KUMAR v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED

Justia Dockets & Filings Seventh Circuit Indiana Southern District KUMAR v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED

KUMAR v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED

Plaintiff:	MOHIT KUMAR
Defendant:	TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED
Case Number:	1:2017cv01500
Filed:	May 8, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	Debra McVicker Lynch
Presiding Judge:	Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
June 25, 2019	Filing 60 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - The Court GRANTS Tata's motion to dismiss, dkt. 53 , and DISMISSES this case with prejudice. See Lucien v. Breweur, 9 F.3d 26, 29 (7th Cir. 1993) (stating that "failure to prosecute a case should be punished by dismissal of the case with prejudice" and that dismissal without prejudice would not be meaningful sanction). The Court will enter final judgment by separate order (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 6/25/2019. (DWH)
January 16, 2018	Filing 25 ORDER - This matter is before the Court on Defendant Tata Consultancy Services Limited's ("Tata") Motion to Dismiss Complaint, or, in the Alternative, for Judicial Estoppel ("Motion to Dismiss"), [Filing No. 10], as well as its Motion to Strike, [Filing No. 23]. Tata argues that Plaintiff Mohit Kumar filed this action after the discharge of his personal debt in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, despite being aware of the legal claims at the time he filed for bankruptcy. Tata a rgues that the Bankruptcy Court has not formally closed Mr. Kumar's case, which means Kumar lacks standing to bring the legal claims, as they are still property of the bankruptcy estate. Tata argues in the alternative that Mr. Kumar should be judicially estopped from pursuing these claims because he purposefully withheld his claims from the bankruptcy estate. Finally, Tata moves to strike Mr. Kumar's Response to Defendant's Reply. [Filing No. 22.] For the reasons set forth i n this Order, the Court denies both of Tata's motions. For the reasons stated herein, Tata's Motion to Dismiss Complaint, or, in the Alternative, for Judicial Estoppel, 10 , and its Motion to Strike 23 , are DENIED. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/16/2018. (APD)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 25, 2019

Filing 60 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - The Court GRANTS Tata's motion to dismiss, dkt. 53 , and DISMISSES this case with prejudice. See Lucien v. Breweur, 9 F.3d 26, 29 (7th Cir. 1993) (stating that "failure to prosecute a case should be punished by dismissal of the case with prejudice" and that dismissal without prejudice would not be meaningful sanction). The Court will enter final judgment by separate order (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 6/25/2019. (DWH)

January 16, 2018

Filing 25 ORDER - This matter is before the Court on Defendant Tata Consultancy Services Limited's ("Tata") Motion to Dismiss Complaint, or, in the Alternative, for Judicial Estoppel ("Motion to Dismiss"), [Filing No. 10], as well as its Motion to Strike, [Filing No. 23]. Tata argues that Plaintiff Mohit Kumar filed this action after the discharge of his personal debt in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, despite being aware of the legal claims at the time he filed for bankruptcy. Tata a rgues that the Bankruptcy Court has not formally closed Mr. Kumar's case, which means Kumar lacks standing to bring the legal claims, as they are still property of the bankruptcy estate. Tata argues in the alternative that Mr. Kumar should be judicially estopped from pursuing these claims because he purposefully withheld his claims from the bankruptcy estate. Finally, Tata moves to strike Mr. Kumar's Response to Defendant's Reply. [Filing No. 22.] For the reasons set forth i n this Order, the Court denies both of Tata's motions. For the reasons stated herein, Tata's Motion to Dismiss Complaint, or, in the Alternative, for Judicial Estoppel, 10 , and its Motion to Strike 23 , are DENIED. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/16/2018. (APD)

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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: KUMAR v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: MOHIT KUMAR
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: TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED
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?