Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pathak v. Sierra Meat Co.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 6, 2017

NERRY PATHAK, Plaintiff,
v.
SIERRA MEAT COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ANSHU BHARAT PATHAK, Cross Complainant,
v.
NERRY PATHAK, et al., Cross Defendants.

          ORDER ON SANCTIONS AND CONSOLIDATION OF CASES

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before 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.

         The above-captioned cases are also ordered consolidated. . . .

         BACKGROUND

         On 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).

         Defendant / 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.

         On June 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.

         II. FACTUAL FINDINGS

         The Court credits and finds the following facts from the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.

         Since 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.

         In 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.

         Anshu 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.

         On May 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.