Geo-Group Communications, Inc. v. Goldberg et al
Plaintiff: Geo-Group Communications, Inc.
Defendant: Joseph P. Goldberg, Hodgson Russ LLP, Ravi Chopra, Mahendra Shah, Vipin Shah and John Does 1-5
Case Number: 1:2015cv01756
Filed: March 9, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: XX Out of State
Presiding Judge: Katherine Polk Failla
Nature of Suit: Recovery of Overpayment and Enforcement of Judgment
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 26, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 412 OPINION AND ORDER re: 368 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment in favor of Ravi Chopra and NYC Telecom as more fully described in GCI's Notice of Motion. filed by Geo-Group Communications, Inc. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to reopen the judgment in this matter is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket number 368 (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 9/26/2023) (rro)
November 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 362 ORDER: To summarize, the Court believes that the Shahs must still take certain steps in order to satisfy their obligations under the Settlement Agreement, and to address certain concerns raised by Plaintiff. As noted, the Shahs are ordered t o complete their review of production from the recently-located hard drives by November 11, 2022. In addition, by December 2, 2022, the Shahs are ORDERED to: Turn over the physical servers recovered from 235 Hillside to Plaintiff, including any p asswords or authorizations they have or know of in order to permit Plaintiff to search the servers; Contact Mr. Aggarwal and Mr. Siddiqi to determine whether these individuals have responsive documents or information; Certify in writing that t hey have produced to Plaintiff all responsive Category Two and Three documents covered by the Settlement Agreement and this Court's prior Orders following completion of productions from the hard drives and outreach to Mr. Aggarwal and Mr. Siddiq i; Submit a declaration, under penalty of perjury, from an affiant with knowledge of this dispute, confirming that Vipin Shah is not and at no time during the relevant timeframe was a shareholder of Jaina. Further, the affiant shall declare that h e or she has reviewed the documents submitted by Plaintiff in support of its contention that the shareholder list is inaccurate, and that no revisions to the list are required based on such review; and Review the documents submitted by Plaintiff in support of its contentions regarding the loan list, and to submit a revised list based on such review if necessary or a declaration under penalty of perjury that no revisions are necessary. Additionally, as noted in this Order, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request to serve a subpoena on Mr. Arora and his firm, directing production of responsive documents. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/4/2022) (vfr)
July 18, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 350 ORDER: To summarize, the Court finds that Defendants' obligations to search for the documents and information in the categorized list set forth in Section 1(b)(i) are circumscribed by Section 1(b)(iii). Defendants, however, have thus far ass erted too narrow an interpretation of their diligence obligations and are not currently in full compliance with their obligations under the Agreement. To help the parties chart a path forward, the Court articulates the following steps that Defenda nts must take pursuant to the Agreement: Compile the Lists, to the extent the information necessary to do so is obtainable via good-faith compliance with their diligence obligations as set forth in Section 1(b)(iii) (including by seeking such inf ormation from counsel or accountants); Conduct searches for both physical documents and ESI at any premises used by the Entities to conduct business pursuant to Section 1(b)(iii)(d); Expand their searches of electronic devices to servers and compu ter equipment that Defendants have the practical ability to obtain and either know or have reason to know contain responsive documents (including by seeking such material from counsel or accountants); Ascertain, to the extent practicable, the loc ation of all Entities' servers and email accounts, and extract and produce from them all responsive documents (including, without limitation, by searching for ESI at the locations specified in Sections 1(b)(iii)); and Expand their searches o f electronic devices to include cloud networks or other IT infrastructure that have been used by Defendants or the entities, to the extent Defendants have the practical ability to access such networks. As the Court previously stated, the Agreement does not impose upon Defendants a free-standing obligation to produce all of the documents and information enumerated in Section 1(b)(i). Rather, the Agreement meaningfully limits what Defendants must produce to those materials that are within th eir possession, custody, or control, which the Court has interpreted to include materials that can be acquired by seeking them from counsel or accountants. The Court recognizes that many (if not all) of the Entities ceased operating as ongoing co ncerns some years ago. For this reason, the Court will not necessarily infer bad faith or an intent to obstruct in the event Defendants are unable to produce all of the materials contemplated by the Agreement. Thus, to some extent, Plaintiff must rely on Defendants integrity and good faith in ascertaining the scope of the documents, information, and electronic devices that they can practically access. The Court cannot guarantee that Plaintiff will receive all of the information enumerated in the Agreement, but Defendants must expand their efforts beyond the searches they have performed so far. The Court GRANTS Defendants a period of 60 days within which to comply with the provisions of this Order. The parties are directed to submit a joint letter to the Court addressing any remaining disputes regarding Defendants compliance with the Agreement (and, to be clear, the Court hopes that there are none) on or before September 23, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 7/18/2022) (jca)
May 3, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 340 ORDER granting 335 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED. In light of the emergent dispute between the parties, the July 1, 2021 Settlement Agreement shall be unsealed, pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation dismissing Plaintiff&# 039;s claims against Defendant Vipin Shah. (Dkt. #330). Accordingly, the Court will file on the public docket the version of the Settlement Agreement that was transmitted to the Court under seal. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 335. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 5/3/2022) (rro)
June 15, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 317 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL granting 314 Application for the Court to Request Counsel. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Application for the Court to Request Counsel is granted. The Court advises Defendant that there a re no funds to retain counsel in civil cases and the Court relies on volunteers. Due to a scarcity of volunteer attorneys, a lengthy period of time may pass before counsel volunteers to represent Defendant. Nevertheless, this litigation will pro gress at a normal pace. If an attorney volunteers, the attorney will contact Defendant directly. There is no guarantee, however, that a volunteer attorney will decide to take the case, and plaintiff should be prepared to proceed with the case pro se. Of course, if an attorney offers to take the case, it is entirely Defendant's decision whether to retain that attorney or not. The Court reiterates that due to the late timing of Defendant's request, Defendant should be prepared to proc eed with a bench trial without the assistance of pro bono counsel. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Defendant has consented to electronic service. (Dkt. #171). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 314. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/15/2021) (rro)
November 16, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 305 OPINION AND ORDER re: 297 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 295 Memorandum & Opinion Notice of Motion for Reconsideration of September 25, 2020 Opinion and Order (Dk. 295). filed by Geo-Group Communications, Inc. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 297. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/16/2020) (rro)
October 13, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 299 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (See Dkt. #297-298). Respondents Sanjiv Chand, 728 Melville Petro LLC, Kedis Enterprises LLC, and JMVD Hillside LLC shall file a consolidated opposition on or by November 3, 2020. Plaintiff's reply papers, if any, shall be due on or by November 10, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 11/3/2020, Replies due by 11/10/2020.) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/13/2020) (rro)
September 25, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 295 OPINION AND ORDER re: 276 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Motion seeks an Order Denying the Chand/LLC Defendants' October 18, 2019 Letter Request for an Extension of the September 10, 2019 Briefing Schedule (Dk. 269 as modified by Dk . 271) addressed to filed by Geo-Group Communications, Inc., 272 MOTION to Reopen re: 269 Memo Endorsement, Set Deadlines, 271 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, Motion to Reopen Case Against the LLC Defendants and Mahendra Shah, to Join Sanjiv Chand as a Defendant, to file Amended and Supple filed by Geo-Group Communications, Inc. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case as to 728 Melville Petro LLC, Kedis Enterprises LLC, JMVD Hi llside LLC, and Mahendra Shah is DENIED; Plaintiff's motion to join Sanjiv Chand is DENIED; and Plaintiff's motion to file a Fourth Amended Complaint is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket entri es 272 and 276. The parties remaining in the case are directed to submit a joint letter to the Court on or before October 23, 2020, discussing their availability for trial in the second half of 2021 and, as appropriate, any interest in alterna tive dispute resolution of this matter. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Defendants Vipin Shah and Mahendra Shah. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 9/25/2020) (mro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
July 30, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 236 OPINION AND ORDER re: 193 MOTION for Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. filed by Ravi Chopra, NYC Telecommunications Corp. Chopra's and NYC Telecom's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; M. Shah 9;s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and V. Shah's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Ravi Chopra, NYC Telecommunications Corp., and M. Shah as parties to this matter, and is further dir ected to terminate the motion at Docket Entry 193. Plaintiff and V. Shah are directed to appear for a conference with the Court on Friday, August 17, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Sq uare, New York, New York 10007, to discuss setting a trial date. SO ORDERED., (Status Conference set for 8/17/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 618, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Katherine Polk Failla.) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 7/30/18) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (yv)
July 27, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 134 OPINION AND ORDER re: 118 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Vipin Shah, 112 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Mahendra Shah, 114 MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint filed by 728 Melville Petro LLC, Kedis Enterprises LLC, JMVD Hillside LLC: For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the LLC Defendants' motion to dismiss the TAC is GRANTED, and the Shah Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at docke t entries 112, 114, and 118. The TAC represents Plaintiff's fourth attempt at pleading; the Court will not offer it a fifth, as the Court finds that any further attempt to replead the claims against the dismissed Defendants would be futile. S ee Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC, 797 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2015) (framing the central inquiry when considering the appropriateness of leave to replead as whether such repleading would be futile). All parties remaining in this matter are directed to appear for a conference to discuss next steps in this case on August 17, 2016, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007. The parties are directed to submit a Proposed Case Management Plan as described at docket entry 3. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 7/27/2016) (tn)
February 1, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 102 OPINION AND ORDER re: 71 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Mahendra Shah, 68 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Vipin Shah, 50 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint filed by Joseph P. Goldberg, Hodgson Russ LLP, 59 FIRS T MOTION to Dismiss filed by Ravi Chopra, NYC Telecommunications Corp., 56 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants 728 Melville Petro LLC, Kedis Enterprises LLC, and JMVD Hillside LLC filed by 728 Melville Petro LLC, Kedis Ent erprises LLC, JMVD Hillside LLC: For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the motions to dismiss all claims against Goldberg and Hodgson Russ, as well as Counts II, III, IV, and V of the SAC as alleged against all remaining Defendants, are D ENIED AS MOOT. Defendants' respective motions to dismiss Count I against Mahendra Shah, Vipin Shah, Shalu Suri, Kedis, Melville, JMVD, and NYCT are GRANTED. Chopra's motion to dismiss Count I, as alleged against him, is DENIED. GCI may file a Third Amended Complaint no later than February 22, 2016. Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Third Amended Complaint will be March 14, 2016. An Initial Pretrial Conference in this matter will be scheduled for Mar ch 16, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at docket entries number 50, 56, 59, 68, and 71. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 2/1/2016) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (tn)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Geo-Group Communications, Inc. v. Goldberg et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Geo-Group Communications, Inc.
Represented By: Norman Solovay
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Joseph P. Goldberg
Represented By: Michael Andrew Brady
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Hodgson Russ LLP
Represented By: Michael Andrew Brady
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ravi Chopra
Represented By: Matin Emouna
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mahendra Shah
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Vipin Shah
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John Does 1-5
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?