Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-20718/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-20718-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

DECLARATION OF STEVE EMERY TEICH

STEVE EMERY TEICH

Cal. State Bar No. 78397

1390 Market Street

Fox Plaza, Suite 310

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 864-5494

Attorney for Defendant

STEPHEN MICHAEL COHEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

GARY KREMEN, an individual, ) CASE NO. 98-20718 JW 

)

Plaintiff, ) DECLARATION OF

) STEVE EMERY TEICH

vs. )

)

STEPHEN MICHAEL COHEN, an individual, ) 

)

Defendant. )

 )

 I STEVE EMERY TEICH, hereby declare:

That I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Northern District of

California; 

That on June 10, 2010, I received by way of email a declaration of Timothy Dillon;

That this declaration is filed in response;

While it is true that the substitution of attorney order filed on February 26, 2007, document

1259 states that Counsel John Goalwin is no longer listed as counsel for Stephen Cohen the

substitution request submitted by Mr. Cohen was to substitute attorney Steve Emery Teich out as

attorney and substitute Stephen Cohen in pro se;

The attached form was signed by Mr. Cohen and myself was to substitute me out and

himself in (see exhibit attached);

While I did not file the form and proposed order it I assumed Mr. Cohen did and was the ORDER GRANTING STEVE 

TEICH'S REQUEST TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF 

RECORD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Ware

Case 5:98-cv-20718-JW Document 1391 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 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

2

DECLARATION OF STEVE EMERY TEICH

basis of the motion which was granted on February 26, 2007; 

I do not know why the court minutes only mention Mr. Goalwin unless it was a bookkeeping

matter since Mr. Goalwin had been previous counsel and I do not recall nor does the docket indicate

that Mr. Goalwin had been formally substituted out nor that I had been formally substituted in; 

Attorney Goalwin had not appeared with Mr. Cohen for many months and I had represented

Mr. Cohen solely for the civil contempt proceeding;

Following his release from jail Mr. Cohen had no funds to hire another lawyer and I had

made it clear to Mr. Cohen that I did not feel qualified nor did I wish to represent him on any further

litigation in this matter;

Mr. Cohen agreed and filed the motion to substitute me out as counsel which motion was

granted; 

Mr. Cohen’s request to substitute in as counsel of record was specifically made at my

request to relieve me as to any further responsibility for the case;

The minutes of February 26, 2007 clearly indicate that the Court granted Stephen Cohen’s

motion to substitute as counsel in pro se; 

There after beginning with document 1260 all filings were made by Mr. Cohen in pro ser

with address c/o Robert Meredith, 1111 Brickyard Road #206, Salt Lake City, UT 84106 and

afterward following November 26, 2007 document 1350 filed in pro se at A.V. La Marina Edif.

13 Dep.1, Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico;

Civil minutes thereafter listed Stephen Michael Cohen (in pro se) and an order was made

to serve documents on Defendant Cohen through the Court’s electronic filing system (see document

1329);

Following February 26, 2007 while I occasionally received documents or email notification

of documents I never responded nor made any representations that I still represented Mr. Cohen;

Following February 26, 2007 I have never filed any documents in this case nor as attorney

for Mr. Cohen , nor do I recall having personally received a subpoena for his presence; 

It is not unusual for me to receive emails from the court regarding former clients even after

the case is closed or I have been relieved as counsel since many times the clerks do not withdraw

Case 5:98-cv-20718-JW Document 1391 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 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

3

DECLARATION OF STEVE EMERY TEICH

named counsel from the list of service even after the case has ended or counsel have been

substituted out;

Since the emails stated that the case was closed I did not think it necessary to take my name

off the list; 

I again request the court to relieve me of any responsibility to act on Mr. Cohen’s behalf and

to order the attorneys for Mr. Kremen to desist in contacting me since I have not represented Mr.

Cohen since February 26, 2007;

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Executed this 10 day th

of June 2010 at San Francisco, California.

 \S\ 

 STEVE EMERY TEICH

*** ORDER ***

 Based on Mr. Teich's declaration, and the record before the Court, the Court finds 

good cause to GRANT Mr. Teich's request to withdraw as counsel of record for Defendant 

Cohen. The record is clear that Mr. Teich entered the case for a limited purpose of moving 

the Court to release Defendant Cohen from custody as the result of the Court's civil 

contempt order. 

 Accordingly, the Order granting Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Judgment Debtor 

examination is VACATED and the examination currently set for June 28, 2010 is 

VACATED. This is without prejudice to Plaintiff to renew the Motion once the proper 

agent of service for Defendant Cohen has been identified. 

 The Clerk of Court shall terminate Mr. Teich from the docket so that he is no longer 

burden by the filings in this case. 

 The Court will not entertain further filings on this matter. 

Dated: June 17, 2010 ___________________________ 

 JAMES WARE 

 United States District Judge

Case 5:98-cv-20718-JW Document 1391 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 3