Christian v. Betak
3:24-cv-01867
N.D. Cal.Mar 11, 2025Background
- This case involves a dispute between Donald J. Christian and George M. Betak, co-owners of GoPlug, Inc., a company producing EV chargers.
- Christian alleges various claims against Betak regarding control and management of GoPlug, including computer damage and breach of fiduciary duty.
- Robert Moll acted as attorney prosecuting patent applications, with evidence showing he represented GoPlug before and after Christian initiated this litigation.
- Moll claims he represented only Christian personally, not GoPlug, despite documentation (power of attorney, USPTO filings) indicating otherwise.
- Betak moved to disqualify Moll from representing Christian, arguing a conflict of interest due to Moll’s prior (and possibly ongoing) representation of GoPlug in matters adverse to it.
- The court had to decide whether Moll’s representation created an unwaivable concurrent conflict, necessitating his withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moll represented GoPlug as corporate counsel | Moll only represented Christian | Moll represented GoPlug in patent matters | The court found Moll did represent GoPlug. |
| Whether a conflict of interest exists | No conflict, work was for Christian | Concurrent conflict representing GoPlug and Christian | Court held a disqualifying conflict existed. |
| Effect of payment of legal bills | Christian paid Moll; so no conflict | Who pays is irrelevant to client relationships | Court agreed: payment source does not determine client. |
| Whether Moll must be disqualified based on conflict | No, due to lack of conflict | Yes, due to duty of loyalty to GoPlug | Court ordered Moll’s disqualification from the action. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Dep’t of Corps. v. SpeeDee Oil Change Sys., Inc., 20 Cal. 4th 1135 (Cal. 1999) (establishing courts' authority to disqualify counsel based on ethical duties)
- Flatt v. Superior Ct., 9 Cal. 4th 275 (Cal. 1994) (duty of loyalty forbids concurrent representation of conflicting interests)
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp., 36 Cal. App. 4th 1832 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (corporate counsel’s duty is to the corporation; cannot represent one owner in disputes over control)
- Woods v. Superior Ct., 149 Cal. App. 3d 931 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (attorney for corporation cannot participate in internal shareholder disputes)