Kyko Global, Inc et al v. Prithvi Information Solutions, Ltd et al
| Kyko Global Inc and Kyko Global GMBH |
| Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd, Prithvi Catalytic Inc, Prithvi Solutions Inc, Prithvi Information Solutions International LLC, Inalytix Inc, International Business Solutions Inc, Avani Investments Inc, Ananya Capital Inc, Madhavi Vuppalapati, Anandhan Jagaraman, Guru Pandyar, Jane Doe Pandyar, Srinivas Sista, John Doe Sista, DCGS Inc, EPP Inc, Financial Oxygen Inc, Huawei Latin American Solutions Inc and L3C Inc |
| 2:2013cv01034 |
| June 17, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| Seattle Office |
| King |
| Marsha J. Pechman |
| Fraud or Truth-In-Lending |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Fraud |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
440
ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 438 APPLICATION for Renewal of Judgment without prejudice. The Court will consider a renewed application that sets forth sufficient information to allow the Court to confirm that the interest is properly calculated to the date of the renewed application and that the interest calculations properly account for any payments received. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (KRA) (cc: active parties not receiving electronic notice)
|
|
Filing
430
ORDER granting Kyko Global Inc. and Kyko Global GmbH's 428 Ex-Parte Motion to modify judgment. ORDERED that this Court's Judgment issued on January 12, 2016, in the amount of $26,466,218.00 is vacated. [Doc. Nos. 342 , 343 ]. Judgment is issued in favor of Kyko against Satish Vuppalapati in the amount of $3,000,000.00. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)
|
|
Filing
426
ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 424 Renewed Motion for Judicial Assistance to the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) Modified on 1/31/2018: 3 certified copies or order sent via first class mail to attorney Keith Pitt (PM).
|
|
Filing
423
ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 419 Motion for Judicial Assistance to the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)
|
|
Filing
394
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Court directs that judgment be entered for Plaintiffs and against Defendants consistent with the findings and conclusions made herein. (PM) cc: mailed to active parties not receiving electronic notice.
|
|
Filing
315
ORDER denying without prejudice 305 Motion to Amend Answer 306 Motion to Amend Answer. Defendants are granted leave to file renewed motion(s) to amend within seven (7) days of the date of this order; by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RM)
|
|
Filing
297
ORDER denying dfts' 282 Motion for Summary Judgment except as to Satish Vuppalpati who is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; JSR due within 14 days by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RS)cc pro se parties
|
|
Filing
216
ORDER denying 163 Plaintiffs' Motion to determine adminissibility of materials on computer ; denying 168 Defendants' Motion to Disqualify by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD)
|
|
Filing
206
ORDER granting in part and denying in part dft Anandhan Jayaramans 131 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RS)
|
|
Filing
134
ORDER denying 122 Defendants' Motion to amend judgment by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER denying dfts' 22 Sealed Motion for TRO by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RS)
|
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 Washington Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
