Saiyed v. Archon, Inc. et al
Filing
257
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; re 254 Report and Recommendation; Defendants Rashid Patel's and Mohamed Gajra's Answers, D.E. 204, 205, are stricken; the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter default against Defendants Patel and Gajra; the Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order via regular and certified mail to Defendants Patel and Gajra; etc. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 1/7/2020. (sms)
Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
AMJAD SAIYED,
Plain tff
Civil Action No. 16-9530
V.
ARCHON, INC., et al.,
ORDER
Defendants.
John Michael Vazguez. U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court on the November 11, 2019 Report and
Recommendation (the “R&R”) of Magistrate Judge James B. Clark.
D.E. 254.
The R&R
addressed an application by way of a siw sponte order to show cause regarding prose Defendants
Rashid Patel’s and Mohamed Gajra’s (collectively “Defendants”) failure to comply with Court
orders and defend this case. The R&R recommends that Defendants’ Answer be stricken pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) and default entered against them, R&R at 5; and it
APPEARING that the parties were advised as to the dates that any objections to this R&R
were to be sewed and filed.’ See id.; and it
As ordered by Judge Clark in the R&R, a copy of the R&R was mailed to Gajra via regular and
certified mail. The certified mail was returned to the Court as “unclaimed”. D.E. 256. As
instructed by Judge Clark, Plaintiffs counsel filed certifications of service indicating that Gajra
has been sewed with prior Court orders. See R&R at 2. Accordingly, there is no suggestion that
Gajra has not received prior orders from this Court and he is likely aware of the current procedural
posture. In addition, New Jersey Local Civil Rule 10.1(a) provides that unrepresented parties must
apprise the Court of any change of address. If Gajra moved, he should have informed the Court
of any address change.
APPEARING that no objections to the R&R have been received and the time for filing
any objections has expired; and it
APPEARING that “where no objections are made in regard to a report or parts thereof,
the district court will adopt the report and accept the recommendation if it is ‘satisijied]
.
.
.
that
there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Sportscare ofAm., P.C. v. Multiplan, Inc., No.
10-4414, 2011 WL 500195, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 10, 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory
Committee’s Notes); and it
APPEARING that this Court independently reviewed the record and the R&R, and hereby
adopts it as the Opinion of this Court. In adopting the R&R, this Court is mindftil of Hildebrand
i’.
Allegheny County, 923 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2019), which was decided by the Third Circuit after
Judge Clark issued the R&R in this matter. In Hildebrand, the Third Circuit reiterated that when
possible, eases should be decided on the merits. Id. at 132. The Third Circuit also echoed Supreme
Court guidance and repeated its prior directions that the sanction of dismissal with prejudice is
extreme and “must be a sanction of last, not first, resort.” Id. (quoting Poulis v. State Farm Fire
& Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 867, 869 (3d Cir. 1984)). Here, given Defendants’ repeated failure to
participate in litigation, this Court concludes that Judge Clark appropriately determined that the
Poulis factors demonstrate that sanctions are appropriate in this matter;
THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 7th day of January, 2020,
ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, D.E. 254, in its
entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants Rashid Patel’s and Mohamed Gajra’s Answers, D.E. 204,
205, are STRICKEN; and it is further
2
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter default against Defendants Patel
and Gajra; and it is ifirther
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order via regular
and certified mail to Defendants Patel and Gajra.
4 7\
John Michael Vazque’1I.D.J.
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?