Spongetech Delivery Systems Inc (fka SPNGQ)

[scion]

In light of the above, GT’s motion for leave to withdraw as attorney for Spongetech is granted. Because, as a corporate defendant, Spongetech may not appear on its own behalf, see Rowland v. Calif. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993); Pecarsky v. Galixiworld.com, Ltd., 249 F.3d 167, 172 (2d Cir. 2001), Spongetech shall retain substitute counsel and said counsel shall file a notice of appearance on or before September 17, 2010. In the event Spongetech does not retain counsel by that date, plaintiff may move for default judgment.

GT shall serve a copy of this Order on Spongetech and on Mr. Hays on or before August 17, 2010 and shall file proof of service on ECF on or before August 20, 2010.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2010
Brooklyn, New York _______________/s/___________________

JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:10-cv-02031-DLI -JMA Document 109 Filed 08/10/10 Page 2 of 2

Doc 109 PDF file
http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/cbd9bcd