KCG Holdings, Inc. et al v. Khandekar
| KCG Holdings, Inc. and KCG Americas LLC |
| Rohit Khandekar |
| Rohit Khandekar |
| Rohit Khandekar |
| 1:2017cv03533 |
| May 11, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Alison J. Nathan |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Defendant |
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
227
JUDGMENT FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS in favor of KCG Americas LLC, KCG Holdings, Inc. against Rohit Khandekar in the amount of $401,476.80. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's O pinion and Order dated February 17, 2021, the Report & Recommendation is adopted in full and Plaintiffs are awarded $401,476.80 in attorney's fees and costs; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 2/17/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
|
|
Filing
225
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons explained above, Defendants' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. This resolves Dkt. No. 180. So ordered. re: 180 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 175 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Rohit Khandekar. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/11/2021) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
212
ORDER: In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, a United States Magistrate Judge is available to rule on dispositive motions in this case. If the parties consent to the Magistrate Judge ruling on a particul ar motion, no objection to the ruling would be permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (b)(2). Instead, the ruling would be treated as any other ruling in the case and would be reviewable to the extent the ruling would have been reviewable had it been mad e by a District Judge. Exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge to make a ruling on a dispositive motion is permitted only if all parties voluntarily consent. To determine whether the parties wish to voluntarily consent to the Magistrate Judge s disposition of the motion for attorneys' fees and costs etc. (Docket # 201), defense counsel is directed to send to counsel for plaintiff on or before August 19, 2020, a copy of the attached consent form bearing either (1) a signature indicati ng consent to the Magistrate Judge ruling on the motion or motions identified on the form, or (2) a notation that the defendant does not consent. On or before August 26, 2020, plaintiff's counsel is directed to file a letter either (1) stating t hat all parties have signed the form and attaching that form or (2) stating that all parties have not consented. If any party has not consented, the letter shall not inform the clerk which of the parties have not consented but shall merely state that there has not been consent by all parties. This Order is not intended to interfere with the parties' right to have a trial and/or any other dispositive proceedings before a United States District Judge. The parties are free to withhold their co nsent without adverse substantive consequences. If any party withholds consent, the identity of the parties consenting or withholding consent shall not be communicated to any Magistrate Judge or District Judge to whom the case has been assigned. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 8/05/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
199
ORDER: For the reasons set forth at the oral argument held on May 20, 2020, it is hereby ORDERED pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), that the parties to this case may disclose privileged or potentially privileged information contained in the billing re cords of their attorneys to any other party in this case and no waiver shall be deemed to result from such disclosure. See Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) (no waiver in either Federal or State court). A party making such a disclosure shall indicate through a legend on the first page of any document disclosed pursuant to this Order that the disclosure is being made pursuant to this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/20/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
196
ORDER: A telephonic conference in this matter shall take place on May 20, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. At that time, the parties shall dial (888) 557-8511 and use access code: 6642374. (The public may also dial in but will be permitted only to listen.) The Cou rt will record the proceeding for purposes of transcription in the event a transcript is ordered. However, any other recording or dissemination of the proceeding in any form is forbidden. When addressing the Court, counsel must not use a speakerphone . Each attorney or unrepresented party is directed to ensure that all other attorneys or unrepresented parties on the case are aware of the oral argument date and time. In addition, anyrequests for an adjournment must be made in compliance with Judge Gorenstein's rules (available at:http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Gorenstein). SO ORDERED., ( Telephone Conference set for 5/20/2020 at 05:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/18/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
175
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court grants and denies summary judgment in part to each party. KCG is entitled to summary judgment on its breach-of-contract, DTSA, and New York common-law claim. KCG is also entitled to summary judgment on Khandekar' s breach-of-contract and bad-faith counterclaims. Khandekar is entitled to summary judgment on KCG's CFAA claim. This resolves Dkt. Nos. 114 and 129. Khandekar is ORDERED to pay KCG's attorney's fees, costs, and expenses, including i ts investigation costs. Khandekar is further ENJOINED from using or disseminating, in any way, the trade secrets he reviewed without authorization at KCG between November 2016 and May 2017. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/12/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
173
ORDER: Oral argument on defendant's pending motion to enforce will take place on Monday, March 16, 2020, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6-B, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. This is the only matter scheduled for this da te and time. Please be sure to arrive sufficiently in advance so that the argument may begin promptly. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED., ( Oral Argument set for 3/16/2020 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 6B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 3/05/2020) (ama)
|
|
Filing
141
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 129 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Rohit Khandekar, 114 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by KCG Americas LLC, KCG Holdings, Inc., 99 MOTION to Stay, filed by Rohit Khandekar. Gi ven the significant factual overlap in the instant action and the arbitration proceeding, Khandekar's motion for a stay is GRANTED. All conferences and deadlines are adjourned sine die. This resolves Docket Number 99. In light of the stay, the C ourt administratively denies KCG's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 114, and Khandekar's cross motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 129, with leave to refile. This resolves Docket Numbers 114 and 129. The parties are ordered to provid e an update to the Court within 90 days of the date of this Order, or, if the arbitration proceeding reaches resolution before then, within one week after the arbitration proceeding is resolved. If the arbitration proceedings have not been concluded after 90 days of the date of this Order, KCG may move to vacate the stay. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/17/2018) (ras)
|
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.
