HGM v. Solo International Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-07149
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In HGM v. Solo International Inc., Magistrate Judge Parker recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute after counsel withdrew and the replacement-counsel deadline passed.
HGM and the defendants in the case. The recommendation would dismiss the case without prejudice because HGM did not obtain substitute counsel or request more time after its counsel withdrew.
What happened
In HGM v. Solo International Inc., the plaintiff’s lawyer asked to withdraw, and Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker granted that request. The court warned that, because the plaintiff was an entity, it could not represent itself and had to obtain a new lawyer within 30 days.
The 30-day period ended without the plaintiff obtaining new counsel or asking for more time. The report therefore recommends dismissing the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to prosecute it.
Magistrate Judge Parker issued the recommendation to District Judge John P. Cronan. The parties may file written objections within the stated deadlines, so this report and recommendation is not itself the final dismissal order.
The detailed version
- HGM v. Solo International Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07149
- John Cronan
- May 19, 2025
Background
The plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw. On April 17, 2025, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the motion. The order stated that the plaintiff was an entity and therefore could not represent itself. It required the plaintiff to obtain substitute counsel within 30 days or risk termination of the case for failure to prosecute.
Recommendation
Thirty days passed. The plaintiff did not obtain substitute counsel and did not request an extension of the deadline. Magistrate Judge Parker respectfully recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. “Without prejudice” means the recommendation does not state that refiling is barred, although the report does not otherwise address any potential refiling requirements.
Objections and disposition
The document is a report and recommendation addressed to District Judge John P. Cronan, not a final order by him. The plaintiff has seventeen days, and the defendants have fourteen days, from the date of the report and recommendation to file written objections. The report also states that timely objections are required to preserve objections for appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.