CRISSEN v. GUPTA et al
| JOSHUA B. CRISSEN |
| WIPER CORPORATION, SATYABALA V. GUPTA and VINOD C. GUPTA |
| 2:2012cv00355 |
| December 4, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| William G. Hussmann |
| Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
| 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
277
ORDER - The Court GRANTS the Gupta Defendants' 268 Motion for Protective Order to Keep Confidential Certain Documents Produced by Banco Popular North America, Wells Fargo, and Wiper Corporation, to the extent that it ORDERS that the foll owing documents shall retain their Protected Material status under the 47 Protective Order entered in this case: Income tax returns of Wiper and V Gupta Inc.; Checks and bank statements showing personal income tax payments for Vinod Gupta or Vi vek Gupta to the IRS and the State of New York; Documents relating to confidential financial audits; Business Loan Agreements; Documents containing Mr. Gupta's bank password; Documents produced by BPNA, Wells Fargo, and Wiper that are considered Protected Material under the November 7, 2013 Joint Entry or other Court orders in this case; and Mr. Crissen's Deposition Exhibits 32 and 73. **SEE ORDER** Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/15/2014. (AH)
|
|
Filing
276
ORDER - Presently pending before the Court is a Fee Petition filed by Defendants Vinod Gupta, Satyabala Gupta, and Wiper Corporation (collectively, "the Gupta Defendants"). [Filing No. 245.] The Court GRANTS IN PART the Gupta Defendant s' Fee Petition, [Filing No. 245], to the extent it finds that the Gupta Defendants are entitled to $21,443.50 in connection with their Motion to Dismiss or for Other or Further Sanctions for Violation of Protective Order, [Filing No. 195 ]. The Court DENIES IN PART the Fee Petition to the extent the Petition seeks an additional $545.00, because those fees were for clerical work. The Court ORDERS Mr. Rochman to pay the fees and costs awarded to the Gupta Defendants within fourteen days, unless the Gupta Defendants and Mr. Rochman agree to a different timetable or arrangement. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/10/2014. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
273
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 90 Motion to Certify Class. The Court finds that Mr. Crissen has not sustained his burden of showing that he and his counsel will fairly and adequately represent the class, that common issues predominate over indivi dualized ones, or that a class action is the superior method of adjudicating this controversy. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mr. Crissen's Motion for Class Certification. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge schedule a conference with the parties to establish a schedule for bringing Mr. Crissen's claims to conclusion. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/19/2014. (ADH)
|
|
Filing
231
ORDER - granting 195 Motion to Dismiss or for Other or Further Sanctions for Violation of Protective Order, to the extent that it sanctions Mr. Rochman as specifically set forth above for violating the Protective Order as amended by the Magistrate Judge. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/14/2014. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
197
ORDER - granting 135 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Mr. Crissen's claims against Banco Popular are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. No partial judgment shall issue. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/28/2014. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
148
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 106 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 114 Motion for Protective Order. A hearing to reconsider the amendment to the protective order is set for November 8, 2013, at 3:30 p.m., Terre Haute time (EST). Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 11/7/2013. (NRN)
|
|
Filing
105
ORDER - Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Joshua Crissen's Motion to Reconsider Dismissal of Satyabala V. Gupta. 60 The Court GRANTS Mr. Crissen's Motion to Reconsider Dismissal of Satyabala V. Gupta, 60 . Accordingly, the portion of the Court's June 7, 2013 Order dismissing Ms. Gupta for lack of specific personal jurisdiction, [dkt. 43 at 5-9], is VACATED. The Court notes that Mr. Crissen has filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint which names Ms. Gu pta as a defendant. 85 Ms. Gupta is directed to answer the First Amended Class Action Complaint in accordance with applicable rules, and her deadline to do so shall begin to run on the date of this Order. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/11/2013. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
44
ENTRY in Support of 42 Marginal Notation granting in part and denying in part 36 Motion to Quash - This entry explains that marginal notation, which granted the motion, in part, and denied it, in part. The Magistrate Judge concludes that this cou rt does not technically have jurisdiction to determine whether to quash this Subpoena. However, because the case remains pending in this district, Rule 26 gives this court authority to issue a protective order with respect to discovery generally. Please see Entry for specifics. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 6/11/2013.(NRN)
|
|
Filing
43
ORDER - The Court concludes that it does not have specific jurisdiction over Ms. Gupta in this case. Accordingly, the Court dismisses all claims against Ms. Gupta because it lacks personal jurisdiction over her. The motion to dismiss claims as time-barred relates only to certain putative class members' claims, and not to Mr. Crissen's individual claims. The Court concludes that Ms. Crissen's interests are not affected by this lawsuit and she is not a necessary or indispe nsable party. Because the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Gupta, her Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint, [dkt. 23], is GRANTED on that basis alone, and the claims against her are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUD ICE. At this point in the litigation, the Court will not dismiss claims of the putative class members based on the statute of limitations, and also finds that Mr. Crissen's wife is not a necessary or indispensable party to this matter. Accordingly, Mr. Gupta's and Wiper's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint, [dkt. 26], is DENIED. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/7/2013. (RSF)
|
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 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.
