asserted failure to pay by the entity client); Vedatech, 2008 WL 2790200, at
`*5 (granting motion to withdraw where counsel had no contact with the client for two years and
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 691 Filed 06/08/21 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`where prejudice would not accrue to the opposing party because the principal of the entity was a
`pro se party); Bragel Int’l Inc. v. Stickeebra, No. CV 17-04860-AB (JEMx) 2018 WL 8244001, at
`*2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018) (granting motion to withdraw where the court found no prejudice
`because the entity was aware of the consequences of withdrawal, trial was nine months away, and
`the court would extend discovery deadlines). None of these circumstances apply here. Withdrawal
`is improper given the prejudice to Amazon and delay in enforcement of judgment.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Amazon respectfully requests that the Court deny SAM’s motion
`until the appearance of substitute counsel.
`
`Dated: June 8, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`By: /s/
`TODD R. GREGORIAN (CSB No. 236096)
`
`Attorneys for AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`COUNSEL
`
`
`
`10
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`