Bhs Law LLP v. Worldex Industry and Trading Co., Ltd.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BHS LAW LLP, Case No. 25-cv-04471-SVK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE RECENT FILINGS 9 v.

10 WORLDEX INDUSTRY AND TRADING CO., LTD., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Bhs Law LLP (“Bhs”) filed this action on May 27, 2025, and since then counsel 14 for the Parties have collectively filed no fewer than 10 motions, letters-portending-motions or 15 other such material. See Dkts. 8, 11, 15, 20, 32, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48. Particularly in light of the 16 recent spate of filed or threatened motions for sanctions and the oft-included ad hominem attacks 17 from all sides against all others, the Court issues the following ORDER: 18 I. BHS’S MOTIONS FOR SACTIONS & DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS 19 Pending before this Court are motions to dismiss from the two defendants in this action: 20 Worldex Industry and Trading Co., Ltd’s (“Worldex”) Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to 21 Quash Service of Process, (Dkt. 15), and Luis Mendoza’s Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike or in the 22 Alternative to Dismiss, (Dkt. 32) (collectively, “MTDs”). Briefing and supplemental briefing on 23 the MTDs has concluded, and the MTDs are currently set for hearing on August 26, 2025. See 24 Dkts. 15-16, 21-22, 28, 46 (briefing on Worldex’s MTD); Dkts. 32, 42, 48 (briefing on 25 Mendoza’s MTD). 26 On August 11, 2025, Bhs filed two motions for “sanctions” against Capstone Law APC 27 (counsel for Mendoza) and O’Hagan Meyer, LLP (counsel for Worldex). Dkts. 44-45 1 predominantly motions to disqualify counsel. See Dkts. 44-3, 45-2 (the only sanction sought in 2 the former motion is disqualification of counsel, while the latter motion seeks disqualification of 3 counsel and referral of O’Hagan Meyer to the Standing Committee on Professional Conduct on 4 the basis of purportedly frivolous arguments and purported misstatements of fact and law). 5 Moreover, the Court’s preliminary review of the motions raises serious concerns as to whether 6 Bhs has standing to pursue disqualification via either of the motions. See, e.g., Kasza v. Browner, 7 133 F.3d 1159, 1171 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that, although the Government “does not press 8 the point,” the Ninth Circuit had “difficulty seeing how Frost has standing to complain about a 9 possible conflict of interest arising out of common representation of defendants in different civil 10 actions, having nothing to do with her own representation” because “as a general rule, courts do 11 not disqualify an attorney on the grounds of conflict of interest unless the former client moves for 12 disqualification.”). Thus, the Court ORDERS that: 13 • In accordance with this Court’s prior order deferring Worldex’s proffered motion 14 for sanctions, (see Dkts. 41, 43), this Court will not entertain Bhs’s request for 15 sanctions as to frivolous arguments and misstatements at this time; rather, the 16 Court will set a briefing schedule, if appropriate, after its decision on the pending 17 Motions to Dismiss; 18 • The Court will, however, decide Bhs’s requests to disqualify counsel concurrently 19 with the pending motions to dismiss; and, 20 • Accordingly, Worldex and Mendoza shall respond to the motions for sanctions as 21 though they were motions for disqualification of counsel, addressing only the 22 disqualification issues raised therein and in particular addressing whether Bhs has 23 standing to bring the motions. Worldex and Mendoza shall refrain from responding 24 to or engaging in further ad hominin attacks. See, infra, § III. 25 The hearing on Defendants’ MTDs is hereby VACATED and re-set for September 23, 2025, to 26 be heard with the disqualification issues. 27 //// 1 II. BHS’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 2 On August 12, 2025, Bhs filed an administrative motion to file under seal a Second 3 Amended Complaint. Dkt. 47. This motion appears to be responsive to Worldex’s letter 4 threatening sanctions and this Court’s subsequent order. See Dkts. 41, 43. However, this 5 administrative motion alone is insufficient to comply with this Court’s order: Bhs has filed its 6 proposed Second Amended Complaint without a motion for leave to amend and without any 7 declaration or other indication that it has received Mendoza’s consent to amend. See Dkt. 47. 8 Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Bhs’s administrative motion for leave to file under seal 9 without prejudice to Bhs renewing the motion, either in conjunction with a filed motion for leave 10 to amend or with a declaration stating that it has received Mendoza’s consent to amend. See Dkt. 11 43. The Court’s August 19, 2025 deadline for such a motion or filing remains in effect. Id.1 12 III. COUNSELS’ AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AND BHS’S EXCESSIVE FILINGS 13 Finally, the Court notes that the filings to date—from all sides—have included needless ad 14 hominem attacks upon the character and/or competence of opposing counsel, not only in Bhs’s 15 recent motions for sanctions but also in the Parties’ MTD briefs. E.g., Dkt. 21 at 10-11, 13-20 16 (Bhs attacking O’Hagen); Dkt. 28 at 18, 20 (O’Hagen attacking Bhs); Dkt. 32 at 7, 26 (Capstone 17 attacking Bhs); Dkt. 42 at 17-19 (Bhs attacking Capstone); see also Dkts. 44-45 (ad hominem 18 attacks abound in Bhs’s motions for sanctions). Such attacks are unhelpful, unprofessional, and 19 cast all counsel in equally2 poor light. 20 Additionally, the Parties have filed excessive motions (consuming significant judicial 21 resources) in this case. E.g., Dkt. 11 (re-filing Dkt. 8, Bhs’s administrative motion for alternative 22 service, in near-identical fashion when the Court did not address the motion as quickly as Bhs 23 would may have liked); Dkt. 41 (Worldex filing a letter along, with a proffered motion for 24 25 1 The Court notes that Bhs has included a request to file a Second Amended Complaint at the end of its opposition to Mendoza’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. 42 at 19-20. The Court will take up such a 26 request, related to Mendoza’s MTD, in the ordinary course after deciding the MTD. The Court clarifies that such a request is not a substitute for a motion for leave to amend, if Bhs chooses to 27 seek leave to amend, in response to Worldex’s letter at Dkt. 41. ] sanctions, arguing that Bhs’s complaint was so frivolous as to be sanctionable when the Court has 2 || not had occasion to rule on Worldex’s MTD and determine whether the complaint had merit); 3 Dkt. 44 (Bhs alleging, in part, that Worldex’s counsel’s arguments in support of its MTD are 4 frivolous, when the Court has not had occasion to rule on Worldex’s MTD and determine whether 5 || the its arguments have merit); Dkt. 47 (Bhs filing an administrative motion to seal untethered 6 || from an underlying substantive motion). Such filings have necessitated numerous clarifications 7 and minute orders from this Court. Dkts. 12, 37, 43. 8 In light of the above, Bhs, O’Hagen and Capstone are all hereby admonished and it is 9 || ORDERED that, until further notice, no party shall make any further filings in this case 10 except those previously allowed by this Court. 11 The Court will currently accept only: 12 e Worldex’s opposition to Bhs’s motion for sanctions, addressing the disqualification 13 issues only (see Section I, above); 14 e Mendoza’s opposition to Bhs’s motion for sanctions, addressing the 3 15 disqualification issues only (see Section I, above); a 16 e Bhs’s replies thereto, which shall be limited to disqualification issues only; 2 17 e Bhs’s motion for leave to amend its complaint in response to Worldex’s letter or a Z 18 second amended complaint with a statement that Defendants have consented to 19 the filing thereof; and 20 e Administrative motions to file under seal only if necessary to support the above. 21 In particular, further motions for sanctions, fees and/or disqualification are inappropriate until 22 || resolution of the pending motions to dismiss. 23 24 SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: August 13, 2025 26 27 Season yal SUSAN VAN KEULEN 28 United States Magistrate Judge