Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 747-15 Filed 04/26/22 Page 1 of 4
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 747-15 Filed 04/26/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`EXHIBIT 14
`EXHIBIT 14
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 747-15 Filed 04/26/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Michael Sherman
`mbubman@mbn.law
`aacosta@mbn law; Todd Gregorian; Christopher Lavin; Ronald Richards Esq. (ron@ronaldrichards.com); Jeffrey Gersh; Neil Elan
`RE: In re PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC et al v. Amazon
`Friday, April 15, 2022 10:46:50 AM
`image004.png
`
`** EXTERNAL EMAIL **
`
`Dear Mr. Bubman
`
` I
`
` am re-sending, below, the e-mail I sent you a week ago.
`
` I
`
` know you received that e-mail and I know that you actively considered the content of that e-
`mail. The basis of my knowledge is not something I choose to share in this e-mail, given that
`Amazon’s counsel is cc’d herein.
`
`As I understand it, your client, the Receiver, has highly regulated and narrowly circumscribed
`duties, ie.:
`(a) Agent of the court
`The receiver is the agent of the court and not of any party, and as such:
`(1) Is neutral;
`(2) Acts for the benefit of all who may have an interest in the receivership property; and
`(3) Holds assets for the court and not for the plaintiff or the defendant.
`
`CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1179
`
`So I will try again, because you have thus far evaded answering my questions. With reference to
`the red highlighted sentence below, is the response “yes, fully comply?” And if the answer to
`the red highlighted sentence is something other than “yes, fully comply” then with reference to
`the yellow highlighted sentence below, how is the Receiver choosing to exercise its discretion
`and specifically who’s instructions control, the Receiver’s, or those of Messrs. Bermeister and
`Richards?
`
`Please answer. Thanks
`Michael Sherman
`
`
`
`Michael A. Sherman
`Partner, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
`Chair, Business Litigation Practice
`818.444.4528 (voice/text/fax) | 818.631.9109 (Mobile) | masherman@stubbsalderton.com
`www.stubbsalderton.com | Attorney Bio
`15260 Ventura Blvd., 20th FL, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`
`
`
`The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an
`attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 747-15 Filed 04/26/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination,
`distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the
`original message.
`From: Michael Sherman
`Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 8:40 PM
`To: mbubman@mbn.law
`Cc: aacosta@mbn.law; Todd Gregorian <TGregorian@fenwick.com>; Christopher Lavin <CLavin@fenwick.com>; Ronald
`Richards Esq. (ron@ronaldrichards.com) <ron@ronaldrichards.com>; Jeffrey Gersh <jgersh@stubbsalderton.com>; Neil
`Elan <nelan@stubbsalderton.com>
`Subject: In re PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC et al v. Amazon
`
`Dear Mr. Bubman:
`
`The recent filing by Amazon in the Federal Circuit that my law partner Jeff Gersh sent you yesterday, asserts: “…in May and
`June of 2021, a California state court ordered a receiver to assume control of PersonalWeb and manage its litigations,
`including the power to direct current counsel and hire substitute counsel.” The order that Amazon is referring to made it
`discretionary for the Receiver to control the litigations (“… as the Receiver deems necessary …” ¶1) and also made it
`discretionary for the Receiver to continue the employment of my law firm Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP (SAM) (“…the
`discretion to continue in the employment of PW, or not, …” ¶2). Your offices have never communicated with us the extent
`to which the Receiver intends to exercise its discretion in terms of the Receiver fully controlling the litigations, or whether
`the Receiver’s instructions overrule those of Mr. Bermeister, Mr. Richards, or others.
`
`As we have communicated to you on numerous instances, since late April 2021 representatives of PersonalWeb, including
`Messrs. Bermeister and PersonalWeb’s counsel Ronald Richards, have consistently been the ones directing us about the
`PWeb MDL litigation involving Amazon and website operators. As one example, on September 1, 2021 my law partner Jeff
`Gersh wrote you, via e-mail, seeking instruction from your office and/or the Receiver wherein we advised you that
`PersonalWeb had not communicated instructions or provided any information that would allow SAM to fully comply with
`the outstanding District Court orders.
`
`In Amazon’s recent Federal Circuit filing it asserts: “The receiver’s attorney has since confirmed to Amazon that the
`receiver has given Stubbs Alderton no instruction to disobey the district court.” Yet you and the Receiver have given our
`law firm no instructions one way or the other (i.e., obeying or disobeying the District Court orders), and as we have
`previously advised you in writing (see Mr. Gersh’s September 1 e-mail) the instructions we have received on these issues
`have been either from Mr. Bermeister or Mr. Richards.
`
`Are you now instructing us to fully comply with the District Court orders, and to require of Mr. Bermeister, Mr. Richards
`and anyone else on behalf of PersonalWeb that they fully comply with the District Court orders without the assertion of
`any privilege claims that had been ordered waived and require the active searching of records by them and their agents? If
`your response to the above query is anything other than a simple “yes, fully comply,” then we insist that the Receiver take
`responsibility as an officer of the court and to exercise his court-ordered authority to engage replacement counsel. It is
`intolerable for our law firm to be held hostage under circumstances where we have to choose between complying with
`court orders and violation of the instructions of the client.
`
`Very Truly Yours
`Michael Sherman
`
`
`
`Michael A. Sherman
`Partner, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
`Chair, Business Litigation Practice
`818.444.4528 (voice/text/fax) | 818.631.9109 (Mobile) | masherman@stubbsalderton.com
`www.stubbsalderton.com | Attorney Bio
`15260 Ventura Blvd., 20th FL, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 747-15 Filed 04/26/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an
`attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
`responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination,
`distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the
`original message.
`
`