Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00348/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00348-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

On July 24, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel, Marc Steven Applbaum, filed a motion to withdraw 

as counsel of record. Mot. to Withdraw, ECF No. 63. In his motion and in other filings before 

the court, as described in more detail below, counsel describes communications with his client, 

Mr. Kan, which appear to be covered by Mr. Kan’s attorney-client privilege. The court also notes

counsel’s non-appearance at the September 1, 2023 hearing set for consideration of counsel’s 

motion, Mins. Hr’g, ECF No. 72, as well as allegations brought to the court’s attention by 

Mr. Kan, Letter, ECF No. 73. 

First, “[t]he attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between 

attorneys and clients that are made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.” Briggs v. County of 

Maricopa, No. 18-2684, 2021 WL 1192819, at *6 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30, 2021) (citing Upjohn Co. v. 

United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981)). The privilege protects both the client’s disclosures and 

the attorneys “advice in response.” In re Grand Jury Investigation (Corp.), 974 F.2d 1068, 1070 

28 (9th Cir.1992) (cleaned up). The privilege is held by the client and generally only can be waived 

Johnny Kan, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Verdera Community Association, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-00348-KJM-JDP 

ORDER 

Case 2:22-cv-00348-DC-JDP Document 78 Filed 09/07/23 Page 1 of 3
2 

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 

by the client. Fox v. Cal. Sierra Fin. Servs., 120 F.R.D. 520, 527 (N.D. Cal. 1988). Here, 

however, counsel has made a public filing on the court’s docket that claims Mr. Kan has made 

demands of counsel “in diametric opposition to [counsel’s] advice.” Mot. to Withdraw at 3. He 

also asserts that Mr. Kan is “being interviewed by a psychologist in his criminal case." Id. 

Additionally, in his opposition to defendant’s motion for fees, counsel attempts to excuse his 

actions by saying plaintiff “demanded that counsel record a lis pendens after counsel [] advised 

him of the risks” and plaintiff “refused to expunge his lis pendens after” defendants learned of the 

lis pendens and contacted him. Opp’n at 4–5, ECF No. 65. These statements appear to disclose 

the content of private communications between counsel and his client related to legal advice. See 

In re Grand Jury Investigation (Corp.), 974 F.2n 1071 n.2 (reciting the eight-part test to 

determine whether information is covered by the privilege). Moreover, these disclosures may 

violate California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6, which bars lawyers from revealing

confidential information unless certain circumstances are met, none of which appears applicable 

here. See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6. 

Second, counsel did not appear at the court’s September 1, 2023, motion hearing 

regarding his motion to withdraw. Mins. Hr’g. Counsel concedes he only “advised the clerk” of 

his inability to travel at the eleventh hour, the day before the hearing, Applbaum Decl. ¶ 2, Mot. 

to Continue, ECF No. 71. He filed an ex parte motion the morning of the hearing, citing only his 

inability to travel, id., well after this court’s seven-day deadline to request a remote appearance 

for good cause, see Civil Standing Order;

1 E.D. Cal. L.R. 174. Counsel’s last-minute efforts fail 

to convey proper respect for the court.

Third, Mr. Kan has provided a letter with attachment to the court, saying counsel “has 

kept approximately $446,000” of plaintiff’s funds, lied to plaintiff and charged plaintiff $40,000 

in trial fees for a trial that did not take place. Letter at 1. Plaintiff attaches to his communication 

a letter from a different attorney, reviewing details of counsel’s alleged misappropriation of funds 

26 and untruthfulness toward his client. Id. at 2–3. If the allegations are true, a question the court 

1

 Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, Civil Standing Order, 

https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5020/civil-standing-order. 

Case 2:22-cv-00348-DC-JDP Document 78 Filed 09/07/23 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

does not decide, they would suggest counsel has violated not only the California Rules of

Professional Conduct but also state and federal laws. See, e.g., Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15. While 

counsel has filed a response to the letter, ECF No. 74, that filing preceded the issuance of this 

order to show cause. The court disregards the response without prejudice to counsel’s including 

its contents in his formal response to this order. 

Based on counsel’s written disclosures of apparent attorney-client information, nonappearance at hearing and alleged conduct with respect to his client, counsel is ordered to show 

cause within fourteen days why this court should not suspend or revoke his admission to the Bar 

of this Court and report his conduct to the State Bar of California. Erickson v. Newmar Corp., 

87 F.3d 298, 303 (9th Cir. 1996) (“District judges have an arsenal of sanctions they can impose for

unethical behavior. These sanctions include monetary sanctions, contempt, and the

disqualification of counsel.”); E.D. Cal. L.R. 180(e) (all members of the Bar of this Court must

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

California and contained in the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar

of California, and court decisions”).

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

17 DATED: September 6, 2023. 

Case 2:22-cv-00348-DC-JDP Document 78 Filed 09/07/23 Page 3 of 3