Pathak v. Exotic Meat Market, Inc.

Filing 79

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS RECOMMENDED that case 2:16-cv-00368-JAD-VCF be DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that 21 the United States Patent and Trademark Office's motion to dismiss in case 2:16-cv-02096-RFB-VCF be GRANTED and the case be DISMISSED. Objections to R&R due by 9/26/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 9/12/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5
6

ANSHU PATHAK,
7

Plaintiff,
8
9

vs.
EXOTIC MEAT MARKERT INC., et al.,

2:16-cv-00368-JAD-VCF
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

2:16-cv-02096-RFB-VCF
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ANSHU PATHAK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHARLOTTE SPADARO, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

These cases came before the Court for a settlement conference with the Honorable Magistrate
Judge Cam Ferenbach on September 12, 2017. (2:16-cv-00368-JAD-VCF, ECF No. 77; 2:16-cv-02096RFB-VCF, ECF No. 26). After meeting with the attendees, the Court held a hearing to place certain
statements on the record. Based on the following representations made during the settlement conference
and confirmed at the later hearing, it is recommended that cases 2:16-cv-00368-JAD-VCF and 2:16-cv02096-RFB-VCF be dismissed.
During the settlement conference, Plaintiff Anshu Pathak indicated that he wanted to dismiss case
2:16-cv-00368-JAD-VCF because his dispute regarding the trademarks at issue in the case was resolved

1

by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. No defendant has appeared in case 2:16-cv-00368-

2

JAD-VCF, though Sunil Bhasin has attempted to represent the interests of Exotic Meat Market, Inc. in

3

several instances, including at the September 12, 2017 settlement conference. Therefore, case 2:16-cv-

4

00368-JAD-VCF may be voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Pathak’s

5

statements at the settlement conference effectively serves as a notice of dismissal before defendants have

6

made an answer or motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

7

Pathak also indicated during the settlement conference that he wanted to dismiss case 2:16-cv-

8

02096-RFB-VCF because his dispute with the United States Patent and Trademark Office was resolved.

9

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has appeared in the case, as it filed a motion to dismiss

10

that outlined the process whereby Pathak resolved his dispute. (2:16-cv-02096-RFB-VCF, ECF No. 21).

11

Pathak filed a response to the motion requesting that the case be dismissed. (2:16-cv-02096-RFB-VCF,

12

ECF. No. 23). Based on Pathak’s response to the motion and representations at the settlement conference,

13

Pathak has stipulated to granting the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s motion to dismiss.

14

Accordingly,

15

IT IS RECOMMENDED that case 2:16-cv-00368-JAD-VCF be DISMISSED.

16

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s motion

17

to dismiss in case 2:16-cv-02096-RFB-VCF (ECF. No. 21) be GRANTED and the case be DISMISSED.

18

DATED this 12th day of September, 2017.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE