Global Tech Industries Group, Inc. et al v. Go Fun Group Holdings, Ltd et al, No. 1:2017cv03727 - Document 105 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Defendants' counsel's letter, dated June 5, 2018, "inform[ing the Court" that Defendants have "terminated [the] firm's representation of them in this matter." (ECF 104). Defendants' counsel's letter has no effect on their obligations as counsel of record for Defendants in this case, nor will the Court consider this letter as a motion to withdraw from representation, which would be deficient in any event. I t is well established that the Defendants, who are corporations, cannot proceed in this action pro se. See Sanchez v. Walentin, 526 F. App'x 49, 51 (2d Cir. 2013), citing Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 722 F.2d 20, 22 (2d Cir. 1983). D efendants' counsel remains counsel of record in this case absent an Order of the Court relieving them as counsel. See Local Civ. R. 1.4 ("An attorney who has appeared as attorney of record for a party may be relieved or displaced only by or der of the Court and may not withdraw from a case without leave of the Court granted by order."); United States v. Up to $6,100,000 on Deposit in Account No. 15.5876 at Bank Julius Baer Co. Ltd. (Guernsey Branch), 07CV4430, 2009 WL 1809992, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2009); Diaz v. Scores Holding Co., Inc., 07CV8718, 2009 WL 6539954, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2009). Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment shall be filed by June 29, 2018. Plaintiffs' reply in further support of their motion shall be filed by July 13, 2018. SO ORDERED., ( Responses due by 6/29/2018, Replies due by 7/13/2018.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on 6/07/2018) (ama)

Download PDF
Global Tech Industries Group, Inc. et al v. Go Fun Group Holdings, Ltd et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x : GLOBAL TECH INDUSTRIES : GROUP, INC., et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : against : GO FUN GROUP HOLDINGS, LTD., et al., : : Defendants. : Doc. 105 No. 17 Civ. 3727 (OTW) OPINION AND ORDER x ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge: The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ counsel’s letter, dated June 5, 2018, “inform[ing the Court” that Defendants have “terminated [the] firm’s representation of them in this matter.” (ECF 104). Defendants’ counsel’s letter has no effect on their obligations as counsel of record for Defendants in this case, nor will the Court consider this letter as a motion to withdraw from representation, which would be deficient in any event. It is well established that the Defendants, who are corporations, cannot proceed in this action pro se. See Sanchez v. Walentin, 526 F. App’x 49, 51 (2d Cir. 2013), citing Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 722 F.2d 20, 22 (2d Cir. 1983). Defendants’ counsel remains counsel of record in this case absent an Order of the Court relieving them as counsel. See Local Civ. R. 1.4 (“An attorney who has appeared as attorney of record for a party may be relieved or displaced only by order of the Court and may not withdraw from a case without leave of the Court granted by order.”); United States v. Up to $6,100,000 on Deposit in Account No. 15.5876 at Bank Julius Baer Co. Ltd Dockets.Justia.com (Guernsey Branch), 07 CV 4430, 2009 WL 1809992, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2009); Diaz v. Scores Holding Co., Inc., 07 CV 8718, 2009 WL 6539954, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2009). Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment shall be filed by June 29, 2018. Plaintiffs’ reply in further support of their motion shall be filed by July 13, 2018. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York June 7, 2018 s/ Ona T. Wang Ona T. Wang United States Magistrate Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.