Singh v. Singh et al

Filing 58

ORDER Adopting In Part ECF No. 53 Report and Recommendation : IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's claims in this matter are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the defendant's counterclaims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 1/17/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:21-cv-00094-HDM-CSD Document 58 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8

HARPREET SINGH,
v.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION IN PART

ROOP SINGH and DHALIWAL, INC.,
Defendants.

9
10

Case No. 3:21-cv-00094-HDM-WGC

And related counterclaims.
The court has considered the report and recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 53) filed on November 29,
2022, in which the magistrate judge recommends that this court
enter an order dismissing the plaintiff/counter-defendant Harpreet
Singh’s complaint for failure to prosecute or otherwise respond to
court orders. The magistrate judge also recommends that the action
be allowed to proceed on defendant/counter-claimant Roop Singh’s
counterclaims. Harpreet Singh has filed objections (ECF No. 56)
through counsel, making a limited appearance on his behalf, and
Roop Singh has responded (ECF No. 57).
The court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the
parties and other relevant matters of record and has made a review
and determination in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 and applicable case law, and good cause appearing, the court
hereby
ADOPTS AND ACCEPTS IN PART the report and recommendation of

28
1

Case 3:21-cv-00094-HDM-CSD Document 58 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3

1

the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 53), to the extent it

2

recommends

3

prosecute or respond to court orders. Despite Harpreet Singh’s

4

eventual appearance in the form of objections to the report and

5

recommendation, he failed to respond to his attorney’s motion to

6

withdraw, as ordered by the court, did not appear at the hearing

7

on his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and failed to respond to the

8

magistrate judge’s order to show cause why the action should not

9

be

dismissing

dismissed.

Before

Harpreet

that

Singh’s

time,

claims

Harpreet

for

Singh

failure

had

to

stopped

10

communicating or cooperating with his attorney, ultimately failing

11

to advise his attorney whether he would accept or reject an offer

12

of judgment. The delay caused by Harpreet Singh’s actions was

13

unreasonable and has thwarted the public’s interest in expeditious

14

resolution of cases and the court’s ability to manage its docket.

15

Even in objecting to the report and recommendation Harpreet Singh

16

does not do so through substitute counsel who will handle his

17

entire case, nor has he explained what specific efforts he has

18

made to obtain counsel or that he will prosecute this case pro se.

19

While less drastic sanctions are perhaps available given that

20

Harpreet Singh has reappeared in this case, the court finds that

21

this

22

strongly

23

dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and respond to

24

court orders. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th

25

Cir. 2002).

factor

does

favor

not

outweigh

dismissal.

the

other

Accordingly,

four

this

factors,
action

which

will

be

26

The court, however, declines to adopt the magistrate judge’s

27

recommendation that this case be allowed to proceed on Roop Singh’s

28
2

Case 3:21-cv-00094-HDM-CSD Document 58 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3

1

counterclaims. All three counterclaims arise under state law.

2

There is no indication that the court has diversity jurisdiction

3

over these claims, and thus the only basis for jurisdiction would

4

be supplemental. A district court need not actuate supplemental

5

jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has

6

original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see Moore v. Kayport

7

Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 537 (9th Cir. 1989). It is

8

generally preferable to dismiss pendent state claims after federal

9

claims have been dismissed. McCarthy v. Mayo, 827 F.2d 1310, 1317

10

(9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the court declines to exercise

11

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law counterclaims, and

12

those claims are therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling

13

in state court.

14

In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED

15

that the plaintiff’s claims in this matter are hereby DISMISSED

16

WITH PREJUDICE, and the defendant’s counterclaims are DISMISSED

17

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: this 17th day of January, 2023.

20
21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3