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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?