United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER ON SANCTIONS AND CONSOLIDATION OF
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant / Cross Defendant Sierra Meat
Company's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF
52) filed in case No. 17-cv-00102-RFB-GWF. For the reasons
stated below, the Court grants relief pursuant to its
inherent powers. The Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
is therefore denied.
above-captioned cases are also ordered consolidated. . . .
January 11, 2017, Plaintiff Nerry Pathak
(“Nerry”) filed a complaint (ECF 1) against
Sierra Meat and other defendants, including Anshu Pathak. On
March 15, 2017, Nerry filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF
7). On April 6, 2017, Anshu answered the complaint and filed
a cross-complaint (ECF 10). On May 19, 2017, Anshu filed the
First Amended Cross-Complaint (ECF 29). Sierra Meat
categorically denies the allegations contained in the First
Amended Complaint and the First Amended Cross-Complaint.
Sierra Meat has filed motions to dismiss both the First
Amended Complaint and the First Amended Cross-Complaint (ECF
14 and ECF 43).
/ Cross Defendant Sierra alleges that Anshu Pathak has
repeatedly contacted employees and officers directly, in
spite of multiple admonitions to communicate only through
counsel. Defendant / Cross Defendant Sierra meet seeks a
temporary restraining order enjoining Anshu Pathak from (1)
directly contacting or communicating with by any means
whatsoever Sierra Meat or any of its officers, directors, and
employees, including, but not limited to, Jonathan Mosbacher
and Chris Flocchini, other than through Sierra Meat's
counsel; and (2) being physically present within 100 yards of
Sierra Meat's offices or residences or any of Sierra
Meat's directors, officers, and employees, including, but
not limited to Jonathan Mosbacher and Chris Flocchini.
30, 2017, the Court issued a minute order setting a hearing
on the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order for July 5,
2017, at 11:30AM. On the morning of July 5, 2017, in a
communication to opposing counsel, Anshu Pathak stated that
he could not attend the hearing “due to [his]
health.” He did not appear at the hearing or provide
any further explanation. Anshu Pathak provided no substantive
response to the Motion in that communication, or in any
filing with the Court. The Court therefore credits and
accepts the credible allegations in the Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order regarding Anshu Pathak's
conduct, which are supported by declarations and exhibits
identified as copies of the email communications from Anshu
Pathak to various Sierra employees. The Court also finds that
Anshu Pathak has not established a credible reason for not
attending the hearing on July 5th.
Court credits and finds the following facts from the Motion
for a Temporary Restraining Order.
the filing of Anshu's cross-claim, Anshu has repeatedly
contacted the directors, officers and employees of Sierra
Meat, including sending nearly 100 emails and threatening to
confront the directors, employees and officers at their work
place or at their homes in front of their families. From
April 20, 2017 through May 31, 2017, Anshu sent 70 emails to
Sierra Meat's officers, directors, and employees. Mot.
for TRO, Ex. A at ¶ 4. From June 7, 20173 to June 27,
2017, Anshu sent 23 additional emails to Sierra Meat's
officers, directors and employees. Id. at ¶ 5.
response to Anshu's communications, counsel for Sierra
Meat has repeatedly demanded that Anshu communicate solely
with counsel, who has been designated by Sierra Meat to
handle this litigation matter and to field all correspondence
related to this lawsuit from Anshu and Nerry, both of whom
represent themselves. On April 20, 2017, Sierra Meat's
counsel notified Anshu that his correspondence to Sierra
Meat's employees must stop and demanded that Anshu
communicate directly with counsel and counsel only. Ex. A at
¶¶ 6-7. Anshu, however, did not cease his
communications, but rather sent fourteen additional emails in
the next six days. Id. at ¶ 8. As a result,
counsel for Sierra Meat again demanded that Anshu comply with
Sierra Meat's request to stop emailing its employees and
to communicate only with its designated representative.
Id. at ¶¶ 9-11. Counsel notified Anshu
that, if necessary, the issue would be raised before this
Court. Id. at ¶¶ 10-11.
continued sending unsolicited emails to Sierra Meat's
employees in May 2017. On May 11, 2017, counsel for Sierra
Meat, for the third time, respectfully demanded that Anshu
refrain from further harassing Sierra Meat's officers and
employees with emails and to direct all future correspondence
to counsel. Ex. A at ¶¶ 12-13. On May 23, 2017,
during a direct telephone conference with Anshu, counsel for
Sierra Meat again demanded that Anshu stop contacting the
employees of Sierra Meat to which Anshu agreed. Id.
at ¶¶ 15. Anshu continued, however, to make
unwarranted contact. Id. at ¶ 16. On May 25,
2017, counsel for Sierra Meat, confirmed in an email
Anshu's agreement to communicate solely with counsel, not
Sierra Meat, its officers, directors, and employees, yet
Anshu continued with his harassing communications.
Id. at ¶¶ 17-18.
30, 2017, during a hearing regarding briefing deadlines for
Sierra Meat's motion to dismiss, counsel for Sierra Meat
raised with Magistrate Judge George W. Foley, Jr.
counsel's concern regarding Anshu's repeated and
improper communications with Sierra Meat's officers and
employees. See ECF 35. Although Anshu did not attend or
participate in the hearing, counsel for Sierra Meat notified
the Court that Anshu had been repeatedly advised to
communicate directly with counsel and not Sierra Meat. See
Id. The next day, counsel for Sierra Meat, for the
sixth time, demanded that Anshu conduct himself in a
professional matter and ...