Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 18, 2025

HGM v. Solo International Inc.

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:22-cv-07149
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In HGM v. Solo International Inc., Judge Parker addressed counsel’s withdrawal request and warned HGM that it must obtain a lawyer if withdrawal is granted.

Who this affects

HGM and its current counsel; if counsel’s withdrawal is granted, HGM must obtain replacement counsel within 30 days or risk dismissal.

What happened

HGM’s lawyer asked to withdraw from representing HGM because of “irreconcilable differences regarding how to further proceed” with the case. The request was filed on February 13, 2025, in HGM v. Solo International Inc.

The court gave the parties until March 4, 2025, to object to the withdrawal request. The opinion does not say that the court granted or denied the request.

Judge Parker warned HGM that a company cannot represent itself without a lawyer. If the withdrawal request is granted, HGM must obtain new counsel within 30 days or risk dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court also ordered HGM’s current counsel to serve the order on HGM and file proof of service.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
HGM v. Solo International Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07149
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Feb. 18, 2025

Background

On February 13, 2025, counsel for HGM filed a motion asking to withdraw as HGM’s lawyer. The stated reason was “irreconcilable differences regarding how to further proceed with the matter.”

Court’s Order

The court set March 4, 2025, as the deadline for objections to the withdrawal motion. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the motion.

The court advised HGM that a company may not represent itself in federal court without an attorney. If the motion to withdraw is granted, HGM must obtain replacement counsel within 30 days or risk dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order or otherwise fails to move the case forward. The court also directed HGM’s counsel to serve HGM with the order and file proof that service occurred.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.