Omni Innovations LLC v. Ascentive LLC et al

Filing 25

SURREPLY filed by Defendants Ascentive LLC, Adam Schran re 3 MOTION to Disqualify Floyd E. Ivey (Ivey, Floyd)

Omni Innovations LLC v. Ascentive LLC et al

Doc. 25

Case 2:06-cv-01284-JCC

Document 25

Filed 11/01/2006

Page 1 of 5

1

Floyd E. Ivey Liebler, Ivey, Connor, Berry & St. Hilaire 3 1141 N. Edison, Suite C P.O. Box 6125 4 Kennewick, WA 99336 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] Attorneys for Defendant
2 6 7

Hon. Judge T. S. Zilly

DOUGLAS E. MCKINLEY, JR. Attorney At Law P.O. Box 202 Richland, Washington 99352 8 509-628-0809 Fax [phone] Attorney for Plaintiff
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendant's Surreply to Motion to Disqualify - 1.
Z:\IPClient\Ascentive LLC v. Gordon\Ascentive v. Omni Innovations\Motions\MotionDisqualify\Motion ToDisqual.DEF.SURREPLY.061101.wpd

ROBERT J. SIEGEL 1325 4th Ave Ste 940 Seattle, WA 98101-2509

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON OMNI INNOVATIONS LLC et al ) ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ASCENTIVE, LLC ) a Delaware Limited Liability Company, ) ) Defendant ) ___________________________________ ) NO. CV-06-01284-TSZ DEFENDANT'S SURREPLY MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL FLOYD E. IVEY

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE The Declaration of James S. Gordon Jr. In Reply re: Motion to Disqualify Counsel is conclusory at paragraph 2 re: "...I retained the legal services of Floyd E. Ivey to assist me in drafting contracts for Omni among other matters..." Mr. Gordon offers this conclusion with no draft contract or any writing. Mr. Gordon does not offer a copy of a contract or recite what "other matters" might be. Mr.
LIEBLER, IVEY, CONNOR, BERRY & ST. HILAIRE Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 6125 Kennewick, Washington 99336-0125 [phone]

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-01284-JCC

Document 25

Filed 11/01/2006

Page 2 of 5

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

Gordon's conclusion is incompentent as testimony and should be stricken. THE BASIS FOR DISQUALIFICATION Plaintiffs do not analyze the alleged assistance of Mr. Gordon re: Omni Innovations LLC relative to acts which disqualify. Mr. Gordon does not allege, and Plaintiffs' counsel does not argue, that attorney Ivey consulted with Mr. Gordon or provided services to Omni regarding any issue relevant to the present matter in the Western District or to any of Mr. Gordon's many cases regarding electronic mail.. The email exchange between Mr. Gordon and attorney Ivey was produced by and relied upon by Mr. Gordon's wife, Bonnie Gordon, and daughter Jamila Gordon in their seeking of disqualification in the Eastern District. The email exhibits relied upon by Mr. Gordon in the present matter and by Mrs. Gordon in the Eastern District are identical and were fully addressed in the Eastern District. The Motion in Gordon v. Impulse was denied. Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify brings into consideration Ethical Rule 1.9 which precludes representation of an opposing party in a matter where counsel has represented in the same or a substantially related matter in which the opposing party's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents in writing after consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts or where counsel uses confidences or secrets relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client. Mr. Gordon does not declare that assistance was to the same or substantially related matters. Mr. Gordon does not declare or identify confidences or secrets supposedly known to attorney Ivey which can be used to the disadvantage of Mr. Gordon and Omni. Omni's counsel does not argue that either of these factors exist. Rather, Counsel for Omni present inflamatory personal attacks against
Defendant's Surreply to Motion to Disqualify - 2.
LIEBLER, IVEY, CONNOR, BERRY & ST. HILAIRE Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 6125 Kennewick, Washington 99336-0125 [phone]

Z:\IPClient\Ascentive LLC v. Gordon\Ascentive v. Omni Innovations\Motions\MotionDisqualify\Motion ToDisqual.DEF.SURREPLY.061101.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-01284-JCC

Document 25

Filed 11/01/2006

Page 3 of 5

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

attorney Ivey. There has been no relevant representation by attorney Ivey of Mr. Gordon or of Omni. Exhibits presented to the Eastern District re: Disqualification demonstrated that Mr. Gordon pursued cases Pro Se in Benton County Superior Court. There is no evidence of prejudice. The absence of pertinent evidence leads to the conclusion that there has not been representation of issues which constitute a violation of any Rule of Ethics. First Small Business Inv. Co. of California v. Intercapital, 108 Wash.2d 324, 332 738 P.2d 263, 267 (1987). The relevant test for disqualification is whether the former representation is "substantially related" to the current representation. Gas-A-Tron of Arizona v. Union Oil Co. of California, 534 F.2d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 861, 97 S.Ct. 164, 50 L.Ed.2d 139 (1976). The interest to be preserved by preventing attorneys from accepting representation adverse to a former client is the protection and enhancement of the professional relationship in all its dimensions. It is necessary to preserve the value attached to the relationship both by the attorney and by the client. These objectives require a rule that prevents attorneys from accepting representation adverse to a former client if the later case bears a substantial connection to the earlier one. NCK Org'n Ltd. v. Bergman, 542 F.2d 128 (2nd Cir. 1976). Substantiality is present if the factual contexts of the two representations are similar or related. Trone v. Smith 621 F.2d 994, 998 (C.A.Cal., 1980). Plaintiffs do not present these factors to the Western District. Plaintiff's counsel does present arguments relative to disqualification. Attorney Ivey asserts that there has been no representation of any issue of interest in the cases of Impulse, Ascentive and or Efinancials and that there has been no representation of Mr. Gordon relative to Omni. Attorney Ivey asserts that there is no violation of Rule 1.9. or of any Rule of Ethics. A motion to disqualify should be made with reasonable promptness after a party discovers the facts which lead to the motion. The issue of attorney Ivey
Defendant's Surreply to Motion to Disqualify - 3.
LIEBLER, IVEY, CONNOR, BERRY & ST. HILAIRE Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 6125 Kennewick, Washington 99336-0125 [phone]

Z:\IPClient\Ascentive LLC v. Gordon\Ascentive v. Omni Innovations\Motions\MotionDisqualify\Motion ToDisqual.DEF.SURREPLY.061101.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-01284-JCC

Document 25

Filed 11/01/2006

Page 4 of 5

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

having provided limited services to Mr. Gordon prior to any representation adverse to Mr. Gordon was raised at the outset with counsel McKinley for Mr. Gordon. There was no delay in discovery of some prior representation. Yet appearances in several cases and the filing of many pleadings occurred prior to the matter of Disqualification being raised by Mr. Gordon's Wife and Daughter. A litigant cannot delay filing a motion to disqualify in order to use the motion later as a tool to deprive his opponent of counsel of his choice after substantial preparation of a case has been completed. Central Milk Producers Coop. v. Sentry Food Stores, Inc., 573 F.2d 988, 992 (8th Cir.1978). Delay alone is a basis to find waiver and is sufficient is sufficient for the Court to deny a Motion to Disqualify. First Small Business at 337. The former client may expressly or impliedly waive his objection and consent to the adverse representation by failing to object within a reasonable time. Trone v. Smith, 621 F.2d 994, 998-999 (9th Cir.1980); Trust Corporation of America v. Piper Aircraft Corporation, 701 F.2d 85, 87-88 (9th Cir.1983). It is well settled that a former client who is entitled to object to an attorney representing an opposing party on the ground of conflict of interest but who knowingly refrains from asserting it promptly is deemed to have waived that right. Central Milk Producers Co-op v. Sentry Food Stores, 573 F.2d 988, 992 (CA8 1978); Redd v. Shell Oil Co., 518 F.2d 311, 315 (CA10 1975). Gordon's failure to object within a reasonable time, coupled with the long delay in filing a motion to disqualify, constitute a de facto consent to the continued representation of these Defendants by Plaintiffs' recite Sanders v. Woods 121 Wn. App. 593(2004) wherein attorney Ivey and his firm were disqualified. The case of Sanders v. Woods is irrelevant to the question of disqualification in the instant matter. The facts of the present Gordon cases against Impulse, Ascentive and Efinancials and Omni/Abbey
Defendant's Surreply to Motion to Disqualify - 4.
LIEBLER, IVEY, CONNOR, BERRY & ST. HILAIRE Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 6125 Kennewick, Washington 99336-0125 [phone]

Ivey. Trust Corp. of Montana v. Piper Aircraft Corp. 701 F.2d 85, 87-88 (C.A.Mont.,1983

Z:\IPClient\Ascentive LLC v. Gordon\Ascentive v. Omni Innovations\Motions\MotionDisqualify\Motion ToDisqual.DEF.SURREPLY.061101.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-01284-JCC

Document 25

Filed 11/01/2006

Page 5 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

case against Ascentive, as they relate to Disqualification, stand alone and apart from the facts of Sanders v. Woods. The Motion to Disqualify should be denied. DATED this 1st day of November, 2006. LIEBLER, IVEY, CONNOR, BERRY & ST. HILAIRE s/ FLOYD E. IVEY Floyd E. Ivey, WSBA #6888 Attorneys for the Defendants Ascentive and Schran

I hereby certify that on November 1, 2006, I electronically filed Defendant's Surreply to Plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify with the Clerk of the 13 Court using the CM/ECF System which will send notification of such filing to Robert Siegel and Peter J. Glantz. I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing 14 to the following non-CM/ECF participants by other means: NA.
12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendant's Surreply to Motion to Disqualify - 5.
Z:\IPClient\Ascentive LLC v. Gordon\Ascentive v. Omni Innovations\Motions\MotionDisqualify\Motion ToDisqual.DEF.SURREPLY.061101.wpd

S/ FLOYD E. IVEY FLOYD E. IVEY

LIEBLER, IVEY, CONNOR, BERRY & ST. HILAIRE Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 6125 Kennewick, Washington 99336-0125 [phone]