1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

:

Plaintiff, : Civil Case No. 91-1501-JFM

v. :

:

CHROMATEX, INC., THE :

VALMONT GROUP, ALAN :

CHERENSON, STANLEY SIEGEL, : (Judge McClure)

ALAN SHULMAN, JAMES :

COCHRAN and JOSEPH BYRNES, :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

July 12, 2006

BACKGROUND:

On October 30, 1991, the United States commenced this action by filing a

complaint under § 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607. The complaint

sought recovery of the costs incurred by the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (“EPA”) responding to a release and threatened release of

hazardous substances from a manufacturing facility located in Valmont Industrial

Park, Hazle Township, Pennsylvania (the “Site”). The complaint also sought a

declaratory judgment on the defendants’ liability for future response costs pursuant

Case 4:91-cv-01501-ARC Document 80 Filed 07/13/06 Page 1 of 5
2

to § 113(g)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2201.

On February 9, 1994, we issued a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure finding all defendants liable for $682,002.16,

and establishing a procedure for the payment of additional costs and future

response costs incurred at the Site. On September 29, 1994, the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed our decision.

On May 3, 2006, defendants Alan Cherenson, Stanley Siegel, and Alan

Shulman (collectively self-identified as the “former Valmont Partners”), filed a

motion for further relief. The former Valmont Partners have moved the court to:

(a) order the EPA to file with the court its administrative record for its new and

additional response actions taken by the EPA after November 15, 1988; (b) issue a

case management order setting a schedule for discovery, pleadings, and dispositive

motions; (c) grant leave to the former Valmont Partners to file a cross-claim for

contribution and indemnification against defendant Chromatex, Inc.; and (d) grant

leave to the former Valmont Partners to file a third-party claim for contribution and

indemnification against Rossville Industries, Inc., Culp, Inc., Chromatex Properties,

Inc., and any other successor of Chromatex, Inc. or subsequent owner of the Site. 

On June 22, 2006, plaintiff United States filed a brief in opposition and defendants

Case 4:91-cv-01501-ARC Document 80 Filed 07/13/06 Page 2 of 5
3

the former Valmont Partners filed a reply brief on July 7, 2006. 

In response to the former Valmont Partners’ recent motion, at the end of

May 2006, two of the counsel of record, Daniel Segal and Joseph J. Connolly, filed

“Verified Notice As to Non-Representation of Defendants.” Segal indicates his

representation ended when the case was closed in 1994 and he has since moved to

a new firm and did not take any of the defendants as clients with him. Connolly

indicates that he has no recollection of entering an appearance in this matter and

that he had represented defendant Chromatex, Inc. in approximately a half-dozen

depositions of individuals who had asserted personal injury claims against

Chromatex, Inc. in the Middle District of Pennsylvania distinct from this action.

On June 16, 2006, the former Valmont Partners filed a motion for

determination and orderly transition of defendants’ legal representatives. That

motion seeks that the court issue an order that: (a) directs previous counsel to

represent and defend defendants Chromatex, Inc., James Cochran, and Joseph

Byrnes until successor counsel enters an appearance, and (b) directs all previous

counsel to provide, without conditions, a complete case file relating to the matter

docketed at Case No. 91-1501-JFM to the former Valmont Partners’ current legal

counsel. On June 21, 2006, we issued an order directing counsel of record Segal

and Connolly to respond to the June 16, 2006 motion. Both timely replied on July

Case 4:91-cv-01501-ARC Document 80 Filed 07/13/06 Page 3 of 5
4

7, 2006. Movants filed a reply brief July 11, 2006.

Before we will rule on any of the motions before us we must direct Segal and

Connolly to Local Rule 83.15, which provides:

Appearance of counsel shall not be withdrawn except by

leave of court. The court may refuse to approve

withdrawal. If counsel is superseded by new counsel,

such new counsel shall enter an appearance and counsel

who is superseded shall comply with this rule and apply

for leave to withdraw from the action. The court may

refuse to grant a motion for leave to withdraw unless

substitute counsel has entered an appearance.

In light of the notices of nonrepresentation (which had no effect) and the other

briefings before the court, it is clear that counsel of record Segal and Connolly wish

to be withdrawn from the case. In order for Segal and Connolly to be withdrawn

we ask that they adhere to the Local Rules and file motions for leave to withdraw

with supporting briefs. Our ruling on any pending motion will be reserved until the

matter of the parties’ representation is fully resolved.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Joseph J. Connolly, Esquire, and Daniel Segal, Esquire may file a motion for

leave to withdraw from the action on or before July 24, 2006.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

James F. McClure, Jr.

Case 4:91-cv-01501-ARC Document 80 Filed 07/13/06 Page 4 of 5
5

United States District Judge

Case 4:91-cv-01501-ARC Document 80 Filed 07/13/06 Page 5 of 5