Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05416/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05416-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1451 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES PENSION 

TRUST FUND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MACY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05416-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW; DISCHARGING ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE; DENYING 

MOTION TO APPEAR BY 

TELEPHONE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 36, 40, 42

On April 24, 2019, Attorney David M. Sternberg moved to withdraw his firm as counsel 

for Defendant Macy’s Automotive Pro’s (“Macy’s).

1

 (Mot. to Withdraw, Dkt. No. 36; Sternberg 

Decl. ¶¶ 11, 18, Dkt. No. 40.) The motion to withdraw is based on Defendant Macy’s inability to 

pay for this litigation, as it is no longer in business and has no assets. (Mot. to Withdraw at 2; 

Morrison Decl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 36-1.) The owner of Defendant Macy’s has also filed a declaration 

in support, stating that she “knowingly and freely assent[s] to the termination” of the attorneyclient relationship. (Morrison Decl. ¶ 4; see also Sternberg Decl. ¶ 8.) Defendant Macy’s further 

states that it does not need time to seek employment of other counsel as there is no money to pay 

for an attorney to represent the corporation. (Morrison Decl. ¶ 4.)

Having reviewed the filings and the relevant legal authority, the Court deems the matter 

suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and GRANTS the 

 

1 The motion originally stated that Attorney Sternberg sought to withdraw from Defendant Macy 

Automotive, Inc., a party which has never appeared in this case. (Mot. to Withdraw at 1.) The 

Court then requested clarification as to which party was at issue in the motion. (Dkt. No. 38.) 

After Attorney Sternberg failed to respond, the Court issued an order to show cause. (Dkt. No. 

39.) On May 28, 2019, Attorney Sternberg filed his declaration, stating that the motion to 

withdraw was as to Defendant Macy’s Automotive Pro’s only. (Sternberg Decl. ¶¶ 11, 18.) In 

light of the filing, the Court DISCHARGES the order to show cause.

Case 3:18-cv-05416-WHA Document 43 Filed 06/04/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

motion to withdraw. The motion to appear by telephone is DENIED as moot.

Withdrawal is governed by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. See Nehad v. 

Mukasey, 535 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California Rules of Professional Conduct to 

attorney withdrawal). Under California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(C), an attorney may 

request permission to withdraw if “[t]he client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the 

employment.” Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3-700(C)(5). The Court has discretion regarding 

whether to grant a motion to withdraw, and an attorney’s request to withdraw should be denied 

“where such withdrawal would work an injustice or cause undue delay in the proceeding.” Gong 

v. City of Alameda, No. C 03-05495 TEH, 2008 WL 160964, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2008) (no 

prejudice or undue delay to client where counsel provided sufficient notice of its intent to 

withdraw and where no trial date had yet been set in the case).

Here, the Court finds that good cause exists to grant the motion to withdraw. Defendant 

Macy’s has attested that it is unable to pay its legal fees, and that it agrees to terminate the 

attorney-client relationship with Attorney Sternberg’s firm. (Morrison Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Further, no 

opposition to the motion to withdraw has been filed. Finally, there is no showing that withdrawal 

would work an injustice or cause undue delay, as no case management deadlines have been set and 

the other remaining Defendant is already in default.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and Attorney Sternberg and his firm 

are relieved as counsel of record. As a corporate entity, however, Defendant Macy’s is unable to 

represent itself, and it has stated that it will not be seeking other counsel. Plaintiff shall therefore, 

within thirty days of the date of this order, file a motion for entry of default or a status report. 

The Court encourages the parties to meet and confer regarding potential resolution of this matter.

Additionally, per Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), “[w]hen withdrawal by an attorney from an 

action is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of the 

party to appear pro se, leave to withdraw may be subject to the condition that papers may continue 

to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes, unless and until the client appears by other 

counsel or pro se.” Here, Defendant Macy’s does not have counsel and is unable to appear pro se. 

Therefore, the Court orders that papers continue to be served on Attorney Sternberg, and that 

Case 3:18-cv-05416-WHA Document 43 Filed 06/04/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Attorney Sternberg shall forward the documents to Defendant Macy’s.

Attorney Sternberg shall file a proof of service that this order has been served on 

Defendant Macy’s within seven days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05416-WHA Document 43 Filed 06/04/19 Page 3 of 3