Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02051/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02051-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

American Traffic Solutions, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.; Karen

Finley; Aaron M. Rosenberg, Ph.D., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2051-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff American Traffic Solutions, Inc. (“ATS”) moves to disqualify defendants’

counsel Greenberg Traurig, LLP (“Greenberg”). We have before us plaintiff’s motion to

disqualify (doc. 18), defendants Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. (“Redflex”), Karen Finley, and

Aaron Rosenberg’s response and supplement to response (docs. 20 & 21), and plaintiff’s

reply (doc. 22). We also have before us defendants’ motion to strike or in the alternative its

surreply (doc. 24) and plaintiff’s response (doc. 26). Also before the court is defendants’

motion for oral argument (doc. 23). 

As an initial matter, we deny defendants’ motion for oral argument because we do not

find it necessary to decide the matter before us. Additionally, we deny defendants’ motion

to strike or for leave to file a surreply. The local rules of civil procedure provide for a

motion, response, and reply. LRCiv. 7.2. Objections to evidence on written motions shall

not be by a separate motion to strike. LRCiv. 7.2(m)(2). The remedy for dealing with new

Case 2:08-cv-02051-FJM Document 27 Filed 03/20/09 Page 1 of 4
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 -

evidence first appearing in a reply is that we will not consider issues or evidence raised for

the first time in plaintiff’s reply. Gadda v. State Bar of Cal., 511 F.3d 933, 937 n.2 (9th Cir.

2007).

ATS and Redflex both market cameras for photo traffic and toll enforcement and are

direct competitors. ATS claims that Redflex made false or misleading statements regarding

the radars used in Redflex’s speed monitoring cameras and brings this action for violations

of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), tortious interference with business relationship and

expectancy, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff now moves to disqualify Greenberg from

representing defendants on the grounds that it may use confidential information obtained

through prior representation to further defendants’ interests. 

From November 2003 until March 2006, Greenberg represented Mulvihill Intelligent

Control Systems, Inc. (“Mulvihill”) in contract disputes and negotiations regarding red light

cameras. In March 2005, ATS became Mulvihill’s corporate parent. While representing

Mulvihill, Greenberg obtained information from ATS as needed to represent Mulvihill and

met with ATS in May 2005 to attempt to solicit additional business. According to ATS,

Greenberg was given confidential information regarding both ATS and Mulvihill during the

May 2005 meetings. Motion to Disqualify, Ex. A ¶ 8.

Arizona Ethical Rule 1.9 prohibits a lawyer from representing a party whose interests

are materially adverse to a former client where the matter is substantially related to the

previous representation. ER 1.9 (a), Ariz. S. Ct. R. 42, 17A A.R.S.; Amparano v. ASARCO,

208 Ariz. 370, 376, 93 P.3d 1086, 1092 (Ct. App. 2004) (“The courts have, of course, looked

to the ethical rules for guidance on disqualification issues”). To disqualify Greenberg,

plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; and (2) that the

former representation was “substantially related” to the current litigation. Foulke v. Knuck,

162 Ariz. 517, 520-21, 784 P.2d 723, 726-27 (Ct. App. 1989). Defendants claim that

plaintiff has failed to show either factor. 

First, defendants argue that Greenberg did not have an attorney-client relationship

with ATS because it represented Mulvihill only. We disagree. “An attorney-client

Case 2:08-cv-02051-FJM Document 27 Filed 03/20/09 Page 2 of 4
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

1

Defendants attempt to make significant that Greenberg did not receive payments from

ATS. However, “it is not necessary for the individual to pay the attorney a fee for the

services rendered in order for the relationship to be established.” Foulke, 162 Ariz. at 520,

784 P.2d at 726. Moreover, even though ATS did not make payments to Greenberg, it

approved payments made by Mulvihill. Motion to Disqualify, Ex. A ¶ 4. 

- 3 -

relationship is said to exist when the party divulging confidences and secrets to an attorney

believes that he is approaching the attorney in a professional capacity with the intent to

secure legal advice.” Alexander v. Superior Court, 141 Ariz. 157, 162, 685 P.2d 1309, 1314

(1984) (quotation omitted). ATS has provided evidence that it subjectively believed an

attorney-client relationship had been created and that it provided Greenberg with confidential

information based on this belief. Motion to Disqualify, Ex. A.

1

 We conclude, therefore, that

plaintiff has shown the existence of an attorney-client relationship. 

Second, defendants contend that, even if an attorney-client relationship existed, the

current action, involving speed cameras, is not substantially related to Greenberg’s former

representation of Mulvihill, which involved red light cameras. “Matters are ‘substantially

related’ for purposes of [Ethical Rule 1.9] if they involve the same transaction or legal

dispute or if there otherwise is a substantial risk that confidential factual information as

would normally have been obtained in the prior representation would materially advance the

client's position in the subsequent matter.” ER 1.9 cmt. 3. Plaintiff argues that the current

action is substantially related to red light camera matters because most of its cameras have

both red light and speed functions. In addition, plaintiff claims that Greenberg had access

to confidential information regarding ATS’s internal structure, procurement procedures,

equipment, and external business plan, which could be used to improperly benefit Redflex.

Even if we assume that red light cameras and speed cameras are related, plaintiff has

failed to show that information obtained by Greenberg would materially advance defendants’

position in this action. The current litigation involves claims that Redflex made false or

misleading statements regarding the radars used in its speed enforcement cameras. The focus

of this action is on the equipment manufactured by Redflex and is not “substantially related”

Case 2:08-cv-02051-FJM Document 27 Filed 03/20/09 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

to the work that Greenberg provided for Mulvihill. We conclude, therefore, that Greenberg’s

representation of defendants does not violate Ethical Rule 1.9 (a) and disqualification is not

required.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion to disqualify (doc. 18).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING defendants’ request for oral argument (doc. 23).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING defendants’ motion to strike (doc. 24).

DATED this 19th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02051-FJM Document 27 Filed 03/20/09 Page 4 of 4