Republic Silver State Disposal Inc. v. Halloum, et al

Filing 38

ORDER denying 27 Motion for Recusal. ORDER denying 26 Motion for Rehearing. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/13/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

REPUBLIC SILVER STATE DISPOSAL
INC.,

5
6
7
8
9
10

Plaintiff,
vs.
YOUSIF HALLOUM; IMAN HALLOUM;
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:20-cv-02003-GMN-NJK
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Rehearing and Recusal, (ECF Nos. 26–27),

11

filed by Defendants Iman Halloum and Yousif Halloum (“Defendants”). Plaintiff Republic

12

Silver State Disposal Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 31), and Defendants filed a

13

Reply, (ECF No. 32).

14

The Court begins its analysis with Defendants’ request for “rehearing.” Defendants seek

15

rehearing on the Court’s Order adopting as unopposed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

16

Recommendation (“R&R”) to dismiss the case without prejudice. (See Mot. Rehearing at 1–3,

17

ECF No. 26). Defendants move for rehearing pursuant to “Rule 8022,” which seemingly refers

18

to the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure. The Court denies the request.

19

First, as the present case is not before a bankruptcy court, the Federal Rules of

20

Bankruptcy Procedure do not apply. Rule 8022 does not provide grounds for the Court to

21

rehear any Motion. Second, even if the Court were to construe Defendants’ Motion as a

22

Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the Court does not

23

find grounds apparent for reconsideration. Defendants contend that the Court issued its final

24

order in error because the District Court adopted a Magistrate Judge’s R&R, but Defendants did

25

not consent to disposition by a magistrate. (Mot. Rehearing at 1–3). However, a magistrate

Page 1 of 2

1

judge may, without the consent of the parties, issue findings and recommendations to a district

2

judge in aid of the district judge’s final resolution of the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);

3

see, e.g., Riddle v. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

4

157237, 2014 WL 5783825 (S.D. Cal. 2014). Here, as the Magistrate Judge did not issue a

5

final order dismissing the case but instead submitted findings and recommendations to the

6

undersigned, there exist no grounds to set aside the Court’s prior Order.

7

The Court likewise denies Defendants’ request for recusal of the undersigned.

8

Defendants seek recusal if their request for rehearing is granted. (See Mot. Recuse at 12, ECF

9

No. 27). Given that the request was contingent upon rehearing, and the Court denies rehearing,

10

the Court likewise denies the request for reassignment of the case to another district judge.

11

Accordingly1,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Rehearing, (ECF No. 26), is

13

DENIED.

14
15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Recusal, (ECF No. 27), is
DENIED.
13
DATED this _____ day of July, 2021.

16
17
18
19

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court

20
21
22
23
24
25

1

In its Response, Plaintiff requests attorney fees for improper removal. (See Pl.’s Resp. 4:3–19). Pursuant to
Local Rule IC 2-2(b), a party must file a separate document for each form of relief sought. The Court will
consider a request for attorney fees upon proper motion.

Page 2 of 2