The State of New York Ex Rel Vinod Khurana et al v. Spherion Corp
| Vinod Khurana, The State of New York Ex Rel Vinod Khurana and The City of New York Ex Rel Vinod Khurana |
| Spherion Corporation |
| City Of New York |
| 1:2015cv06605 |
| August 20, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Jesse M Furman |
| Ona T Wang |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 oc Diversity-Other Contract |
| 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
261
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 260 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Terminate Motions. in favor of Spherion Corporation against The City of New York Ex Rel Vinod Khurana, The State of New York Ex Rel Vinod Khurana, Vinod Khurana. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law dated January 6, 2021, in sum, Khurana's retaliation claims fail. At most, he proved that he engaged in only one form of acti vity that qualified as "protected" under the FCA statutes: his November 2006 report about Hasan and Sundaram. That one report aside, Khurana certainly raised his fair share of concerns about the beleaguered CityTime project. But these conce rns were well within the scope of his employment and did not concern fraud, false claims, or anything else covered by the FCA statutes. It was only later, when the problems with the CityTime project became clearer and Mazer and others were arrested a nd charged with fraud, that Khurana sought to capitalize by retroactively casting his earlier complaints to be complaints about fraud, waste, and abuse. In any event, Khurana failed to prove that his June 2007 termination was caused by retaliation fo r his protected activity. Accordingly, Spherion is entitled to judgment with respect to Khurana's remaining claims of retaliation. Judgment is entered for Spherion, and this case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 1/6/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt)
|
|
Filing
239
AMENDED ORDER ESTABLISHING REMOTE BENCH TRIAL PROCEDURES FOR THE TRIAL OF COUNTS III AND IV: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: This Order shall supplement and not supersede the Court's (a) prior Orders setting trial-related procedures and deadlines, (b) Individual Rules and Practices, and (c) Emergency Individual Rules and Practices, all of which remain in effect unless expressly stated herein to the contrary. The Trial shall take place using both telephonic and videoconferencing solutions as se t forth herein. This case will be tried to the Court without a jury and entirely by remote means utilizing the TRIAL anywhere Zoom platform ("Zoom"), which will be hosted by independent third-party vendor Trialgraphix. The public will be ab le to observe the trial via an audio-only dial-in number that will be provided on the docket. The Court shall provide the Zoom link to the persons whom the parties identified as Zoom participants according to paragraph 3 below. All counsel and witnes ses to participate via Zoom shall participate in appropriate pre-Trial testing of Zoom as may be directed by the Court. During the course of the trial, witnesses appearing via Zoom shall use the Zoom link provided by the Court only at the time they a re testifying. The parties shall provide the Court with a list of the names of all attorneys and witnesses who will attend the Trial via Zoom by no later than five (5) business days before the pre-Trial testing referenced in Paragraph 2. For witnesses, the party offering the witness shall be responsible for ensuring that the witness is given the appropriate Zoom link and further set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/29/2020) (rro)
|
|
Filing
238
ORDER, The final pretrial conference scheduled for October 29, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. will be held remotely by teleconference in accordance with Rule 2(A) of the Court's Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in Light of COVID-19, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-mfurman. The parties should join the conference by calling the Court's dedicated conference line at (888) 363-4749 and using access code 542-1540, followed by the pound (#) key. (Members of the public and p ress may also attend using the same dial-in information; they will not be allowed to speak during the conference.) As stated in Rule 2(C)(ii) of the Court's Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in Light of COVID-19, no later than 24 hours before the conference, the parties shall email the Court a list of counsel who may speak during the teleconference and the telephone numbers from which counsel expect to join the call. More broadly, counsel should review and comply with the rules and guidance regarding teleconferences set forth in the Court's Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in Light of COVID-19. SO ORDERED. ( Telephone Conference set for 10/29/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Jesse M. Furman.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/27/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
234
ORDER: For reasons the Court explained at today's conference, the Court ORDERS that: 1. The trial, currently scheduled to commence on October 26, 2020, is ADJOURNED to November 3, 2020. 2. By 12:00 p.m. on October 19, 2020, defense counsel sh all file an update letter and either party shall file any objection to the November 3, 2020 trial date. 3. The final pretrial conference, currently scheduled for October 19, 2020, is ADJOURNED to October 29, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. 4. The pretrial technology testing, currently scheduled for October 21, 2020, is adjourned sine die. SO ORDERED. (Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/29/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Jesse M. Furman.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/14/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
230
ORDER re: 201 Pretrial Memorandum filed by Vinod Khurana. In light of the foregoing, and as an exercise of its authority over case management, the Court will not formally bifurcate liability and damages (and, thus, will hear from witnesses wit h testimony relevant to both only once), except that the Court will defer hearing the testimony of Dr. Killingswo1ih (and, relatedly, resolving the pending motion regarding his testimony) until it has made a preliminary determination on the issue of liability. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/9/2020) (kv)
|
|
Filing
228
ORDER ESTABLISHING REMOTE BENCH TRIAL PROCEDURES FOR THE TRIAL OF COUNTS III AND IV: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. This Order shall supplement and not supersede the Court's (a) prior Orders setting trial-related procedures and deadlines, (b ) Individual Rules and Practices, and (c) Emergency Individual Rules and Practices, all of which remain in effect unless expressly stated herein to the contrary. The Trial shall take place using both telephonic and videoconferencing solutions as set forth herein. This case will be tried to the Court without a jury and entirely by remote means utilizing the TRIALanywhere Zoom platform ("Zoom"), which will be hosted by independent third-party vendor Trialgraphix. The public will b e able to observe the trial via an audio-only dial-in number that will be provided on the docket. The Court shall provide the Zoom link to the persons whom the parties identified as Zoom participants according to paragraph 3 below. All counsel and witnesses to participate via Zoom shall participate in appropriate pre-Trial testing of Zoom as may be directed by the Court. During the course of the trial, witnesses appearing via Zoom shall use the Zoom link provided by the Court only at the tim e they are testifying. Although being conducted by use of telephonic and videoconferencing solutions, the Trial constitutes a court proceeding, and any recording other than the official court version is prohibited. No party may record images or sou nds from any location. The formalities of a courtroom must be observed. When called to testify, a witness must situate himself or herself in such a manner as to be able to view the video screen and be seen by the Court. On October 21, 2020, at 2:0 0 p.m., all counsel who will participate in the trial, along with Court personnel, shall participate in appropriate pre-trial technology testing. The parties should be prepared to discuss this testing at the final pretrial conference scheduled for October 19, 2020. This Order shall be subject to a material change in circumstances that might arise, particularly with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic. (And as further set forth herein.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/5/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
222
ORDER denying 211 Motion for Sanctions. First, unless and until the Court orders otherwise, trial in this matter will begin on Monday, October 19, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. Further, the Court will hold a final pretrial conference on October 14, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. Second, the Court will hold a telephone conference on September 23, 2020, at 3 p.m., to discuss trial-related matters, including a schedule and the appropriate video platform. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for sanctions is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 211. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/16/2020) (cf) Modified on 9/16/2020 (cf).
|
|
Filing
198
ORDER granting 197 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 197. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/5/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
194
ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' joint letter, see ECF No. 193, and concludes that it requires more information regarding anticipated witness testimony before it can determine whether and to what extent issues of liabilit y and damages should be bifurcated during the forthcoming bench trial. Accordingly, the Court defers decision until after the parties file the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and submit witnesses' direct testimony, both of which are due on August 7, 2020. See ECF No. 192. In such materials, each party is ORDERED to clearly and prominently identify any witness whose testimony relates solely to damages. For each witness, the parties are further ORDERED to identify in th e Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and related materials whether they seek to take live testimony or introduce videotaped deposition testimony. Finally, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer regarding procedures to be used in any remote trial in this case and to file joint or competing proposals no later than July 24, 2020. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/29/2020) (mro)
|
|
Filing
192
ORDER: As discussed during the telephone conference held on June 11, 2020, the parties consent to a bench trial, which (absent a material change in the public health situation and the attendant courthouse restrictions) will take place remotel y. The following schedule shall govern the further conduct of pretrial proceedings in this case: By August 7, 2020, the parties shall file a Joint Pretrial Order, including any and all information relevant to the trial referenced in the Court 9;s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases (available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Furman) with respect to Joint Pretrial Orders. By August 17, 2020, the parties shall file any reply memorandum of law to any memorandum filed with the Joint Pre-Hearing Order. As further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/12/2020) ( Pretrial Order due by 8/7/2020.) (ks)
|
|
Filing
190
ORDER: The Court will hold a telephone conference on June 11, 2020 at 3:30 p.m. to discuss the matters raised in the parties' joint letter. See ECF No. 189. The parties should join the conference by calling the Court's dedicated conference line at (888) 363-4749 and using access code 542-1540, followed by the pound (#) key. (Members of the public and press may also attend using the same dial-in information; they will not be allowed to speak during theconference.) As stated in Rule 2(C) (ii) of the Court's Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in Light of COVID-19, no later than 24 hours before the conference, the parties shall email the Court a list of counsel who may speak during the teleconference and the telephone number s from which counsel expect to join the call. More broadly, counsel should review and comply with therules and guidance regarding teleconferences set forth in the Court's Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in Light of COVID-19. SO ORDERED., ( Telephone Conference set for 6/11/2020 at 03:30 PM before Judge Jesse M. Furman.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/09/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
185
ORDER. Today, the Court received a query by voicemail regarding the details of any potential bench trial. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise (after consulting with the parties), the Court contemplates a bench trial to occur in court, not remotely. Accordingly, any such trial would not be held until conditions allow for an in-person trial to be conducted safely. If the parties feel that there is a need for a conference to clarify or discuss the proposed bench trial further, they sh ould so advise the Court by letter-motion filed on ECF. The parties are reminded that requests for a conference (or any other substantive communications) should be made by letter on ECF not by voicemail in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/29/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
184
ORDER granting 183 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. The parties shall confer and, no later than May 4, 2020, submit a joint letter indicating whether they would consent to a bench trial ---on the theory that it may be a long time before jury trials can be safely conducted. Upon review of the parties' letter, the Court will issue an order concerning the deadline for the joint pretrial order and related submissions, which --- for now --- is EXTENDED to June 12, 2020. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 183.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/27/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
181
ORDER granting 180 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application GRANTED. The parties shall the proposed joint pretrial order and related materials no later than May 15, 2020. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 180. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/14/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
171
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: In sum, drawing all inferences in Khurana's favor, as required, see, e.g., Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 391 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2004), the Court concludes that Spherion's m otion for summary judgment must be denied. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, the parties shall submit a proposed joint pretrial order and associated materials (in accordance with Section 5 of the Court's Individual Rules and Pract ices in Civil Cases, available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman) within thirty days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and shall be prepared to begin trial as soon as two weeks thereafter. That said, the Court is fi rmly of the view that this case could be settled and that the parties should try to settle it without the need for an expensive and potentially risky trial. To that end, the Court directs the parties to confer immediately about the prospect of se ttlement and conducting a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Wang (or before a mediator appointed by the Court or retained privately). If the parties agree that a settlement conference would be appropriate, they should promptly advise the Court and seek an appropriate extension of the pretrial deadlines. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/26/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
154
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, the Court sua sponte reconsiders and VACATES Paragraph 12 of the Stipulation and Order and MODIFIES it to read as follows. The remainder of the Stipulation and Order remains in full force and effect. No lat er than August 2, 2019, any party that believes any currently sealed documents should remain under seal shall file a letter-motion, not to exceed ten pages, explaining why each such instance of redaction or sealing is consistent with the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents and narrowly tailored to serve whatever interest justifies it. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/19/2019) (ne)
|
|
Filing
128
OPINION & ORDER re: 121 MOTION for Leave to File Second Proposed Third Amended Complaint filed by The State of New York Ex Rel Vinod Khurana, The City of New York Ex Rel Vinod Khurana, Vinod Khurana. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion docketed at ECF No. 121. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 3/20/2019) (mro)
|
|
Filing
96
OPINION & ORDER re: 91 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) filed by The State of New York Ex Rel Vinod Khurana, The City of New York Ex Rel Vinod Khurana, Vinod Khurana. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff' ;s motion for certification of the Court's Orders as final judgments under Rule 54(b) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion docketed at ECF No. 91. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 6/20/2018) (anc)
|
|
Filing
86
OPINION & ORDER re: 72 MOTION for Leave to File Proposed Third Amended Complaint filed by The State of New York Ex Rel Vinod Khurana, The City of New York Ex Rel Vinod Khurana, Vinod Khurana. For the reasons stated above, Pla intiff's motion to amend is DENIED and Plaintiff's qui tam claims are dismissed with prejudice. Spherion shall file its answer to Plaintiff's remaining retaliation claims no later than 14 days from the date of this Opinion. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 4/21/2017) (anc)
|
|
Filing
84
OPINION ORDER re: 47 MOTION for Relator's Share filed by Vinod Khurana. Plaintiff Vinod Khurana ("Khurana") moves the Court to award him a relator's share of the $500 million settlement that the City of New York and the Department of Justice reached with Science Applications International Corp. in connection with a March 2012 deferred prosecution agreement. The City of New York opposes the motion. The Court denies the motion because Khurana 9;s qui tam claims have been dismissed and, thus, Khurana has failed to assert a valid qui tam action, which is a prerequisite to a relator's recovery of an alternate civil remedy under the New York State False Claims Act or an alternate action under the New York City False Claims Act. For the reasons stated above, Khurana's motion for a relator's share is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 3/28/2017) (anc)
|
|
Filing
70
OPINION & ORDER re: 21 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. filed by Spherion Corporation. For the reasons stated above, Spherion's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's qui tam claims and DENIED as to Plaintiff's retaliation claims. Plaintiff's first and second causes of action (his qui tam claims) are dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint, he shall move this Court to do so no later than 30 days from the date of this Opinion. Otherwise, the Court will enter an order dismissing Plaintiff's qui tam claims with prejudice, and Spherion shall file its answer to Plaintiff's remaining claims no later than 14 days from the date of that order. If Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint, Spherion's time to answer will be adjourned pending the Court's decision on Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. (As further set forth in this order) (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 11/10/2016) (lmb)
|
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 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.
