Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01389/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01389-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1442 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

The Facebook, Inc., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ConnectU, Inc, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 07-01389 JW 

ORDER OVERRULING CONNECTU’S

OBJECTION TO CHIEF MAGISTRATE

JUDGE JAMES’ DECEMBER 30, 2009

ORDER AS PREMATURE

Presently before the Court is ConnectU's Objection to Chief Magistrate Judge James' Order

denying ConnectU's Request for Hearing Date and Briefing Schedule. (Docket Item No. 742.) The

Court treats the objection as a motion for relief from a nondispositive order of a Magistrate Judge

made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and Civ. L.R. 72-2. Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have

joined in the Motion. (Docket Item No. 746.)

A district court may modify or set aside a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive

matter if the order is "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." 28 U.S.C.§636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(a); Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Upon review, the Court finds that Chief Magistrate Judge James’ Order is neither erroneous

nor contrary to law. Moreover, the Court finds that ConnectU's motion is premature. In the

December 30, 2009 Order, Judge James denied ConnectU's request "without prejudice" and

specifically stated that "should ConnectU be able to establish that no appeals are pending in this case

before the Ninth Circuit, the Court shall issue an order as to how the parties should proceed." 

Case 5:07-cv-01389-JW Document 747 Filed 01/14/10 Page 1 of 3
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

(Docket Item No. 736.) Thus, Judge James invited ConnectU to refile its motion with an appropriate

showing that the district court had jurisdiction to proceed with a review of files to be turned over.

The Court recognizes that Judge James' Order might be broadly interpreted to require a

showing that "no appeals are pending" before the Ninth Circuit, even if the appeal would not affect

the jurisdiction of the district court to enforce its Order that client files be reviewed and turned over

to successor counsel. There are multiple appeals pending in this case. However, an appeal does not

divest the district court of jurisdiction to hear ancillary matters unaffected by the appeal. The

motion for disqualification of counsel and for turnover of client files is an ancillary matter that the

Ninth Circuit referred back to the district court for disposition. Of course, appellate relief might be

available with respect to the district court’s disposition of these ancillary matters. Unless or until

appellate relief is sought, the district court retains jurisdiction to enforce its disposition.

Chief Magistrate Judge James’ Order allows ConnectU to refile its motion with a proper

showing. If ConnectU determines to re-file a motion with the Magistrate Judge for further

proceedings with respect to the turnover of client files, it would satisfy its requirement for showing

that the Magistrate Judge has jurisdiction by showing that there are no appeals pending from the

September 2, 2009 Order disqualifying counsel or from that portion of the September 2, 2009 Order

directing a limited handover of its client files ("documents necessary for new ConnectU to carry on

ConnectU's business operations") from its former counsel to its present counsel. 

Accordingly, the Order of Chief Magistrate Judge James is affirmed. The objection is

overruled as premature, without prejudice to a renewed motion that is consistent with this Order.

Dated: January 14, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01389-JW Document 747 Filed 01/14/10 Page 2 of 3
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Alison Paige Buchanan apb@hogefenton.com

Bruce Eric Van Dalsem brucevandalsem@quinnemanuel.com

Chester Wren-Ming Day cday@orrick.com

D. Michael Underhill Munderhill@BSFLLP.com

David A. Barrett dbarrett@bsfllp.com

Evan A. Parke eparke@bsfllp.com

George C. Fisher georgecfisher@gmail.com

George C. Fisher georgecfisher@gmail.com

George Hopkins Guy hopguy@orrick.com

I. Neel Chatterjee nchatterjee@orrick.com

James Earl Towery jet@hogefenton.com

Jerome B. Falk jfalk@howardrice.com

John Phillip Duchemin jduchemin@howardrice.com

Jonathan M. Shaw jshaw@bsfllp.com

Kalama M. Lui-Kwan kml@severson.com

Mark A. Weissman mweissman@osheapartners.com

Mark A. Weissman mweissman@osheapartners.com

Mark Andrew Byrne markbyrne@byrnenixon.com

Mark Andrew Byrne markbyrne@byrnenixon.com

Monte M.F. Cooper mcooper@orrick.com

Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm rachel.matteo-boehm@hro.com

Randy Garteiser randy@sftrialattorneys.com

Roger Rex Myers roger.myers@hro.com

Scott Richard Mosko scott.mosko@finnegan.com

Sean Alan Lincoln slincoln@Orrick.com

Sean F. O&#039;Shea soshea@osheapartners.com

Sean M. SeLegue sselegue@howardrice.com

Steven Christopher Holtzman sholtzman@bsfllp.com

Theresa Ann Sutton tsutton@orrick.com

Tyler Alexander Baker Tbaker@fenwick.com

Valerie Margo Wagner vwagner@gcalaw.com

Warrington S. Parker wparker@orrick.com

Yvonne Penas Greer ygreer@orrick.com

Dated: January 14, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:07-cv-01389-JW Document 747 Filed 01/14/10 Page 3 of 3