Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04383/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04383-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EVGENY EPIKHIN and DMITRI 

REDLIKH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GAME INSIGHT NORTH AMERICA, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

Plaintiffs Evgeny Epikhin (“Epikhin”) and Dmitri Redlikh (“Redlikh”) (collectively, 

“Plaintiffs”) bring suit against defendants Game Insight North America, Game Insight, and GIGL 

(collectively, “Game Insight”) and Game Garden, LLC (“Game Garden”) (together, with Game 

Insight, “Distributor Defendants”), as well as against Fly High Games (“Fly High”) and Yury 

Pomortsev (“Pomortsev”). Before the Court is Game Garden’s motion to disqualify Plaintiffs’ 

counsel, Shannon Gallagher (“Gallagher”). ECF No. 25.

The Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument under Civil Local 

Rule 7-1(b) and hereby VACATES the motion hearing set for May 14, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. The 

case management conference set for that date and time is hereby CONTINUED to June 11, 2015, 

at 1:30 p.m. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in 

Case 5:14-cv-04383-LHK Document 45 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 13
2

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

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

this case, the Court hereby GRANTS Game Garden’s motion to disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The crux of this lawsuit is who owns the rights to Cat Story, a free mobile application 

(“app”) in which players build a virtual village for cats shipwrecked on an island and send the cats 

on various quests and adventures. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 21-23, 50-60. The app is distributed 

by Game Garden and Game Insight, pursuant to a license from Fly High. Id. ¶¶ 29, 54-57. From 

November 2011 to September 2013, Game Garden, a California Corporation, was owned by 

Pomortsev, Maxim Bakanovich (“Bakanovich”), and Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 34; ECF No. 26-1 (“Redlikh 

Decl.”) ¶ 3.

1

 Game Garden was managed by Taras Titarenko (“Titarenko”), Redlikh’s lifelong 

friend. Redlikh Decl. ¶ 13; ECF No. 26-2 (“Titarenko Decl.”) ¶ 1.

Plaintiffs allege that the app which became Cat Story was first conceived in early 2012 at 

South Port Studios, LLC (“South Port”), a Russian corporation owned solely by Redlikh but 

managed by Pomortsev. Compl. ¶¶ 20-23; Redlikh Decl. ¶¶ 2, 9. At the time, Plaintiffs say, the 

app was called PussyVille. Compl. ¶ 24. According to Plaintiffs, South Port employees 

participated in various tasks related to PussyVille, including development of the game concept;

creation of art, code and graphics; deployment of game mechanics; and development of a 

marketing strategy for the app. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiffs claim that PussyVille contained computer code 

based on and derived from code created by South Port in connection with earlier app projects such 

as Fairy Farm. Id. ¶ 27.

Starting in late 2012, things started to go awry. Plaintiffs allege that Pomortsev informed 

Redlikh that the owner of Fly High was interested in helping develop PussyVille in exchange for a 

share in the app’s profits. Compl. ¶ 37. Plaintiffs allege further that Pomortsev, without authority 

 

1 As indicated above, the Court uses “Game Garden” herein to refer to Game Garden, LLC, 

the California corporation, not the informal Russian partnership, apparently comprised of the same 

owners, that is not a party to this litigation. See, e.g., ECF No. 42 at 4-5 (joint case management 

statement explaining the difference between “Game Garden Partnership” and “Game Garden, 

LLC”); Redlikh Decl. ¶¶ 10-12 (describing “the informal group Game Garden”).

Case 5:14-cv-04383-LHK Document 45 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 13
3

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

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

or Plaintiffs’ prior consent, began to share with Fly High information regarding PussyVille. Id.

¶ 38. While this sharing was happening, Plaintiffs claim that Pomortsev was representing to them 

that South Port employees were no longer working to develop PussyVille. Id. ¶ 40. In an e-mail 

to Plaintiffs dated January 18, 2013, Pomortsev allegedly wrote, “PussyVille is not being 

developed.” Id. ¶ 41. Despite these representations, Plaintiffs claim that Pomortsev and 

Bakanovich had started a new gaming company, Fair Play Studios, which was secretly working 

with Fly High to develop the app that would become Cat Story. Id. ¶¶ 36, 42.

Startek Invest Limited (“Startek”), a corporation organized under the laws of Cyprus, was 

another company owned solely by Redlikh. Redlikh Decl. ¶ 1. Though Startek is mentioned 

nowhere in Plaintiffs’ complaint, Redlikh says that Startek “was the owner of rights to certain 

gaming applications that were developed by South Port.” Id. ¶ 6. Startek and Game Garden 

entered into a series of service contract agreements whereby Game Garden would distribute games 

created by South Port but owned by Startek. Id. ¶¶ 13-14; Titarenko Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. The last such 

agreement, dated March 21, 2013, did not include PussyVille in either the list of games then in 

development or the list of games then being distributed by Game Garden. Titarenko Decl. Ex. A. 

To be clear, though, Plaintiffs allege that South Port, not Startek, owned the rights to PussyVille. 

See Compl. ¶¶ 38, 49-50, 58.

Due to various difficulties, the relationship between Game Garden’s four owners began to 

deteriorate beyond repair. By May 2013, the owners decided to part ways. Compl. ¶ 45. Over the 

next several months, Plaintiffs negotiated with Pomortsev and Bakanovich to sell Plaintiffs’ 

ownership interests in Game Garden. Id. ¶ 46. Gallagher allegedly represented Plaintiffs during 

these negotiations, while Pomortsev and Bakanovich were represented initially by Andrey

Novokreshchenov and later by Anastasiya Fugett (“Fugett”). ECF No. 26-3 (“Gallagher Decl.”) 

¶¶ 2-3, 5, 8; ECF No. 26-4 Exs. A-B. Fugett, whose last name at the time was Malchenko, also 

represented the individuals who were buying Plaintiffs’ shares (the “Buyers”). ECF No. 25-2 

(“Fugett Decl.”) ¶ 2; ECF No. 26-4 Ex. B. Plaintiffs eventually sold their ownership interests in 

Game Garden to the Buyers on September 9, 2013. Compl. ¶ 48. Plaintiffs allege that the sale 

Case 5:14-cv-04383-LHK Document 45 Filed 05/12/15 Page 3 of 13
4

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

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

agreement listed certain games, apps, and projects that were part of the transaction. Id. ¶ 49. The 

agreement, Plaintiffs say, made no mention of PussyVille, whose rights and title were allegedly 

transferred from South Port to Plaintiffs on September 13, 2013. Id. ¶¶ 49, 58.

On August 2, 2013—more than a month before Plaintiffs sold their interest in Game 

Garden—the domain name www.catstorygame.com was registered by Fly High’s owner. Compl. 

¶ 53. According to Plaintiffs, Distributor Defendants have since distributed Cat Story through 

various platforms: Game Insight began distributing Cat Story through Apple’s App Store on 

September 19, 2013, id. ¶ 54; Game Insight began distributing Cat Story through Google Play on 

January 24, 2014, id. ¶ 55; Game Garden began distributing Cat Story through Amazon on 

February 1, 2014, id. ¶ 56; and Game Garden began distributing Cat Story through Windows 

Mobile on April 1, 2014, id. ¶ 57.

Plaintiffs claim to have filed for copyright protection on both PussyVille and Cat Story. 

Compl. ¶¶ 59-60. The record indicates that Plaintiffs have registered Cat Story with the U.S. 

Copyright Office. See ECF No. 23-1 Ex. A (screenshot of record of registration for Cat Story, 

Copyright Registration Number TXu 001912978). The effective date of Cat Story’s registration is 

September 24, 2014. Id.

B. Procedural History

On September 29, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this action. In the complaint, 

Plaintiffs allege that Cat Story contains significant art, graphics, and other copyrightable material 

created by South Port during its development of PussyVille; that the rights in this copyrightable 

material were properly assigned to Plaintiffs; and that these rights are infringed by Distributor

Defendants’ distribution of Cat Story. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 25-27, 58. On that basis, Plaintiffs bring 

causes of action for direct copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 (first cause of action), 

contributory copyright infringement (third cause of action), and vicarious copyright infringement 

(fourth cause of action) against Distributor Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 61-73, 100-09. Plaintiffs seek 

damages arising from the alleged infringement as well as injunctive relief to prevent future 

infringement. Id. ¶ 1.

Case 5:14-cv-04383-LHK Document 45 Filed 05/12/15 Page 4 of 13
5

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

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

Plaintiffs bring additional causes of action against Pomortsev and Fly High. Specifically, 

Plaintiffs allege a cause of action for fraud (second cause of action) and breach of contract (sixth 

cause of action) against Pomortsev. Compl. ¶¶ 74-99, 118-23. Plaintiffs also allege a cause of 

action for declaration of copyright ownership against Fly High (fifth cause of action). Id. ¶¶ 110-

17. Lastly, Plaintiffs bring a cause of action against all defendants for deceptive business practices 

under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.

(seventh cause of action). Id. ¶¶ 124-30.

Following several stipulations to extend time to answer Plaintiffs’ complaint, Distributor 

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ third, fourth, and seventh causes of action on 

January 20, 2015. ECF No. 16. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on February 3, 2015. ECF No. 23. 

Distributor Defendants replied on February 10, 2015. ECF No. 24.

Also on February 10, 2015, Game Garden filed the instant motion to disqualify Plaintiffs’ 

counsel. ECF No. 25 (“Mot.”). Plaintiffs opposed that motion on February 24, 2015. ECF No. 26 

(“Opp.”). Game Garden replied on March 3, 2015. ECF No. 27.

2

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“The right to disqualify counsel is a discretionary exercise of the trial court’s inherent 

powers.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 264 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 

(N.D. Cal. 2003). Under Civil Local Rule 11-4(a)(1), all attorneys who practice in this Court must 

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

California. This Court, therefore, applies state law in determining matters of disqualification. See 

In re Cnty. of L.A., 223 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2000).

Rule 3-310(E) of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California prohibits 

 

2 At the initial case management conference held on March 18, 2015, the Court was 

informed that Pomortsev and Fly High, both of whom reside in the Russian Federation, had not 

been served with process in this action. See ECF No. 29 at 2. However, on May 6, 2015, waivers 

of service were filed with the Court on behalf of Pomortsev and Fly High. ECF Nos. 40, 41. On 

May 11, 2015, Pomortsev and Fly High separately answered Plaintiffs’ complaint. ECF Nos. 43, 

44.

Case 5:14-cv-04383-LHK Document 45 Filed 05/12/15 Page 5 of 13
6

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

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

the successive representation of clients in certain circumstances without the informed written 

consent of the current client and former client. The rule provides: “A member shall not, without 

the informed written consent of the client or former client, accept employment adverse to the 

client or former client where, by reason of the representation of the client or former client, the 

member has obtained confidential information material to the employment.”

Interpreting Rule 3-310(E), the California Supreme Court has held: “Where an attorney 

successively represents clients with adverse interests, and where the subjects of the two 

representations are substantially related, the need to protect the first client’s confidential 

information requires that the attorney be disqualified from the second representation.” People ex 

rel. Dep’t of Corps. v. SpeeDee Oil Change Sys., Inc., 20 Cal. 4th 1135, 1146 (1999) (citing Flatt 

v. Super. Ct., 9 Cal. 4th 275, 283 (1994)). “To determine whether there is a substantial 

relationship between successive representations, a court must first determine whether the attorney 

had a direct professional relationship with the former client in which the attorney personally 

provided legal advice and services on a legal issue that is closely related to the legal issue in the 

present representation.” City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Cobra Solutions, Inc., 38 Cal. 4th 839, 847 (2006). 

“When a substantial relationship between the two representations is established, the attorney is 

automatically disqualified from representing the second client.” Id. The burden is on the party 

seeking the disqualification “to show both the fact of the former representation and the existence 

of a substantial relationship between the former and current representations.” In re Charlisse C., 

45 Cal. 4th 145, 166 n.11 (2008).

III. DISCUSSION

In its motion, Game Garden argues that Gallagher must be disqualified from representing 

Plaintiffs in this action. Mot. at 1. This is so, Game Garden says, because Gallagher represented 

Game Garden in a 2013 dispute among Game Garden’s four then-owners involving the same 

intellectual property and because Gallagher represented Game Garden in connection with the 

September 2013 sale agreement that is the subject of Plaintiffs’ cause of action for breach of 

contract. Id. For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees.

Case 5:14-cv-04383-LHK Document 45 Filed 05/12/15 Page 6 of 13
7

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

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

A. Evidence of Substantial Relationship

As indicated above, Game Garden has the burden of showing that Gallagher represented 

Game Garden previously and that Gallagher’s prior representation of Game Garden bears a 

“substantial relationship” to Gallagher’s current representation of Plaintiffs. Charlisse, 45 Cal. 4th 

at 166 n.11. To meet its burden, Game Garden offers three pieces of evidence: (1) an April 5, 

2013 letter written by Gallagher and addressed to Game Garden’s then-owners (Bakanovich, 

Epikhin, Pomortsev, and Redlikh); (2) Gallagher’s invoice of services rendered for Game Garden

between June 11, 2013, and August 19, 2013; and (3) e-mails Gallagher wrote to the Buyers’ 

counsel in 2013 holding herself out as counsel for Game Garden. The Court examines each in 

turn.

1. April 5, 2013 Letter

On April 5, 2013, Gallagher sent a letter to Bakanovich, Epikhin, Pomortsev, and 

Redlikh—the four owners of Game Garden at that time—expressing concern ostensibly on behalf 

of “Game Garden” that Bakanovich and Pomortsev “have violated and are violating material 

terms” of, inter alia, “the Operating Agreement of Game Garden, LLC.” ECF No. 25-1 Ex. A 

(“Gallagher Letter”) ¶¶ 1-2. “In the most basic and essential terms,” Gallagher wrote, 

“Bakanovich and Pomortsev have breached their fiduciary responsibilities by failing to advise the 

company of essential information; by altering agreements without the requisite authority; 

defrauding Game Garden out of future income; and by entering agreements without the requisite 

authority, including agreements that purport to give to others Game Garden’s intellectual property 

without adequate compensation.” Id. ¶ 4. “These actions,” Gallagher continued, “expose . . . 

Game Garden and the LLC to unnecessary risk” and “possible liability.” Id.

In the letter, Gallagher also wrote that her “duty is to protect your common interests, not to 

serve the agenda of any individual.” Gallagher Letter ¶ 3. She advised that “any and all threats to 

the company’s intellectual property interests and well-being will be taken very seriously” and that 

“[t]he company’s interests will be protected at all costs and through all legal channels available,” 

including “enforcement of US copyright and other intellectual-property protections.” Id. ¶ 5.

Case 5:14-cv-04383-LHK Document 45 Filed 05/12/15 Page 7 of 13
8

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

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

Gallagher concluded the letter by reiterating the letter’s purpose: “protecting the best 

interests of Game Garden.” Gallagher Letter ¶ 6. She also invited all four owners to address with 

her any concerns they might have “regarding possible violations of the duties owing to Game 

Garden.” Id. In so doing, Gallagher assured Game Garden’s owners that their “communications 

to and with [her] will be afforded the protection of attorney-client privilege as to outside (nonGame Garden) parties.” Id.

2. Invoice to Game Garden

Gallagher prepared an invoice for “Client: Game Garden, LLC” for the time period “June 

11, 2013 – August 19, 2013.” ECF No. 25-1 Ex. B (“Gallagher Invoice”). The document’s title is 

“GGLLC/Startek Invoice.” Id. The invoice lists thirty-nine entries, all but two of which are coded 

“GG” in the “Matter” column. Id. The entry dated July 9, 2013, contains the following 

description: “Draft sales agreement for sale of GGLLC interest.” Id. Thereafter, the invoice lists 

eleven separate entries from July 10, 2013, to August 19, 2013, indicating that Gallagher was 

revising the sale agreement—i.e., the agreement for Plaintiffs to sell their ownership interests in 

Game Garden. See id. Other entries refer to drafting “Members’ Resolutions,” discussing tax 

issues with Game Garden manager Titarenko (denoted “TT” in invoice), and communicating with 

the Buyers’ counsel regarding the upcoming sale of Plaintiffs’ ownership interests. Id. For these 

legal services, Game Garden paid Gallagher in excess of $10,000. Id.; ECF No. 25-1 (“Pomortsev 

Decl.”) ¶ 10.

3. E-mails to the Buyers’ Counsel

During the negotiations to sell Plaintiffs’ ownership interests in Game Garden, Gallagher 

sent multiple e-mails to Fugett, counsel for the Buyers, indicating that Gallagher was representing 

Game Garden. On August 1, 2013, Gallagher wrote to Fugett, “As I told you, I represent the LLC 

and, in connection with that representation, Taras Titarenko, it’s [sic] manager.” Fugett Decl. 

Ex. A. On August 17, 2013, Gallagher wrote to Fugett objecting to a proposed revision to the sale 

agreement: “The Company cannot agree to your attempted 11th-hour recharacterization of Mr. 

Titarenko as a contractor.” Id. Ex. B. Gallagher copied the four then-owners of Game Garden on 

Case 5:14-cv-04383-LHK Document 45 Filed 05/12/15 Page 8 of 13
9

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

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

this e-mail. See id.

On September 13, 2013—four days after the sale agreement was concluded—Fugett wrote 

an e-mail to Gallagher, which stated: “I am writing to let you know that by a unanimous decision 

of all members of Game Garden, LLC I have been chosen as the new attorney for the Company. 

This email is also to notify you that the Company will not be using your legal services in the 

future, with the exception of finishing up the negotiations with Microsoft.” Pomortsev Decl. 

Ex. C. In response, Gallagher wrote, “Ok that is fine. I will forward all of the requested materials 

and my final bill.” Id.

B. Analysis

In light of this evidence, the Court concludes that Game Garden has met its burden of 

showing that Gallagher represented Game Garden previously and that Gallagher’s prior 

representation of Game Garden bears a “substantial relationship” to Gallagher’s current 

representation of Plaintiffs.

1. Fact of Prior Representation

Plaintiffs do not really deny that Gallagher previously represented Game Garden, at least in 

some capacity. See generally Opp. In reference to the invoice, Gallagher herself admits that she 

“investigated certain corporate matters related to GGLLC’s role as a service provider responsible 

for distributing Startek’s games, including whether there were restrictions on the sale, prospective 

tax implications, and other issues related to the ongoing relationship between Startek and its 

service provider, GGLLC.” Gallagher Decl. ¶ 9. Moreover, Gallagher’s April 5, 2013 letter on 

behalf of Game Garden concerning “threats to the company’s intellectual property interests,” her 

invoice for “Client: Game Garden, LLC,” and her e-mails holding herself out as Game Garden’s 

counsel during the sale agreement negotiations convince the Court that Gallagher in fact 

represented Game Garden in the spring and summer of 2013. Fugett, the recipient of Gallagher’s 

e-mails, stated unequivocally that she “understood Ms. Gallagher to be representing and 

negotiating on behalf of Game Garden.” Fugett Decl. ¶ 5.

Plaintiffs’ attempts to minimize or explain away this evidence are unpersuasive. See Opp. 

Case 5:14-cv-04383-LHK Document 45 Filed 05/12/15 Page 9 of 13
10

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

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

at 7-11. Whether Redlikh was Gallagher’s primary client, as Plaintiffs emphasize, is of no 

moment. At best for Gallagher, the evidence above shows that she represented Plaintiffs, Startek, 

and Game Garden—perhaps all at the same time. Accordingly, the Court finds that Game Garden 

has met its burden to show that Gallagher represented Game Garden in 2013.

2. Substantial Relationship

The Court also finds that Game Garden has shown a substantial relationship between 

Gallagher’s prior representation of Game Garden and her current representation of Plaintiffs in 

this lawsuit.

As to Gallagher’s April 5, 2013 letter, Game Garden maintains that the “letter not only 

demonstrates that Ms. Gallagher was acting as Game Garden’s counsel, but that she was doing so 

in connection with the very subject matter of this litigation”—namely, the app that became Cat 

Story. Mot. at 3. Under penalty of perjury, Pomortsev declared that he “understood the primary 

subject matter of the letter to be the game that was later published as Cat Story.” Pomortsev Decl. 

¶ 6. Pomortsev says he “understood Ms. Gallagher’s reference to ‘Game Garden’s intellectual 

property’ in this sentence to be a reference to the Cat Story game” because “prior to this letter, 

[Pomortsev] had informed [Plaintiffs] that the Cat Story game was being developed by an entity 

other than South Port Studios.” Id.

Plaintiffs argue, on the other hand, that the subject of Gallagher’s April 5, 2013 letter was 

not the app that became Cat Story, but rather “the threatened improper sale of computer code from 

the game Fairy Farm,” a different app that South Port had developed and Game Garden had 

distributed. Opp. at 8. To support this assertion, Plaintiffs rely on an e-mail chain between 

Pomortsev and Epikhin dated March 1, 2013. Redlikh Decl. Ex. C. In that chain, Epikhin asked 

Pomortsev, “what’s up with selling the farm code?” Id. Pomortsev responded that the prospective

purchasers had “changed their mind.” Id. Pomortsev also apologized for not telling Epikhin 

earlier. See id. Notably, neither Redlikh’s declaration nor Gallagher’s mentions the April 5, 2013 

letter, much less either individual’s understanding that the letter concerned the sale of Fairy Farm

Case 5:14-cv-04383-LHK Document 45 Filed 05/12/15 Page 10 of 13
11

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

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

code. See generally Redlikh Decl.; Gallagher Decl.3

In the Court’s view, the evidence supports Game Garden’s interpretation of the April 5, 

2013 letter. To start, Game Garden’s understanding is consistent with the timeline described in 

Plaintiffs’ complaint, which alleges that in “late 2012” Pomortsev told Redlikh that Fly High’s 

owner “could assist in the development of PussyVille for a share in the profits of the application.” 

Compl. ¶ 37. Of greater importance, only Game Garden offers a declaration, under penalty of 

perjury, explaining how Gallagher’s letter was understood at the time. See Pomortsev Decl. ¶¶ 6, 

8. In particular, Pomortsev says he “understood the primary subject matter of the letter to be the 

game that was later published as Cat Story,” id.¶ 6—the very subject of this litigation. 

Significantly, Redlikh in his declaration does not dispute Pomortsev’s understanding of the letter. 

See generally Redlikh Decl. Nor does Gallagher in hers. See generally Gallagher Decl. Taking 

Pomortsev’s uncontroverted declaration as true, the Court finds that Game Garden has shown a 

substantial relationship between the subject matter of the April 5, 2013 letter and the present 

litigation: both concern an intellectual property dispute among Game Garden’s then-owners over 

the app that became Cat Story.

Plaintiffs’ only evidence to suggest a contrary understanding is the cryptic March 1, 2013 

e-mail chain between Pomortsev and Epikhin. See Redlikh Decl. Ex. C. However, this e-mail 

chain shows, at most, that over a month before Gallagher sent the letter, some prospective 

purchasers had “changed their mind” and decided not to buy computer code for the game Fairy 

Farm, and that Pomortsev had apologized for not telling Epikhin earlier about the prospective 

purchasers’ change of heart. Id. There is no evidence that Plaintiffs were displeased with the fact 

that Pomortsev was apparently negotiating to sell Fairy Farm code. Rather, the fairest reading of 

the e-mail chain is that Epikhin, who asked, “what’s up with selling the farm code?” id., was just 

seeking an update from Pomortsev on negotiations of which Epikhin was aware. Without more, 

the connection between this e-mail chain and Gallagher’s April 5, 2013 letter is simply too 

 

3

Epkihin did not submit a declaration.

Case 5:14-cv-04383-LHK Document 45 Filed 05/12/15 Page 11 of 13
12

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

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

attenuated.

In addition, the Court finds that Game Garden has shown a substantial relationship 

between Gallagher’s prior representation of Game Garden and Plaintiffs’ cause of action for 

breach of contract. The evidence shows—and Plaintiffs do not deny—that Gallagher played an 

integral role in drafting, revising, and finalizing the very sale agreement that Plaintiffs now allege 

was breached by Pomortsev. See Compl. ¶ 119 (alleging breach of “the September 9, 2013 Sales 

Agreement”); see also Gallagher Invoice (listing entries related to drafting and revising that sale 

agreement). Plaintiffs’ sole rejoinder appears to be that Game Garden “was not even a party” to 

“the September 2013 sale agreement.” Opp. at 10. Plaintiffs, however, make no effort to explain

why this matters. In any event, the evidence shows that Gallagher was representing Game 

Garden’s interests in the negotiations even though Game Garden was not technically a party to the 

agreement. For example, Gallagher interjected on behalf of Game Garden in an August 17, 2013 

e-mail to Fugett: “The Company cannot agree to your attempted 11th-hour recharacterization of 

Mr. Titarenko as a contractor.” Fugett Decl. Ex. B (emphasis added). As indicated above, Fugett, 

Gallagher’s counterpart in the sale agreement negotiations, “understood Ms. Gallagher to be 

representing and negotiating on behalf of Game Garden.” Fugett Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiffs offer no 

proof to the contrary.

Considering the parties’ evidence, the Court concludes that Gallagher previously “had a 

direct professional relationship with” Game Garden in which Gallagher “personally provided legal 

advice and services on a legal issue that is closely related to the legal issue in the present 

representation.” Cobra Solutions, 38 Cal. 4th at 847. As the Court finds a substantial relationship 

between Gallagher’s prior representation of Game Garden and her representation of Plaintiffs in 

this action, Gallagher must be disqualified. See id. (“When a substantial relationship between the 

two representations is established, the attorney is automatically disqualified from representing the 

second client.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Game Garden’s motion to 

Case 5:14-cv-04383-LHK Document 45 Filed 05/12/15 Page 12 of 13
13

Case No. 14-CV-04383-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

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

disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to obtain successor counsel who shall 

file a notice of appearance within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. Absent a 

written appearance by successor counsel within the time specified, an order to show cause why 

this action should not be dismissed with prejudice will issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04383-LHK Document 45 Filed 05/12/15 Page 13 of 13