Klamka v. OneSource Technologies, Inc., (Del. Ch., Dec. 15, 2008), is a decision that may be limited to its unusual procedural and factual posture, but it applies a key statute, so I include a reference to it. The pro se plaintiff sought a default judgment on its claim for the appointment of a custodian pursuant to DGCL Section 226(a)(3). There was no appearance by the defendant company. Instead of seeking the appointment of a custodian to dissolve the company, however, the relief was requested in order to allow the corporation to be merged. That, in part, was a major reason the court denied the request to appoint a custodian.