Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05546/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05546-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE DIVA LIMOUSINE, LTD.

DIVA LIMOUSINE, LTD.,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN 

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN 

FRANCISCO,

 Respondent,

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

RAISER-CA LLC; RAISER, LLC; 

UBER USA, LLC; UATC, LLC, 

Real Parties in Interest

No. 19-70357

District Court No. 18-cv-05546-EMC 

Northern District of California,

San Francisco

DISTRICT COURT’S RESPONSE 

RE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS

Ninth Cir. Docket No. 2

In response to Diva Limousine’s (“Diva”) petition for a writ of mandamus 

challenging this Court’s decision to disqualify Keller Lenkner LLC (“KL”) from its 

representation of Diva in the above case, the Ninth Circuit issued an order providing 

that this Court “may address the petition if it so desires.” Order, In re Diva 

Limousine, Ltd., No. 19-70357 (Ninth Cir. Apr. 24, 2019), Docket No. 2. Below is 

the Court’s response.

Diva’s petition raises two issues:

(1)Whether a district court may disqualify a lawyer under

California law without finding that the lawyer’s 

conduct violates a Rule of Professional Conduct.

Case 3:18-cv-05546-EMC Document 116 Filed 05/03/19 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

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(2)Whether a district court may find a “substantial 

relationship” between cases after concluding that they 

do not involve the same legal issues or factual 

questions (and that the prior matter did not involve 

litigating any factual disputes whatsoever).

Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In re Diva Limousine, Ltd., Docket No. 1 at 9.

With respect to the first issue, the Court’s disqualification order discussed 

several cases in which courts have disqualified counsel due to counsel’s receipt of 

confidential information from a non-client, notwithstanding the fact that there was 

no violation of a specific Rule of Professional Conduct. See Docket No. 96 at 7–9; 

Acacia Patent Acquisition, LLC v. Superior Court, 234 Cal. App. 4th 1091, 1098–

1107 (2015); Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft, 69 Cal. 

App. 4th 223, 230–35 (1999). These cases are consistent with California Rule of 

Professional Conduct 1.0(b)(2) as well as former Rule 1-100, which make clear that 

“[t]he prohibition of certain conduct in these rules is not exclusive. Members are 

also bound by applicable law including the State Bar Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, 

§ 6000 et seq.) and opinions of California courts.” California courts have held that 

“Rule 1-100’s intent supports disqualification” where an attorney’s “actions would 

undermine the integrity of the legal profession,” even if “the current conflict of 

interest rules do not appear to apply.” Allen v. Acad. Games Leagues of Am., Inc., 

831 F. Supp. 785, 789 (C.D. Cal. 1993).

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-05546-EMC Document 116 Filed 05/03/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

With respect to the second issue, the Court’s basis for finding a substantial 

relationship between KL’s current representation of Diva and Mr. Postman’s former 

work with Uber at the Chamber of Commerce is set forth in pages 15 to 21 of the 

disqualification order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2019

___________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05546-EMC Document 116 Filed 05/03/19 Page 3 of 3