Great America Insurance Company et al v. Chang et al

Filing 67

ORDER re: 59 Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 5/8/2013. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2013)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

) Case No. 12-00833-SC
)
) RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
MICHAEL CHANG, d/b/a SUNRISE
)
CLEANERS, INC., and ROXANNE
)
CHANG, d/b/a, SUNRISE CLEANERS, )
INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
MICHAEL CHANG, d/b/a SUNRISE
)
CLEANERS, INC., and ROXANNE
)
CHANG, d/b/a, SUNRISE CLEANERS, )
INC.,
)
)
Third-Party
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE
)
COMPANY,
)
)
Third-Party
)
Defendant.
)
)
GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, and GREAT AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK,

24
25

On April 11, 2013, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why

26

Defendants' counsel, Gregg S. Garrison and Herman I. Kalfen, should

27

not be removed due to potential conflicts of interest.

28

The Court noted that Garrison and Kalfen were named numerous times

ECF No. 61.

1

in the pleadings and might be deposed as fact witnesses.

2

Defendants have filed a response to the Court's Order to Show

3

Cause, and Plaintiffs have filed a Reply.

4

ECF Nos. 62, 63.

California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-210 provides that an

5

attorney "shall not act as an advocate before a jury which will

6

hear testimony from the [attorney] unless . . . [t]he [attorney]

7

has the informed, written consent of the client."

8

is now satisfied.

9

Defendants have provided the Court with the declarations of

This requirement

In response to the Order to Show Cause,

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

individual defendants Roxanne Chang and Michael Chang, stating that

11

they have been made aware of the potential conflicts and consent to

12

the continued representation of Garrison and Kalfen.

13

ECF No. 62-2.

In their response to the Court's Order to Show Cause,

14

Defendants have also asked the Court to render judgment on a number

15

of substantive issues.

16

improper.

17

they should do so in accordance with the federal and local rules.

18

In sum, the Court is satisfied that the requirements of Rule

Defendants' request is procedurally

If Defendants wish to move for summary judgment, then

19

5-210 have been met.

20

the Order to Show Cause can be construed as a motion for summary

21

judgment, that motion is DENIED.

To the extent that Defendants' response to

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated:

May 8, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

2