From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. Sec. Exchange Comm. v. Sierra Brokerage Serv

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Feb 27, 2009
Case No. C2-03-CV-326 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. C2-03-CV-326.

February 27, 2009


ORDER


On January 7, 2008, this Court granted Andrew W. Owen's and Buckingham, Doolittle Burroughs, LLP's motion to withdraw as counsel for defendants Global Guarantee Corporation ("Global Guarantee") and Michael M. Markow ("Markow"). (Doc. 204.) Global Guarantee was directed to retain new counsel who was to enter an appearance within 30 days. The Court also informed Global Guarantee that a failure to retain new counsel would result in an entry of default against it. A new attorney has not entered an appearance for Global Guarantee.

On March 17, 2008, Global Guarantee was ordered to show cause within 11 days why default should not be entered against it for failure to comply with the January 7, 2008 Order. Nearly a year has passed since the Court's show cause Order and Global Guarantee has not responded. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter DEFAULT against defendant Global Guarantee because it has failed to defend or to comply with orders of the Court.

This is the second time in the course of this proceeding in which Global Guarantee has ignored a show cause order from this Court. On May 16, 2006, the Court ordered a default judgment against defendants Global Guarantee and Markow based on their failure to comply with the Court's April 26, 2006 show cause order. Then, as now, Global Guarantee failed to timely obtain new counsel following the withdrawal of their trial attorney. The Court subsequently set aside that entry of default based on its finding that Markow and Global Guarantee failed to comply with the first show cause order due to a serious illness. (Doc. 192.)

The March 17, 2008 Order also directed Markow to show cause why he had not retained new counsel. Markow has not done so. The Court will not enter default against Markow, however, because the Court's January 7, 2008 Order did not explicitly require him to obtain new counsel or to send a statement to the Court indicating whether he wished to proceed pro se. Consequently, Markow did not violate the Court's January 7, 2008 Order by failing to obtain new counsel. Nevertheless, Markow failed to respond to the show cause Order and the status of his representation in unclear. Therefore, Markow is DIRECTED to either (1) retain new counsel who shall enter an appearance within 30 days of this Order; or (2) file a statement with the Court indicating that he intends to represent himself within 30 days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. Sec. Exchange Comm. v. Sierra Brokerage Serv

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Feb 27, 2009
Case No. C2-03-CV-326 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2009)
Case details for

U.S. Sec. Exchange Comm. v. Sierra Brokerage Serv

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. SIERRA…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Feb 27, 2009

Citations

Case No. C2-03-CV-326 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2009)