Singh V United States
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
GURPREET SINGH,
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER
24-CV-4122 (EK)(PK)
-against-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC, UBER USA, LLC, and
GURMEEN SINGH,
Defendants.
------------------------------------x
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Gurpreet Singh filed this action in June
2024. On September 12, 2024, Singh filed a stipulation of
dismissal without prejudice as to the claims against the United
States of America. ECF No. 11. The Court concluded that the
stipulation was deficient, and therefore construed it as a
motion for court-ordered dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(2). See Docket Order dated September 13, 2024.
The Court then granted the motion conditionally,
stating that the plaintiff’s “claims [would] be dismissed
against the United States” unless a party objected within a
week. Id. No party did. The United States was never served,
and the parties proceeded as if it had been dismissed. However,
due to an apparent clerical error, the dismissal was not
formally effectuated on the docket.
Singh now seeks to “add the United States back into
the litigation,” and has requested forty-five days to serve a
summons and complaint on the United States. See ECF No. 31, at
1. Thus, the Court must determine whether the United States was
actually dismissed in September 2024. If the United States
remains a party to this action, then Singh must show good cause
for failing to serve it within ninety days of filing the
complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). But if the United States is
not a party, no such requirement would exist.
The Court will dismiss the United States nunc pro tunc
pursuant to its September 13 order. A court “may issue nunc pro
tunc orders . . . to reflect the reality of what has already
[been] . . . ordered, but not entered, through inadvertence of
the court.” Roman Cath. Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v.
Acevedo Feliciano, 589 U.S. 57, 65 (2020).1 Here, the Court made
clear that the United States would be dismissed if no party
objected within a week, and no party did. So, the September
order effectively dismissed the United States — a reality that
simply was not reflected on the docket. A nunc pro tunc
dismissal is therefore appropriate. E.g., Newman ex rel. Poston
v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., No. 10-CV-2135, 2012 WL 1431271, at
*3 n.2 (D.S.C. Apr. 25, 2012).
1 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
For the foregoing reasons, the United States is
dismissed from this action nunc pro tunc.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United State
s District Judge
D ated: July 22, 2025
Brooklyn, New York