Christian v. Betak

Filing 45

ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Hixson granting 33 Motion to Disqualify Counsel. Robert Moll is ordered to withdraw from representing Plaintiff Donald Christian in this action. Christian is ordered to obtain successor counsel who is to file a notice of appearance within 30 days of this order or, in the alternative, Christian is ordered to file a notice that he intends to prosecute this matter pro se. (tshlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DONALD J. CHRISTIAN,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY

v.

9
10

Re: Dkt. No. 33

GEORGE M. BETAK,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 24-cv-01867-TSH

12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is Defendant George M. Betak’s Motion to Disqualify Attorney

14
15

Robert Moll, who represents Plaintiff Donald J. Christian. ECF No. 33. Christian filed an

16

Opposition (ECF No. 36)1 and Betak filed a Reply (ECF No. 39). The Court finds this matter

17

suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the March 13, 2025 hearing. See

18

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion.2

19

II.

BACKGROUND

20

This action concerns a dispute between two co-owners of GoPlug, a California corporation

21

that designs, manufactures and sells electric vehicle chargers. First Am. Compl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 31.

22

Christian and Betak co-founded GoPlug LLC in 2018 and subsequently converted to GoPlug, Inc.

23
24
25
26
27
28

As part of his opposition, Christian appears to argue Betak’s motion is procedurally improper
because his counsel did not meet and confer with Christian’s counsel in person or on the phone
before filing the motion. See Opp’n at 5 (“This was Shah’s third motion without a meet and
confer” and “CAND Local Rule § 1-5(n) states meet and confer must be in person or on the phone
rather than in emails”). But Local Rule § 1-5(n) merely provides the definition of the term “meet
and confer” as used in the Local Rules. It is inapplicable here because there is no rule requiring
that the parties meet and confer for purposes of this motion, which is governed by Local Rule 7.
2
The parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF Nos. 7,
21.
1

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

in 2019. Id. ¶¶ 9. GoPlug retained the law firm Kaplan Breyer Schwarz, LLP (the “KBS Firm”)

2

to prosecute patents on its behalf. Betak Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 33-2.

3

In late 2021 Christian and Betak fell into disagreements regarding GoPlug business

4

decisions. First Am. Compl. ¶ 11. Around the same time, the KBS firm began filing patent

5

applications on behalf of GoPlug. On October 27, 2021, the KBS Firm filed a utility patent

6

application. Lee Decl. ¶ 15 & Ex. 15, ECF No. 33-3. However, Moll subsequently took over

7

prosecution of the design patent application. See id., Exs. 16 (KBS Firm’s Request for

8

Withdrawal, stating “Client requested file be transferred to new counsel”); 17 (power of attorney

9

signed by Christian authorizing Moll to prosecute the patent application on behalf of GoPlug); 18-

10

19 (Patent Examiner-Initiated Interview Summaries reflecting telephonic interviews with Moll on

11

May 22 and 31, 2023).

12

On December 29, 2021, the KBS Firm filed another design patent application on behalf of

13

GoPlug. Id. ¶ 12 & Ex. 9. Moll subsequently took over prosecution of that application as well.

14

Id. ¶ 13 & Exs. 10 (power of attorney executed by Christian authorizing Moll to prosecute the

15

design patent application on behalf of GoPlug); 11 (notice from the USPTO stating it had accepted

16

the power of attorney and would direct all further correspondence regarding the application to

17

Moll); 12 (notice from the USPTO stating that the power of attorney GoPlug had granted the KBS

18

Firm had been revoked).

19

In January 2022 Betak emailed Christian a letter of intent to purchase Christian’s

20

ownership in GoPlug. First Am. Compl. ¶ 11. Christian believed the offer was unacceptably low

21

and proposed an independent valuation of the company, but Betak never replied. Id.

22

On January 16, 2022, Christian executed an engagement letter on behalf of GoPlug to

23

retain Moll as counsel for GoPlug. Christian Decl. at 2 & Ex. B (1/16/2022 engagement letter),

24

ECF No. 37. However, according to Christian, Betak opposed the U.S. design patent, so they

25

agreed to terminate Moll’s engagement with GoPlug. Id. at 2. According to Betak, Christian

26

didn’t inform him that he had retained Moll on behalf of GoPlug, and Betak first learned of Moll’s

27

representation on February 25, 2022, when Moll’s wife sent Betak a request to DocuSign

28

documents relating to a patent application Moll was prosecuting for GoPlug. Betak ¶ 10. On
2

1

January 20, 2022, Christian sign an engagement letter for Moll to represent him in his pursuit of

2

the design patent. Christian Decl. at 2. & Ex. B (1/20/2022 engagement letter).

3
4

found it had been disabled by the Google Workspace administrator. First Am. Compl. ¶ 12. In

5

the days that followed, Christian discovered he had lost access to numerous other online accounts.

6

Id. ¶¶ 13, 53, 70 & Ex. C. Christian alleges Betak is responsible, as he had volunteered to be the

7

computer system administrator, giving him control over all GoPlug computer services, including

8

Christian’s email account and GoPlug’s Google Workspace accounts. Id. ¶¶ 8, 12.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

On or about April 1, 2022, Christian attempted to log on to his GoPlug Gmail account and

On April 4, 2022, Moll filed another design patent application. Lee Decl. ¶ 19. The

10

application was missing certain required documents, including an Application Data Sheet

11

identifying the inventors, assignee, and applicant. Id., Ex. 20 (notice from the USPTA regarding

12

the missing documents). On May 16 Moll filed a Corrected ADS Form identifying Christian and

13

Brent MacKenzie as the inventors and GoPlug as the assignee for the application. Id., Ex. 21

14

(Corrected ADS Form). On May 30 Moll filed another Corrected ADS Form identifying GoPlug

15

as the applicant for the application. Id., Ex. 22 Corrected ADS Form).

16

On August 2, 2022, Christian executed a power of attorney authorizing Moll to prosecute

17

patents before the USPTO on behalf of GoPlug. Betak Decl. ¶ 12; Lee Decl. ¶ 22 & Ex. 23. Moll

18

filed this power of attorney and several others authorizing him to represent GoPlug with the

19

USPTO. See Lee Decl. ¶¶ 13, 16, 22 & Exs. 10-12, 17, 23. On August 3, 2022, Betak’s attorney,

20

Joseph Trojan, contacted Moll regarding the patent applications and the dispute between Christian

21

and Betak regarding control of GoPlug. Betak Decl. ¶ 16. Moll indicated he represented Christian

22

individually with respect to the dispute between Christian and Betak. Id.

23

On March 17, 2023, Christian, acting “per my authority as CEO of GoPlug inc.” directed

24

the KBS Firm to withdraw from its ongoing representation of GoPlug and transfer its work to

25

Moll. See Betak Decl. ¶¶ 17-20 & Exs. G-H. Betak states this was done without his knowledge or

26

consent. Id. ¶ 17.

27

On August 18, 2023, Moll filed another patent application identifying GoPlug as the

28

applicant. Lee Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. 6. Moll continued prosecuting this application on behalf of
3

1

GoPlug after March 26, 2024, when he filed the complaint in this action. See id., Ex. 7 (7/27/24

2

Electronic Acknowledgment of Receipt confirming the receipt of filings by Moll for GoPlug).

3

Christian brought this case on March 26, 2024, and filed the operative First Amended

4

Complaint on January 18, 2025, alleging four causes of action: (1) Computer Damage under 18

5

U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A); (2) Computer Disruption under California Penal Code section 502(c)(5);

6

(3) Breach Of Fiduciary Duty; and (4) Accounting. First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 48-142.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

On July 19, 2024, Dhaivat Shah, counsel for Betak, sent Moll a letter requesting Moll’s

8

withdrawal from the case due to the alleged conflict of interest caused by his concurrent

9

representation of GoPlug and Christian. Lee Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. 1. In emails sent on July 21 and 22,

10

2024, Moll stated he “never represented GoPlug” in any matter and only represented Christian

11

personally. Id. ¶¶ 3-4 & Exs. 2-3.

12
13

On January 21, 2025, Betak filed the present motion.
III.

LEGAL STANDARD

14

“The right to disqualify counsel is a discretionary exercise of the trial court’s inherent

15

powers.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 264 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918

16

(N.D. Cal. 2003). Under Civil Local Rule 11–4(a)(1), all attorneys who practice in this Court

17

must comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of

18

California. This Court, therefore, applies state law in determining matters of disqualification. See

19

In re Cnty. of Los Angeles, 223 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2000).

20

A trial court’s authority to disqualify an attorney derives from the power inherent in every

21

court “[t]o control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other

22

persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining

23

thereto.” People ex rel. Dep’t of Corps. v. SpeeDee Oil Change Sys., Inc., 20 Cal. 4th 1135, 1145

24

(1999) (quoting Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(5)). “Ultimately, disqualification motions involve a

25

conflict between the clients’ right to counsel of their choice and the need to maintain ethical

26

standards of professional responsibility.” Id. (citation omitted). “The paramount concern must be

27

to preserve public trust in the scrupulous administration of justice and the integrity of the bar. The

28

important right to counsel of one’s choice must yield to ethical considerations that affect the
4

1
2

The party seeking disqualification bears the burden of establishing the existence of a

3

disqualifying conflict by a preponderance of the evidence. H.F. Ahmanson & Co. v. Salomon

4

Bros., Inc., 229 Cal. App. 3d 1445, 1452 (1991). “Because of [the] potential for abuse,

5

disqualification motions should be subjected to ‘particularly strict judicial scrutiny.’” Optyl

6

Eyewear Fashion Int’l Corp. v. Style Companies, Ltd., 760 F.2d 1045, 1050 (9th Cir. 1985)

7

(quoting Rice v. Baron, 456 F. Supp. 1361, 1370 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)); SpeeDee Oil Change Sys., 20

8

Cal. 4th at 1144 (“A motion to disqualify a party’s counsel may implicate several important

9

interests. Consequently, judges must examine these motions carefully to ensure that literalism

10

does not deny the parties substantial justice.”).

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

fundamental principles of our judicial process.” Id. (citations omitted).

12

IV.

DISCUSSION

Betak argues the Court must disqualify Moll from representing Christian because Moll has

13

an unwaived conflict of interest in that he has represented GoPlug in patent matters and is now

14

representing one of the two co-owners of GoPlug, Christian against Betak, in a dispute over

15

control of the company. Christian contends Moll always represented him and never GoPlug.

16

An attorney’s duty of loyalty is implicated when he simultaneously represents potentially

17

conflicting interests even when the representations have nothing in common and there is no risk

18

that confidences may be disclosed. See Flatt v. Superior Ct., 9 Cal. 4th 275, 284 (1994). The

19

California Supreme Court has found that “in all but a few instances, the rule of disqualification in

20

simultaneous representation cases is a per se or ‘automatic’ one.” Id. (collecting cases). Even if

21

counsel for a closely held corporation treats the interests of the majority shareholders and

22

corporation interchangeably, the attorney-client relationship with the corporation is paramount.

23

See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 36 Cal. App. 4th 1832, 1842 (1995). The

24

attorney’s first duty is to the corporation, and the attorney may not “tak[e] part in any

25

controversies or factional differences among shareholders as to control of the corporation.” Id.

26

The attorney owes an undivided duty of loyalty to the corporation and cannot represent one owner

27

against the other. See Woods v. Superior Ct., 149 Cal. App. 3d 931, 937 (1983).

28

Turning to the evidence Betak submits in support of his motion, the Court first considers
5

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

the January 16, 2022 engagement letter, which Christian executed on behalf of GoPlug to retain

2

Moll. Betak Decl., Ex. C. According to Christian, Betak opposed the U.S. design patent, so they

3

agreed to terminate this engagement and, four days later, Christian signed a replacement letter to

4

engage Moll to represent him rather than GoPlug. Christian Decl. at 2 & Ex. B. Christian states

5

he “never offered nor engaged Robert Moll to represent GoPlug.” Id. at 2. Moll agrees with

6

Christian’s account, stating that after Christian informed him that Betak opposed the pursuit of the

7

patent, they agreed to terminate his engagement with GoPlug and that he would only represent

8

Christian. Moll Decl. at 2, ECF No. 38. Moll states he “never worked, invoiced, or received

9

payment from GoPlug on any legal matter.” Id. However, Betak disputes this, noting that

10

Christian has not produced a letter terminating Moll’s representation of GoPlug. Mot. at 9 (citing

11

Betak Decl. ¶ 7). As such, the Court finds the January 16 and 20 letters, on their own, do not

12

establish that Moll performed no work for GoPlug.

13

Turning to the other evidence submitted by Betak, the Court finds it shows Moll has and

14

appears to still be representing GoPlug. Christian presents signed powers of attorney that

15

authorized Moll to prosecute patents on behalf of GoPlug, which Moll submitted to the USPTO.

16

Lee Decl., Exs. 10, 17. In email communications with Betak, Christian referred to Moll’s work as

17

“GoPlug’s patent efforts.” Betak Decl. ¶ 22 & Ex. I. Christian also directed GoPlug’s law firms

18

to transfer their files and work to Moll. Id. ¶¶ 13-15, 17-18 & Exs. D-H. Moll subsequently filed

19

a power of attorney and took over prosecution of any pending patent application on behalf of

20

GoPlug. Betak Decl. ¶ 21 & Ex. H; Lee Decl. ¶¶ 16-18 & Exs. 17-19. After Moll filed the

21

complaint in this action on behalf of Christian, he continued to prosecute patents on behalf of

22

GoPlug. See, e.g., Lee Decl. ¶¶ 9-11, 14 & Exs. 7-8, 13-14. While the opposition and supporting

23

declarations offer contradictory accounts, claiming Moll only represented Christian individually,

24

they fail to fully address this documentary evidence demonstrating Moll’s representation of

25

GoPlug.

26

Christian argues Moll could not represent GoPlug because “[t]o represent GoPlug would

27

require Christian and Betak to agree according to GoPlug’s corporate counsel,” but “Betak did not

28

agree on Moll’s patent work. Betak opposed Moll’s patent work or had no input. Thus, the facts
6

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

contradict” the conclusion that Moll represents GoPlug. Opp’n at 9. However, the documentary

2

evidence listed above shows otherwise. Christian also argues Moll could not have represented

3

GoPlug because he paid Moll’s legal bills. Christian Decl. at 2 (“I never received an invoice from

4

Moll for any GoPlug legal matter.”); Moll Decl. at 2 (“I never worked, invoiced, or received

5

payment from GoPlug on any legal matter.”). But paying legal bills does not make someone the

6

client. Indeed, the California Rules of Professional Conduct address the receipt of compensation

7

from someone other than the client because of the legal and ethical issues that arise when a third

8

party pays another’s legal bills. See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.8.6 (“A lawyer shall not enter into an

9

agreement for, charge, or accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the

10

client[.]”). Those problems are evident here, where Moll claims his “first duty of loyalty is only to

11

Christian,” Opp’n at 10, while at the same time claiming that “[g]iven the value of intellectual

12

property and [that] Christian paid for all it, . . . Moll’s [p]atent [w]ork [b]enefits GoPlug,” id. at

13

11. Moll appears to both disavow any duty of loyalty to GoPlug in favor of the person who paid

14

the legal bills while also claiming he did legal work that benefits GoPlug. The record shows that

15

Moll began serving as GoPlug’s attorney as early as January 2022, continued serving as GoPlug’s

16

attorney after filing this action, and initiated an interview with the USPTO relating to one of the

17

patent applications as the attorney for applicant GoPlug as recently as October 3, 2024. See Lee

18

Decl. ¶¶ 8-22 & Exs. 6-23. The evidence is clear that Moll was and appears to still be GoPlug’s

19

attorney and thus owes his first duty of loyalty to GoPlug. See In re Valinoti, 2002 WL 31907316,

20

at *53-54 (Cal. State Bar Ct. Dec. 31, 2002) (disciplining attorney who permitted third party who

21

paid the attorney’s clients’ legal bills to interfere with the attorney’s judgment to the detriment of

22

the actual clients).

23

In sum, the Court finds Betak has established the existence of a disqualifying conflict by a

24

preponderance of the evidence. The complaint Moll filed on behalf of Christian is a dispute over

25

control of GoPlug. See, e.g., First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12-25, 32, 39-47, 52-57, 125-133, 139-140

26

(alleging disputes regarding control and management of GoPlug). Because Moll has served as

27

counsel for GoPlug, he cannot now represent one co-owner against another in a dispute over

28

control of the company. See M’Guinness v. Johnson, 243 Cal. App. 4th 602, 627 (2015) (“The
7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

undisputed evidence established that the Law Firm continued to represent TLC in 2013 when it

2

undertook to represent Johnson in this litigation. The Firm therefore had an unwaived concurrent

3

representation conflict of interest that compelled its disqualification.”); Capra v. Capra, 58 Cal.

4

App. 5th 1072, 1096 (2020) (“Corporate counsel should of course, refrain from taking part in any

5

controversies or factional differences among shareholders as to control of the corporation, so that

6

he or she can advise the corporation without bias or prejudice.”); Unified Sewerage Agency of

7

Wash. Cty., Or. v. Jelco Inc., 646 F.2d 1339, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[R]epresentation adverse to a

8

present client must be measured not so much against the similarities in litigation, as against the

9

duty of undivided loyalty which an attorney owes to each of his clients”). As an attorney for

10

GoPlug, Moll’s “first duty is to the corporation. Corporate counsel should of course, refrain from

11

taking part in any controversies or factional differences among shareholders as to control of the

12

corporation, so that he or she can advise the corporation without bias or prejudice.” Capra, 58

13

Cal. App. 5th at 1095 (cleaned up).

14

Moll’s breach of his duty of loyalty to GoPlug also cannot be cured by withdrawing from

15

his representation of GoPlug in favor of Christian. See Flatt, 9 Cal. 4th at 284 (“So inviolate is the

16

duty of loyalty to an existing client that not even by withdrawing from the relationship can an

17

attorney evade it”). “When the duty of loyalty applies, courts have found the conflict to require

18

‘per se, or automatic disqualification, in all but a few instances.’” Gong v. RFG Oil, Inc., 166 Cal.

19

App. 4th 209, 214 (2008) (quoting Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer, 36 Cal. App. 4th at 1840). Moll must

20

be disqualified because he is concurrently representing Christian and GoPlug, or at least was at the

21

time he filed this lawsuit, and because Christian’s and GoPlug’s interests are adverse to each other

22

in this lawsuit. Betak has stated that his anticipated defenses to this action include his belief that

23

he needed to take actions to protect GoPlug from misconduct by Christian, who Betak believed

24

was harming the company with his actions. See Mot. at 10. In his opposition, Christian argues

25

such anticipated defenses are irrelevant to the present motion. See Opp’n at 12 (“Defendant’s

26

motion to disqualify included off topic arguments relating to corporate governance (e.g., officer

27

appointments), GoPlug ownership and Betak’s future defenses. To save the court’s time, Plaintiff

28

[sic] opposition addresses only what is relevant to Defendant’s motion to disqualify. Plaintiff will
8

1

address the Defendant’s irrelevant arguments if and when they are properly raised in the future.”).

2

But Betak’s anticipated defenses and potential counterclaims are relevant because they reveal that

3

GoPlug’s and Christian’s interests are directly adverse to each other. As an attorney for the

4

company, Moll cannot represent one co-owner when the other co-owner accuses him of harming

5

the company. See Gong, 166 Cal. App. 4th at 215; M’Guinness, 243 Cal. App. 4th at 623. Moll

6

must therefore be disqualified. See Flatt, 9 Cal. 4th at 284; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 36 Cal. App.

7

4th at 1842.

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

V.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Betak’s motion. Robert Moll is ordered

10

to withdraw from representing Christian in this action. Christian is ordered to obtain successor

11

counsel who is to file a notice of appearance within 30 days of this order or, in the alternative,

12

Christian is ordered to file a notice that he intends to prosecute this matter pro se. Absent a

13

written appearance by successor counsel or Christian within the time specified, an order to show

14

cause why this action should not be dismissed will issue.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: March 11, 2025

18
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9