Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01416/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01416-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS HENDRICKSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OCTAGON INC,

Defendant. __________________________________

CLIFFORD LABOY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OCTAGON INC,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 14-01416 CRB

C 14-01417 CRB

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO

DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

Defendant has moved in both the cases at issue here to disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel 

based on an asserted conflict of interest. See Motions to Disqualify (dkts. 67 and 74). The

Court concluded that these matters were suitable for resolution without oral argument. See

Orders Vacating Hearing (dkts. 85 and 91). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES

Defendant’s motions to disqualify.

“Motions to disqualify counsel are strongly disfavored” because they “can be misused

to harass opposing counsel, to delay the litigation, or to intimidate an adversary into

accepting settlement on terms that would not otherwise be acceptable.” Visa U.S.A., Inc. v.

First Data Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1104 (N.D. Cal. 2003); Gregori v. Bank of Am., 207

Cal. App. 3d 291, 301 (1989). For this reason, “disqualification motions should be subjected

to ‘particularly strict judicial scrutiny.’” Optyl Eyewear Fashion Int’l Corp. v. Style Cos.,

Ltd., 760 F.2d 1045, 1050 (9th Cir. 1985).

As an initial matter, Defendant has not made a convincing showing that a conflict

exists here under relevant case law. The actions presently before the Court involve, in part,

certain fee sharing clauses in contracts entered into by Plaintiffs and Defendant. See

Complaints (dkts. 1 and 1); Mot’s. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs entered into similar

Case 3:14-cv-01416-CRB Document 91 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

contracts with their new sports agency, which is represented here by the same attorneys who

represent Plaintiffs. See Mot’s. Thus, according to Defendant, Plaintiffs’ counsel cannot

represent both Plaintiffs and their new agency because those parties’ interests conflict. Id. 

This argument fails because Defendant admits that “no cause of action [here]

explicitly contests the enforceability of [the new agency’s] fee tail provision.” See Replies

(dkts. 77 and 83). Relevant case law thus indicates that Defendant impermissibly raises a

“hypothetical” conflict, see Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino, 89 Cal. App. 4th 294

(2001), or a “non-issue,” see Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc., 179 Cal. App. 4th 564

(2009). Defendant also fails to explain how it has standing to bring the motions presently

before the Court. See In re Marriage of Murchison, 245 Cal. App. 4th 847, 851–53 (2016).

Furthermore, even if the Court assumed a conflict did exist here, Plaintiffs’ attorneys

have submitted sworn affidavits indicating that their clients have been fully informed of the

subject of these motions to disqualify and have “waived any [] conflicts” that the Court might

find to exist. See Declarations (dkts. 82 and 88). Defendant has not established that the

asserted conflict here is unwaivable, and thus Defendant’s arguments would fail even if the

Court reached their merits. See U.S. v. Wheat, 813 F.2d 1399 (9th Cir. 1987); Visa U.S.A.,

Inc. v. First Data Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motions to disqualify

counsel. See Motions to Disqualify (dkts. 67 and 74). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-01416-CRB Document 91 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 2