NAIK v. BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP, 14-03097-SDW-SCM. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
Number: infdco20170131d82
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 30, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2017
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION ORDER SUSAN D. WIGENTON , District Judge . Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") entered on January 12, 2017, by Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre ("Judge Wettre"), recommending that Defendant Boston Consulting Group's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f), 37(b)(2)(A), and 41(b); (Dkt. No. 125); be denied. (Dkt. No. 132.) Plaintiff Urvi Naik filed a letter in this matter on January 27, 2017, (Dkt. No. 134), which this
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION ORDER SUSAN D. WIGENTON , District Judge . Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") entered on January 12, 2017, by Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre ("Judge Wettre"), recommending that Defendant Boston Consulting Group's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f), 37(b)(2)(A), and 41(b); (Dkt. No. 125); be denied. (Dkt. No. 132.) Plaintiff Urvi Naik filed a letter in this matter on January 27, 2017, (Dkt. No. 134), which this C..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, District Judge.
Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") entered on January 12, 2017, by Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre ("Judge Wettre"), recommending that Defendant Boston Consulting Group's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f), 37(b)(2)(A), and 41(b); (Dkt. No. 125); be denied. (Dkt. No. 132.) Plaintiff Urvi Naik filed a letter in this matter on January 27, 2017, (Dkt. No. 134), which this Court considers an objection to the R&R.
This Court has reviewed the reasons set forth by Judge Wettre in the R&R and the other documents in this matter along with Plaintiff's objection. Based on the foregoing, and for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that the R&R of Judge Wettre is ADOPTED as the conclusions of law of this Court.1
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. This Court notes that it considers Plaintiff's letter despite the fact that it was not timely filed. In addition, to the extent an attachment to Plaintiff's letter requests an extension of time to file an objection, that request is moot in light of this Court's consideration of Plaintiff's letter. Moreover, even if the extension request were not moot, there is no proper basis on which to grant Plaintiff's request for an indefinite extension of time to file an objection. Plaintiff's failure to comply with Court Orders and her dilatory tactics are the basis on which dismissal is appropriate in the first place. Her request for an indefinite extension appears to be another attempt to unreasonably delay the proceedings in this matter.
Source: Leagle
