Greenberg Gross and client splitting in the midst of trade secrets trial against Uber

A major win in the first phase of a trade secrets theft trial against Uber Technologies Inc. and its former leaders was apparently not enough to salvage a relationship between an entrepreneur and his legal team at Greenberg Gross LLP.

The firm filed court papers last week seeking a San Francisco County Superior Court judge's approval to withdraw its representation of Kevin L. Halpern's defunct company, Celluride Wireless Inc. Greenberg Gross partner Sarah E. Kelly-Kilgore wrote that the relationship between firm and client "had broken down completely."

In May, Halpern signed a court document substituting himself in place of Alan A. Greenberg, the partner who successfully defeated Uber's attempt to kill the plaintiff's lawsuit accusing the company and its executives of misappropriating his idea for a way to connect drivers and riders during meetings more than a decade ago.

Uber's attorneys, led by Daralyn J. Durie and Ragesh K. Tangri, argued the complaint should be dismissed because it allegedly was filed after the three-year statute of limitations expired. But a jury decided otherwise in February, allowing the merits of Halpern's claim to go forward during the next phase of the trial.

Superior Court Judge Andrew Y.S. Cheng told each side to file an updated case management conference statement by June 15 to determine how the case is going to move forward, especially with Halpern now representing himself. Halpern et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al., CGC-15-545825 (San Francisco Co. Sup. Ct., filed March 15, 2015).

The judge's question about representation of Halpern's former company prompted Kelly-Kilgore's response saying she and other firm attorneys tried without success to contact Halpern between May 5 and June 1, "leaving him multiple voicemails, emails and text messages."

According to her filing, Greenberg sent Halpern an advance copy of the motion seeking to withdraw from representation of Celluride on June 2, and he confirmed he did not oppose it.

Halpern's original complaint sought $1 billion in damages, claiming Halpern shared his idea with Uber's longtime chief executive officer Travis Kalanick only to discover years later the San Francisco-based company was founded using his trade secrets. Greenberg, who took over the case later, never named a dollar amount in damages.

Greenberg, Kelly-Gilgore, Durie and Tangri did not return phone calls and emails seeking comment Tuesday.

Halpern also did not return an email seeking comment.

Tangri wrote Greenberg in a June 3 email that Uber, Kalanick and other individual defendants in the case "do not oppose your firm's motion to withdraw," according to court documents.

Cheng will need to approve Greenberg Gross' motion to withdraw.

The drama surrounding Halpern's relationship with his attorneys frequently cropped up before and during the first phase of the trial. Greenberg sought to withdraw, but Superior Court Judge Ross C. Moody rejected the motion before the first phase of the trial.

During the trial, one key witness was Halpern's first attorney in the lawsuit, Christopher B. Dolan of Dolan Law Firm PC, who testified via deposition. Halpern testified Dolan instructed him to delete his email account, which subsequently could not be recovered and might have contained evidence relevant to whether he was aware of Uber's success three years before filing the complaint.

Dolan denied instructing Halpern to delete the email account. "He's a very difficult individual to deal with," the attorney said of his former client.

On the statute of limitations question, the jury ruled 9-3 Halpern beat the deadline.

Uber responded at the time of February's verdict by expressing confidence it would prevail in the end.