Protegrity USA, Inc. et al v. Munshani et al
Plaintiff: Protegrity USA, Inc. and Protegrity Corporation
Defendant: Sunil Munshani, Suni Munshani, Lakeside Infotech Pvt. Ltd, Lakeside Infotech, LLC, CLB Associates, Vatic Ideas, Inc., Barings Security, Inc., Suresh Munshani, Arjun Munshani 2013 Trust, Sonjoy Jethmalani, Anil Dang, Sunita Munshani, Tina Munshani and John Does
Case Number: 3:2022cv00732
Filed: June 1, 2022
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Presiding Judge: Victor A Bolden
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 20, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 73 ORDER granting #71 Motion to Stay. The Court previously granted a motion to stay this case pending the resolution of the underlying criminal action. See ECF No. 67. The Court lifted that stay following the sentencing of one of the defendants in this case. See ECF No. 70. Counsel for defendant Tina Munshani has now clarified that although the criminal proceeding has concluded as to Sunil Munshani, his Co-defendant, Suresh Munshani, is awaiting sentencing. See Notice, ECF No. 72. Accordingly, consistent with the reasoning in this Court's previous Order, see ECF No. 67, the Court GRANTS the motion stay the proceedings in this case in full until final resolution of the United States v. Munshani, No. 1:22-cr-00215-JSR case. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 4/20/2023. (Diallo, I.)
April 19, 2023 Filing 72 NOTICE by Tina Munshani Regarding Stay of Proceedings (Letten, Matthew)
April 18, 2023 Filing 71 MOTION to Stay by Suresh Munshani.Responses due by 5/9/2023 (Munshani, Suresh)
April 14, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 70 ORDER LIFTING STAY. In light of the resolution of the underlying criminal case, United States v. Munshani, No. 1:22-cr-00215-JSR, the stay previously entered in this case is hereby LIFTED. The Court may take judicial notice of matters of public record. See, e.g., Mangiafico v. Blumenthal, 471 F.3d 391, 398 (2d Cir. 2006); Johnson v. Pugh, No. 11-CV-385, 2013 WL 3013661, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2013) (finding it "proper to take judicial notice of plaintiff's guilty plea, conviction, and sentencing as a matter of public record... ").Consistent with this Court previous Order, see ECF No. 96 (denying defendants' motion to dismiss "without prejudice to renewal following the lift of the stay[]"), Defendants' may file a renewed motion to dismiss by May 19, 2023. Regardless of whether any such motion is filed, the parties shall confer and file a joint scheduling order in this case by May 19, 2023 as well. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 4/14/2023. (Diallo, I.)
February 1, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER denying without prejudice #54 Motion to Dismiss. In light of the stay of this case in its entirety, ECF No. 67 , rather than keep the resolution of the motion to dismiss pending, the Court will deny the motion without prejudice to renewal following the lifting of the stay. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/1/2023. (Bartlett, H)
October 27, 2022 Filing 68 NOTICE of Related Case by Sunil Munshani (Spears, Brian)
September 30, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 67 ORDER granting #42 Motion to Stay; granting #43 Motion to Stay; granting #44 Motion to Stay; granting #52 Motion to Stay. The Court GRANTS the #52 motion to stay, the #44 motion to stay, the #43 motion to stay, and the #42 motion to stay. The parties appear to agree that at least a stay of the merits is appropriate, and only contest whether the stay should be complete or partial. Defendants Anil Dang and Sunita Munshani argue that the motion for stay should be granted only partially, so that the Court can issue a decision on the pending motion to dismiss, see ECF No. 54. See Mem. in Ltd. Opp'n at 2, ECF No. 56 (Sept. 9, 2022). Plaintiffs similarly argue that the Court should grant a partial stay that would allow Plaintiffs to pursue prejudgment remedies and conduct limited related discovery. See Mem. in Partial Opp'n at 1, ECF No. 55 (Sept. 8, 2022). The Court will grant the stay in full until the resolution of the parallel criminal matter. It would be inappropriate to allow Plaintiffs to pursue prejudgment remedies while the criminal case is pending because doing so would necessarily require discovery into the merits of the underlying claims and require the Court to assess the merits. See Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-278d (stating that finding prejudgment remedies requires determining "whether or not there is probable cause that a judgment in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought... will be rendered in the matter in favor of the plaintiff"); see also TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn. 132, 137 (2008) ("Under this standard, 'the trial court's function is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a judgment will be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in a trial on the merits.'" (quoting Bank of Boston Connecticut v. Schlesigner, 220 Conn. 152, 156 (1991))). Similarly, because the pending motion to dismiss largely relies on arguments that the Complaint fails to state a claim, see Mem. of Law in Supp. at 6-20, ECF No. 54-1 (Aug. 29, 2022), it would be inappropriate for the Court to assess these arguments about the viability of the claims while the criminal case remains pending. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (stating that a claim is facially plausible where the plaintiff "pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged"); see also Doe v. Columbia Univ., 551 F. Supp. 3d 433, 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) ("In the context of a motion to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6), '[a] court's task is to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint; it is not to assess the weight of the evidence that might be offered on either side.'" (quoting Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2020)). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motions to stay the proceedings in this case in full until final resolution of the United States v. Munshani, No. 1:22-cr-00215-JSR case. See Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. N.Y. Post Co., 152 F.R.D. 36, 39 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("The strongest case for granting a stay is where a party under criminal indictment is required to defend a civil proceeding involving the same matter"); Harris v. Nassau Cnty., No. 13-CV-4728 (NGG) (RML), 2014 WL 3491286, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2014) ("The weight of authority in this Circuit indicates that courts will stay a civil proceeding when the criminal investigation has ripened into an indictment.").Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 7/30/2022. (Bartlett, H.)
September 27, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 66 ORDER granting #65 Motion for Extension of Time. The Court GRANTS the motion for extension of time. The parties shall file the Rule 26(f) report 21 days after either the pending motions to stay are denied or, if granted, until 21 days after the stay is lifted. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 9/27/2022. (Bartlett, H.)
September 26, 2022 Filing 65 MOTION for Extension of Time until 21 Days After Either the Pending Motions to Stay are Denied or, if Granted, Until 21 Days After the Stay is Lifted Filing of Rule 26(f) Report 61 Notice,,,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,,, by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. (Stafstrom, Steven)
September 22, 2022 Filing 64 REPLY to Response to #44 MOTION to Stay filed by Tina Munshani. (Letten, Matthew)
September 22, 2022 Filing 63 REPLY to Response to #43 MOTION to Stay filed by Barings Security, Inc., Sonjoy Jethmalani, Vatic Ideas, Inc.. (Silvestri, Frank)
September 22, 2022 Filing 62 REPLY to Response to #42 MOTION to Stay filed by Sunil Munshani. (Spears, Brian)
September 19, 2022 Filing 61 26(f) NOTICE: The Court has reviewed the file in this case to monitor the parties compliance with Local Rule 26(f). Local Rule 26(f) provides that, within 30 days after the appearance of any defendant, the attorneys of record and any unrepresented parties must confer for purposes described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). Local Rule 26(f) further provides that, within 10 days after the conference, the participants must jointly file a report of the conference using Form 26(f). It appears that more than forty-four days have passed since the appearance of a defendant in this case but no report has been filed. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the parties must file on or before: 10/4/2022, (1) a written statement signed by all counsel of record demonstrating that this case is exempt from the requirement of filing a form 26(f) report; or (2) a form 26(f) report along with a written statement signed by all counsel of record explaining why sanctions should not be imposed for the parties failure to comply with Local Rule 26(f). Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the complaint. Signed by Clerk on 9/19/2022. ( Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 10/4/2022). (Murphy, Tatihana)
September 19, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 60 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. SELF-REPRESENTED FILERS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGE'S STANDARD ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER WHICH IS ATTACHED. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 9/19/2022.(Nuzzi, Tiffany)
September 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 59 ORDER granting #57 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The Court GRANTS a limited extension of time without prejudice to seeking more, if the Court does not stay the case pending the ongoing criminal proceedings. Protegrity USA, Inc. and Protegrity Corporation shall file a response to the motion to dismiss by October 21, 2022. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 9/14/2022. (Bartlett, H.)
September 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 58 ORDER granting #53 Motion to Participate in Electronic Filing. The Court GRANTS permission for Suresh Munshani participate in electronic filing. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 9/14/2022. (Bartlett, H.)
September 13, 2022 Filing 57 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #54 First MOTION to Dismiss Complaint until November 23, 2022 by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. (Frank, Monte)
September 9, 2022 Filing 56 Memorandum in Opposition re #44 MOTION to Stay , #43 MOTION to Stay , #52 MOTION to Stay, #42 MOTION to Stay filed by Anil Dang, Sunita Munshani. (Teske, Erin)
September 8, 2022 Filing 55 Memorandum in Opposition (Partial Opposition) re #44 MOTION to Stay , #43 MOTION to Stay , #52 MOTION to Stay, #42 MOTION to Stay filed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. (Frank, Monte)
August 29, 2022 Filing 54 First MOTION to Dismiss Complaint by Anil Dang, Sunita Munshani.Responses due by 9/19/2022 (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Affidavit, #3 Affidavit)(Teske, Erin)
August 26, 2022 Filing 53 MOTION by Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing by Suresh Munshani. (Fanelle, N.)
August 26, 2022 Filing 52 MOTION to Stay by Suresh Munshani. Responses due by 9/16/2022. (Fanelle, N.)
August 26, 2022 Filing 51 Consent to Electronic Notice by Suresh Munshani. (Fanelle, N.)
August 26, 2022 Filing 50 Appearance Self Represented Party by Suresh Munshani. (Fanelle, N.)
August 23, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER granting #46 Motion for Extension of Time, #47 Second MOTION for Extension of Time, #48 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time. The Court GRANTS the #46 motion for extension of time, #47 motion for extension of time, and #48 motion for extension of time. Defendants Barings Security, Inc., Vatic Ideas, Inc., Sonjoy Jethmalani, Sunil Munshani, and Tina Munshani shall respond to the Complaint 15 days after the stay, if granted, is lifted or 15 days from the date the request for stay is denied. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 8/23/2022. (Bartlett, H.)
August 22, 2022 Filing 48 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until 15 days after the stay, if granted, is lifted or 15 days after the stay is denied to respond to the Complaint by Tina Munshani. (Letten, Matthew)
August 22, 2022 Filing 47 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until (a) 15 days after the stay, if granted, is lifted or (b) if the stay is denied, 15 days after such ruling to respond to the Complaint to Respond to the Complaint #1 Complaint by Sunil Munshani. (Spears, Brian)
August 22, 2022 Filing 46 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until to (a) 15 days after the stay, if granted, is lifted; or (b) if the stay is denied, 15 days after such ruling to respond to the Complaint #1 Complaint by Barings Security, Inc., Sonjoy Jethmalani, Vatic Ideas, Inc.. (Silvestri, Frank)
August 20, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 45 ORDER granting #35 Motion for Extension of Time, granting #40 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. The Court GRANTS the #35 Motion for Extension of Time and #40 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants Barings Security, Inc., Vatic Ideas, Inc., Sonjoy Jethmalani, Anil Dang, and Sunita Munshani shall respond to the Complaint by August 29, 2022. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 8/20/2022. (Bartlett, H.)
August 19, 2022 Filing 44 MOTION to Stay by Tina Munshani.Responses due by 9/9/2022 (Twardy, Stanley)
August 19, 2022 Filing 43 MOTION to Stay by Barings Security, Inc., Sonjoy Jethmalani, Vatic Ideas, Inc..Responses due by 9/9/2022 (Silvestri, Frank)
August 19, 2022 Filing 42 MOTION to Stay by Sunil Munshani.Responses due by 9/9/2022 (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support)(Spears, Brian)
August 9, 2022 Filing 41 RICO Case Statement by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. (Frank, Monte)
August 1, 2022 Filing 40 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until August 29, 2022 to respond to #1 Complaint by Barings Security, Inc., Sonjoy Jethmalani, Vatic Ideas, Inc.. (Silvestri, Frank)
August 1, 2022 Filing 39 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING re #36 MOTION for Attorney(s) Erin N. Teske to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $200 PHV fee; receipt number ACTDC-7014100) by Anil Dang, Sunita Munshani. (Teske, Erin)
August 1, 2022 Filing 38 NOTICE of Appearance by Erin Teske on behalf of Anil Dang, Sunita Munshani (Teske, Erin)
July 29, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 37 ORDER granting #36 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Erin N. Teske, Esq. Certificate of Good Standing due by 9/27/2022. Signed by Clerk on 7/29/2022. (Imbriani, Susan)
July 28, 2022 Filing 36 MOTION for Attorney(s) Erin N. Teske to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $200 PHV fee; receipt number ACTDC-7014100) by Anil Dang, Sunita Munshani. (Reilly, Lawrence)
July 22, 2022 Filing 35 First MOTION for Extension of Time until August 29, 2022For Anil Dang and Sunita Munshani Plead by Anil Dang. (Reilly, Lawrence)
July 18, 2022 Filing 34 Supplemental SUMMONS Returned Executed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. Lakeside Infotech Pvt. Ltd served on 6/13/2022, answer due 7/4/2022. (Frank, Monte)
July 15, 2022 Filing 33 NOTICE of Appearance Attorney Lawrence Reilly for defendants by Anil Dang, Sunita Munshani. (Reilly, Lawrence) Modified on 7/15/2022 (Imbriani, Susan) as to title of document.
July 6, 2022 Filing 32 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. Anil Dang served on 6/17/2022, answer due 7/8/2022. (Frank, Monte)
July 1, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER granting #29 Motion for Extension of Time and #30 Motion for Extension of Time. The Court extends the deadline for Defendants Tina Munshani and Sunil Munshani to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint until August 29, 2022. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 7/1/2022. (Dalton, A.)
June 30, 2022 Filing 30 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until August 29, 2022 to respond to Plaintiff's' Complaint #1 Complaint by Tina Munshani. (Twardy, Stanley)
June 30, 2022 Filing 29 MOTION for Extension of Time until August 29, 2022 to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint #1 Complaint by Sunil Munshani. (Spears, Brian)
June 29, 2022 Filing 28 NOTICE of Appearance by Ivan J. Ladd-Smith on behalf of Sunil Munshani (Ladd-Smith, Ivan)
June 29, 2022 Filing 27 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian E. Spears on behalf of Sunil Munshani (Spears, Brian)
June 28, 2022 Filing 26 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. Suresh Munshani served on 6/17/2022, answer due 7/8/2022. (Frank, Monte)
June 28, 2022 Filing 25 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. Sunita Munshani served on 6/17/2022, answer due 7/8/2022. (Frank, Monte)
June 28, 2022 Filing 24 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. CLB Associates served on 6/17/2022, answer due 7/8/2022. (Frank, Monte)
June 27, 2022 Filing 23 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew J. Letten on behalf of Tina Munshani (Letten, Matthew)
June 27, 2022 Filing 22 NOTICE of Appearance by Stanley A. Twardy, Jr on behalf of Tina Munshani (Twardy, Stanley)
June 21, 2022 Filing 21 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. Lakeside Infotech, LLC served on 6/8/2022, answer due 6/29/2022. (Frank, Monte)
June 14, 2022 Filing 20 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Barings Security, Inc., Vatic Ideas, Inc.. (Silvestri, Frank)
June 13, 2022 Filing 19 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. Tina Munshani served on 6/9/2022, answer due 6/30/2022. (Frank, Monte)
June 13, 2022 Filing 18 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. Sunil Munshani served on 6/11/2022, answer due 7/2/2022. (Frank, Monte)
June 13, 2022 Filing 17 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. Lakeside Infotech Pvt. Ltd served on 6/11/2022, answer due 7/2/2022. (Frank, Monte)
June 10, 2022 Filing 16 NOTICE of Appearance by Kristen Grace Rossetti on behalf of Barings Security, Inc., Sonjoy Jethmalani, Vatic Ideas, Inc. (Rossetti, Kristen)
June 10, 2022 Filing 15 NOTICE of Appearance by Frank J. Silvestri, Jr on behalf of Barings Security, Inc., Sonjoy Jethmalani, Vatic Ideas, Inc. (Silvestri, Frank)
June 9, 2022 Filing 14 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Vatic Ideas, Inc. waiver sent on 6/7/2022, answer due 8/6/2022 filed by Protegrity Corporation; Protegrity USA, Inc.. (Frank, Monte)
June 9, 2022 Filing 13 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Sonjoy Jethmalani waiver sent on 6/7/2022, answer due 8/6/2022 filed by Protegrity Corporation; Protegrity USA, Inc.. (Frank, Monte)
June 9, 2022 Filing 12 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Barings Security, Inc. waiver sent on 6/7/2022, answer due 8/6/2022 filed by Protegrity Corporation; Protegrity USA, Inc.. (Frank, Monte)
June 6, 2022 Filing 11 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Arjun Munshani 2013 Trust, Barings Security, Inc., CLB Associates, Anil Dang, John Does, Sonjoy Jethmalani, Lakeside Infotech Pvt. Ltd, Lakeside Infotech, LLC, Sunil Munshani, Sunita Munshani, Suresh Munshani, Tina Munshani, Vatic Ideas, Inc.* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Monte E. Frank* *Pullman & Comley - Bpt* *850 Main St., PO Box 7006* *Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006*. (Murphy, Tatihana)
June 6, 2022 Filing 10 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Arjun Munshani 2013 Trust, Barings Security, Inc., CLB Associates, Anil Dang, John Does, Sonjoy Jethmalani, Lakeside Infotech Pvt. Ltd, Lakeside Infotech, LLC, Sunil Munshani, Sunita Munshani, Suresh Munshani, Tina Munshani, Vatic Ideas, Inc.* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Monte E. Frank* *Pullman & Comley - Bpt* *850 Main St., PO Box 7006* *Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006*. (Murphy, Tatihana)
June 6, 2022 Filing 9 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Arjun Munshani 2013 Trust, Barings Security, Inc., CLB Associates, Anil Dang, John Does, Sonjoy Jethmalani, Lakeside Infotech Pvt. Ltd, Lakeside Infotech, LLC, Sunil Munshani, Sunita Munshani, Suresh Munshani, Tina Munshani, Vatic Ideas, Inc.* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Monte E. Frank* *Pullman & Comley - Bpt* *850 Main St., PO Box 7006* *Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006*. (Murphy, Tatihana)
June 6, 2022 Filing 8 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #6 Electronic Filing Order, #2 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc., #3 Notice of Appearance filed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc., #4 Notice of Appearance filed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc., #7 Standing Protective Order, #1 Complaint filed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc., #5 Order on Pretrial Deadlines. Signed by Clerk on 6/6/2022.(Murphy, Tatihana) Modified filed date on 6/6/2022 (Murphy, Tatihana).
June 1, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 6/1/2022.(Murphy, Tatihana)
June 1, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 6/1/2022.(Murphy, Tatihana)
June 1, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 7/31/2022. Discovery due by 12/1/2022. Dispositive Motions due by 1/5/2023. Signed by Clerk on 6/1/2022.(Murphy, Tatihana)
June 1, 2022 Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven J. Stafstrom, Jr on behalf of Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc. (Stafstrom, Steven)
June 1, 2022 Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Monte E. Frank on behalf of Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc. (Frank, Monte)
June 1, 2022 Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Xcelera Inc. for Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. (Frank, Monte)
June 1, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $402 receipt number ACTDC-6951639.), filed by Protegrity Corporation, Protegrity USA, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Frank, Monte)
June 1, 2022 Request for Clerk to issue summons as to All Defendants. (Frank, Monte)
June 1, 2022 Judge Victor A. Bolden added. (Oliver, T.)

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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Protegrity USA, Inc. et al v. Munshani et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Sunil Munshani
Represented By: Brian E. Spears
Represented By: Ivan J. Ladd-Smith
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: Suni Munshani
Represented By: Brian E. Spears
Represented By: Ivan J. Ladd-Smith
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: Lakeside Infotech Pvt. Ltd
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: Lakeside Infotech, LLC
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: CLB Associates
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: Vatic Ideas, Inc.
Represented By: Frank J. Silvestri, Jr.
Represented By: Kristen Grace Rossetti
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: Barings Security, Inc.
Represented By: Frank J. Silvestri, Jr.
Represented By: Kristen Grace Rossetti
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: Suresh Munshani
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: Arjun Munshani 2013 Trust
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: Sonjoy Jethmalani
Represented By: Frank J. Silvestri, Jr.
Represented By: Kristen Grace Rossetti
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: Anil Dang
Represented By: Lawrence F. Reilly
Represented By: Erin Teske
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: Sunita Munshani
Represented By: Lawrence F. Reilly
Represented By: Erin Teske
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: Tina Munshani
Represented By: Matthew J. Letten
Represented By: Stanley A. Twardy, Jr.
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
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 ]
Plaintiff: Protegrity USA, Inc.
Represented By: Monte E. Frank
Represented By: Steven J. Stafstrom, Jr.
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 ]
Plaintiff: Protegrity Corporation
Represented By: Monte E. Frank
Represented By: Steven J. Stafstrom, Jr.
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?