Opinion
Case No. 8:05-cv-659-T-24 MAP.
February 16, 2006
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Against Zefal, Inc. (Doc. No. 32). Plaintiff filed suit on April 4, 2005. On June 2, 2005, Defendant Zefal, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint. (Doc. No. 8). Thereafter, in December of 2005, Zefal, Inc.'s attorneys moved to withdraw. (Doc. No. 22, 25). On January 10, 2006, the Court granted the motions to withdraw and warned Zefal, Inc. that it had thirty days to obtain new counsel, or the Court would entertain a motion for the entry of default against it. (Doc. No. 27).
Zefal, Inc. has failed to file a notice of appearance of new counsel, and Plaintiff now moves for the entry of default against Zefal, Inc. Upon consideration, the Court finds that the entry of default against Zefal, Inc. is appropriate, since Zefal, Inc. has failed to comply with this Court's Order to retain new counsel, and a corporation cannot appear pro se. See R. Maganlal Co. v. M.G. Chemical Co., Inc., 1996 WL 715526, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 1996) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Default Against Zefal, Inc (Doc. No. 32) is GRANTED; and
(2) The Clerk is directed to enter default against Defendant Zefal, Inc.
DONE AND ORDERED.