Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-322/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL No. 1917 

Case No. C-07-5944-SC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

This Order Relates To: WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 

CERTAIN DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFF 

ACTIONS 

 Now before the Court is a motion filed by Norman T. Finkel and 

Richard M. Goldwasser ("Counsel") of the law firm of Schoenberg, 

Finkel, Newman & Rosenberg, LLC to withdraw as counsel on behalf of 

subpoena respondent Dr. Alan Frankel ("Dr. Frankel"). ECF No. 

3131. The time to file a responsive brief passed on December 4, 

2014, and no opposition was filed. Currently the motion is set for 

hearing on Friday, January 9, 2015, however the Court finds no 

hearing is necessary, and VACATES the hearing date. Civ. L.R. 7-

1(b). For the reasons set forth below the motion is GRANTED. 

 Counsel appeared in this litigation to represent Dr. Frankel 

in connection with a subpoena served on him in May. Dr. Frankel 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3216 Filed 12/18/14 Page 1 of 2
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

For the Northern District of California 

timely responded to the subpoena and the relevant issues were 

resolved by July. Now, Counsel move to withdraw, pointing out that 

the purpose of their representation has been fulfilled. Counsel 

sent notice of this motion to Dr. Frankel, advising him of his 

right to retain other counsel. At that time, Dr. Frankel told them 

that he has no objection to their withdrawal and will not be 

retaining any other counsel. 

 Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) prohibits counsel from withdrawing 

from an action until (1) the Court has issued an order permitting 

withdrawal, and (2) written notice has been given to the client and 

to all other parties. Where, as here, withdrawal is not 

accompanied by the 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 . . . ." Civ. L.R. 11-5(b). 

 The Court finds that because Dr. Frankel is not a party to 

this case, there is no need to condition withdrawal on continued 

service on Counsel. Given that the purpose of Counsel's 

representation is completed, Dr. Frankel has been informed of 

Counsel's desire to withdraw, has no objection, and does not plan 

to obtain another attorney, the motion is GRANTED and the hearing 

is VACATED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: December 18, 2014 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3216 Filed 12/18/14 Page 2 of 2