Sharma v. Subway Real Estate, LLC et al

Filing 37

ORDER that Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17 ) is granted; the case is dismissed; because Sharma's claims are subject to arbitration; all pending motions (ECF Nos. 25 , 30 , 32 , 35 ) are denied as moot; Clerk directed to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/21/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

VISHAL SHARMA,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00238-MMD-CBC
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

v.
11
12

DOCTOR’S ASSOCIATES INC. and
SUBWAY REAL ESTATE, LLC,
Defendants.

13
14
15

Before the Court are Defendants Doctor’s Associates Inc. (“DAI”) and Subway Real

16

Estate, LLC’s (“SRE”) (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss or alternatively

17

maintain the status quo of administrative closure (“Motion”) (ECF No. 17) 1 and various

18

other motions by pro se Plaintiff Vishal Sharma (“Sharma”) (ECF Nos. 25, 30, 32, 35).

19

Finding the parties’ dispute is subject to arbitration, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion

20

as specified below and deny Sharma’s pending motions as moot.

21

Defendants previously requested a stay of this case pending a ruling on their

22

petition to compel arbitration (“Petition”). (ECF No. 4.) The Petition was filed in the United

23

///

24
25
26
27
28

1The

Court has also considered the related response—wherein Sharma also
moves to stay the action (ECF No. 19) and reply (ECF No. 21). The Court notes that
Sharma also impermissibly filed what amounts to a surreply (ECF No. 24) without first
seeking leave of Court to do so. See LR 7-2(b) (“Surreplies are not permitted without leave
of Court.”); LR 7-2(g) (“Supplementation prohibited without leave of court . . . The judge
may strike supplemental filings made without leave of court.”). The Court previously
informed Sharma that it ordinarily does “not consider this kind of additional filing, even by
a pro se litigant.” (ECF No. 14 at 2 n.3.) Therefore, the Court declines to consider ECF
No. 24.

1

States District Court for the District of Connecticut. (ECF No. 4-1.) This Court issued an

2

order temporarily staying the case pending the District of Connecticut’s ruling on the

3

Petition. (ECF No. 14.) The District of Connecticut has since entered judgment, granting

4

Defendants’ Petition to compel arbitration of the claims Sharma asserts in this case. 2 (ECF

5

No. 15 at 5-16; ECF Nos. 17-1, 17-2.) In light of the District of Connecticut’s ruling,

6

Defendants filed their Motion requesting that this case either be dismissed or remain

7

administratively closed. (ECF No. 17 at 2.) The Court will grant dismissal. See, e.g.,

8

Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir.1988) (analyzing 9 U.S.C. §

9

3 and concluding that trial court may dismiss an action where the claims alleged in

10
11
12
13
14

pleading are subject to arbitration).
It is therefore ordered that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is granted.
The case is dismissed because Sharma’s claims are subject to arbitration.
It is further ordered that all pending motions (ECF Nos. 25, 30, 32, 35) are denied
as moot.

15

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

16

DATED THIS 21st day of February 2019.

17
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2Sharma

filed a motion to amend his Complaint to add additional claims that appear
to also be arbitrable. (See ECF No. 25 at 3.)
2