Manchanda v. Wang et al

Filing 30

ORDER terminating 27 Letter Motion to Compel. Plaintiff's Second Motion to compel the HHS is defective for the same reasons as Plaintiff's First Motion to compel HHS and is based on the same certificates of service, none of which demo nstrate proper service (by mail to HHS address in Washington, D.C. to HHS) as required by 45 C.F.R. 4.1 (requiring summons and complaint directed to HHS to be served by mail). If Plaintiff renews the motion a third time but does not include the re quisite proof of service, sanctions may be imposed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motion at Dkt. 27. SO ORDERED. Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 12/19/2023) (mml)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X RAHUL MANCHANDA, : : Plaintiff, : : - against : : SHI SHI WANG, : NYS Assistant Attorney General, et al, : : Defendants. : ---------------------------------------------------------------X 12/19/2023 23-CV-9403 (JHR) (RWL) ORDER ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s Second Motion to compel the HHS is defective for the same reasons as Plaintiff’s First Motion to compel HHS and is based on the same certificates of service, none of which demonstrate proper service (by mail to HHS address in Washington, D.C. to HHS) as required by 45 C.F.R. 4.1 (requiring summons and complaint directed to HHS to be served by mail). If Plaintiff renews the motion a third time but does not include the requisite proof of service, sanctions may be imposed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motion at Dkt. 27. SO ORDERED. _________________________________ ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: December 19, 2023 New York, New York Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record.

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?