Shukla v. Apple Inc. et al

Plaintiff:	Ashu Shukla
Defendant:	Apple Inc. and Deloitte Consulting LLP
Case Number:	1:2021cv03287
Filed:	April 14, 2021
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Presiding Judge:	Stewart D Aaron
Referring Judge:	Jesse M Furman
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Jury Demanded By:	None

Date Filed	Document Text
December 5, 2022	Filing 141 MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to #131 Notice of Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla, #136 Notice of Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla, #105 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla USCA Case Number 22-591 (L), v. 21-3095 (Con), 22-640 (Con).Appellant, pro se, moves for in forma pauperis ("IFP") status and other relief. Appellee Deloitte Consulting LLP moves to dismiss the appeal in 21-3095 (Con) for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is DENIED. See Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655, 663 n.6 (explaining that a premature notice of appeal from nonfinal orders ripens into a valid notice of appeal if a final judgment has been entered, the appeal has not yet been decided, and there is no prejudice to the appellee); cf. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) (providing that a notice of appeal filed before entry of judgment is treated as filed on the date of and after entry). It is further ORDERED that Appellant's IFP motions are DENIED and the appeals are DISMISSED because they are moot and/or "lack[] an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. 1915(e); Video Tutorial Servs., Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 79 F.3d 3, 6 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam) ("When an appeal becomes moot, we must dismiss it, since we have no jurisdiction over moot controversies."). It is further ORDERED that Appellant's motions for other relief are DENIED as moot.. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 09/01/2022..(nd)
April 11, 2022	Filing 139 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #138 Notice (Other) filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED. Attorney Leslie Ann Lajewski terminated. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/11/2022) (vfr)
April 8, 2022	Filing 138 NOTICE of of Withdrawal of Appearance. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Lajewski, Leslie)
March 25, 2022	Filing 137 ORDER denying #134 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Application denied, as stated at ECF No. 135. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 134. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/25/2022) (ate)
March 23, 2022	Filing 136 NOTICE OF APPEAL from #135 Order on Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. Form D-P is due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Certificate of Service). (tp)
March 23, 2022	Filing 135 ORDER denying #132 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Accordingly, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 132 and transmit this order to the Court of Appeals. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/23/2022) (jca) Transmission to Appeals Clerk.
March 23, 2022	Filing 134 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Accompanying Motion for IFP, #2 Exhibit Gmail Receipt, #3 Exhibit Gmail Acknowledgment, #4 Certificate of Service). (tp)
March 23, 2022	First Supplemental ROA Sent to USCA (Electronic File). USCA Case Number 22-591, Certified Supplemental Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for #135 Order on Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals..(nd)
March 23, 2022	Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for #136 Notice of Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp)
March 23, 2022	Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: #136 Notice of Appeal..(tp)
March 22, 2022	Filing 133 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #132 MOTION for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (tp)
March 22, 2022	Filing 132 MOTION for Leave to Appeal In Porma Pauperis. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Accompanying IFP, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G, #9 Exhibit H, #10 Certificate of Service.(tp)
March 21, 2022	Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for #131 Notice of Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp)
March 21, 2022	Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: #131 Notice of Appeal. (tp)
March 20, 2022	Filing 131 NOTICE OF APPEAL from #130 Order. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. Form D-P is due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G). (tp)
March 18, 2022	Filing 130 ORDER: The Court has been informed that Plaintiff has sent the Court two payments which are not of a type accepted by the Court. The Court has previously advised Plaintiff of the only payment types accepted by the Court: certified check or money order made payable to "Clerk of Court, S.D.N.Y." See ECF No. 66. The Clerk of Court is directed to destroy the payments sent by Plaintiff, and to reject all future payments of a type not accepted by the Court. Separately, although this case is now closed, the Court retains jurisdiction to decide whether sanctions or a litigation bar should be imposed. See ECF No. 116. As the Court has previously warned Plaintiff, any future vexatious filings, like those at ECF Nos. 123-26, could result in a litigation bar. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/18/2022) (vfr) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
March 18, 2022	Filing 129 ORDER granting #127 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Deloitte's letter requesting relief from Order. Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 127. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/18/2022) (jca)
March 18, 2022	Filing 128 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Deloitte's letter requesting relief from Order requiring service by mail upon Plaintiff served on Ashu Shukla on March 18, 2022. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Brochin, Heather)
March 18, 2022	Filing 127 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Deloitte's letter requesting relief from Order requiring service by mail upon Plaintiff addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Heather Brochin dated March 18, 2022. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Brochin, Heather)
March 16, 2022	Filing 126 NOTICE OF DEFENDANT'S DEFAULT ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ABEYANCE re: #122 Remark. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit)(sc)
March 16, 2022	Deficient Pro Se Payment of Fee Received: Incorrect Payment Type, Online Bill Payment received by the Finance Department on 3/15/2022, in the amount of $505.00. Payment will be held by the Finance Office pending further order of the Court. (jcf)
March 4, 2022	Filing 125 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 3/4/22 re: "PLAINTIFF'S WHISTLE BLOWER CLAIMS. ON 3/4/22, THE U.S. CLERK OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS COURT HAS IDENTIFIED THAT PLAINTIFF'S PAYMENT WAS A VALID FORM OF PAYMENT". Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit)(sc)
March 3, 2022	Filing 124 DECLARATION of Ashu Shukla IN SUPPORT re: #122 Remark(Motion),. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Certificate of Service)(sc)
March 1, 2022	Filing 123 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO HOLD APPEAL ON DISMISSAL OF CASE IN ABEYANCE PURS. TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LOCAL RULES, re: #122 Remark. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)
March 1, 2022	Filing 122 NOTICE OF MOTION, re: to hold Appeal on Dismissal of Case in Abeyance against Deloitte Consulting LLP and Apple, Inc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Certificate of Service) (sc)
February 22, 2022	Received returned mail re: #91 Memorandum & Opinion, Set Deadlines/Hearings. Mail was addressed to Ashu Shukla, 202 Salem Court, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540 and was returned for the following reason(s): Return To Sender Not Deliverable As Addressed Unable To Forward. (vn)
February 15, 2022	Filing 121 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #120 Notice (Other) filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiff's application to reopen this case is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Court's February 10, 2022 Order. See ECF No. 119. Future motions to reopen will be disregarded. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/15/2022) (ate)
February 12, 2022	Filing 120 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWL OF NOTICE OF CASE ABANDONMENT. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit)(sc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/14/2022: #3 Certiificate of Service) (sc).
February 10, 2022	Filing 119 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: re: #117 MOTION for Reconsideration re; #116 Order of Dismissal filed by Ashu Shukla. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. In short, Plaintiff's change of heart is not a valid basis for reconsideration. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration is DENIED as meritless and the case remains closed. As noted in the Court's February 9, 2022 endorsement, the Court retains jurisdiction to decide whether sanctions or a litigation bar should be imposed. See ECF No. 116. at 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 117. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/10/2022) (ama)
February 10, 2022	Filing 118 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE PURS. TO FED. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LOCAL RULES, re: #117 MOTION for Reconsideration re; #116 Order of Dismissal. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit)(sc)
February 10, 2022	Filing 117 NOTICE OF MOTION, re: to reopen case against Deloitte Consulting LLP and Apple Inc., for reconsideration of re: #116 Order of Dismissal. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(sc)
February 9, 2022	Filing 116 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #114 Letter abandoning this case, filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: This case is hereby dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Nevertheless, the Court retains jurisdiction to decide whether sanctions or a litigation bar should be imposed. See, e.g., Rice v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, No. 19-CV-447 (JMF), 2019 WL 3000808, at *4(S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2019) ("[V]oluntary dismissal 'does not preclude the district court from considering collateral issues such as sanctions.'" (quoting U.S. D.I.D. Corp. v. Windstream Commc'ns, Inc., 775 F.3d 128, 134 (2d Cir. 2014)); see also, e.g., In re Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig., 317 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 2003) (Whenever a district court has federal jurisdiction over a case, it retains ancillary jurisdiction after dismissal to adjudicate collateral matters.). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. All conferences are canceled. All motions are denied as moot. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/9/22) (yv)
February 9, 2022	***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 115 Memo Endorsement. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (ate)
February 7, 2022	Filing 114 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla,. dated 2/7/22 re: "NOTICE OF CASE ABANDONMENT TO THE COURT & JUDGE FURMAN"- Because of Judge Furman's consistent biased orders on this case, as clearly visible on the Court docket, the plaintiff hereby abandons this case etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc)
February 4, 2022	Filing 113 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #110 Letter,,, filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: To the extent that this filing seeks relief, the request is denied as frivolous. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/4/2022) (ks)
February 2, 2022	Filing 112 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 2/1/22 re: REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE RECUSAL FOR JUDGE FURMAN & MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO FILE A RECUSAL. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/3/2022: #1 Exhibit) (sc).
January 31, 2022	Filing 111 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Heather Weine Brochin dated January 31, 2022 re: Opposition to Plaintiff's Letter Motion for leave of court and continuation to file recusal for Judge Furman. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Certification of Service).(Brochin, Heather)
January 18, 2022	Filing 110 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 1/18/22 re: "LETTER MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT & CONTINUATION TO FILE RECUSAL FOR JUDGE FURMAN" - Thus, because of the confusion created by Judge Furman's court, the plaintiff requests that the Court either grant him leave of court and continuance to file his Re-file his Motion for Recusal, or certify orders (doc#93, 98) on the recusal as Final orders. In any case, Magistrate Judge Aaron will be disqualified from the case, and each order held by him on plaintiff's employment lawsuit would be reversed. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Certificate of Service)(sc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/19/2022: #3 Exhibit) (sc).
January 4, 2022	Received returned mail re: #93 Order. Mail was addressed to Ashu Shukla, 202 Salem Court, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540 and was returned for the following reason(s): Unable to Forward. (vn)
January 3, 2022	Filing 109 ORDER: On December 23, 2021, Defendant Deloitte Consulting LLP filed a letter asking the Court to dismiss Plaintiff Ashu Shukla's December 17, 2021 Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 105, on the basis that it is untimely. Accordingly, Defendant's application is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/3/2022) (jca)
December 31, 2021	Filing 108 LETTER from A. Shukla, dated 12/30/21 re: PLAINTIFF'S LETTER IN SUPPORT FOR HIS APPEAL FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE FURMAN. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc)
December 23, 2021	Filing 106 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Heather Weine Brochin dated 12/23/2021 re: requesting leave to file objection to Plaintiff's notice of appeal. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Certification of Service).(Brochin, Heather)
December 22, 2021	Filing 107 NOTICE OF MOTION, re: to Compel Judge Furman to provide clarification on ECF Order, #104. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(sc) Modified on 12/28/2021 (sc). Modified on 12/28/2021 (sc).
December 20, 2021	Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for #105 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp)
December 20, 2021	Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: #105 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (tp)
December 17, 2021	Filing 105 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL from #98 Memo Endorsement, #93 Order. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. Form D-P is due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Exhibit, #9 Exhibit, #10 Exhibit, #11 Certificate of Service). (tp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/20/2021: #12 Exhibit, #13 Exhibit) (tp).
December 17, 2021	Filing 104 ORDER: On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff Ashu Shukla filed a letter responding to Defendant Deloitte's reply memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 102. Plaintiff did not seek, and the Court did not grant, leave to file a sur-reply or otherwise respond to Deloitte's reply. Thus, Plaintiff's submission is procedurally improper and will be disregarded. Defendants' motions to dismiss are now fully submitted. Separately, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by December 10, 2021, why his claims in this case should not be dismissed and a litigation bar imposed. See ECF No. 91, at 8. He did not file a response by that date. Having failed to meet the deadline, he may not do so now. In light of the foregoing, all future filings will be disregarded unless, prior to making the filing, the filing party seeks and obtains leave of the Court to make a filing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/17/2021) (vfr)
December 9, 2021	Filing 103 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #74 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to Apple Inc. . Document filed by Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)
December 8, 2021	Filing 102 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla dated 12/8/21 re: "FRAUD INSTITUTED BY DELOITTE DEFENSE ATTORNEY & FEMALE HUMAN RESOURCE PROFESSIONALS"- This letter is for Court's information purposes and for the Court to act upon if needed. On 12/8/21, Deloitte Defense Attorney Heather Weine Brochin instituted fraud on the court by filing on a court motion that "Deloitte respectfully requests that, in addition to granting Deloitte's motion to dismiss, the Court enter an order barring Shukla from filing any future factual allegations against Joanna Rohde, Deloitte, or other Deloitte employees for which he has no evidentiary support etc." The Court must note that the plaintiff has repeatedly observed that he is not the only victim of fraud instituted by Deloitte, and there exist other witnesses, in addition to direct or circumstantial evidence to support such facts or related facts. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit)(sc) Modified on 12/13/2021 (sc).
December 7, 2021	Filing 101 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #53 MOTION to Dismiss as to Defendant Deloitte. . Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. (Attachments: #1 Certification of Service).(Brochin, Heather)
November 25, 2021	Filing 100 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 11/25/21 re: PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT APPLE INC. & DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP'S FRIVOLOUS RULE 12(b)(6) MOTIONS TO DISMISS. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(sc)
November 22, 2021	Filing 99 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #97 Notice (Other) filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. The Court will not mail future Orders to Plaintiff. Plaintiff should promptly inform the Court if he wishes to receive mail service in the future. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/22/2021) (tg)
November 22, 2021	Filing 98 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #96 Notice (Other) filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: Applications DENIED. See ECF Nos. 83, 95. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/22/2021) (tg)
November 19, 2021	Filing 97 NOTICE TO CLERK ON MAILING DOCUMENTS TO THE PLAINTIFF.- Plaintiff would like to notate the Clerk of the Court not to send any physical mails of the Court orders to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has full Electronic Filing access on Pacer etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc) Modified on 11/22/2021 (sc). Modified on 11/23/2021 (sc).
November 19, 2021	Filing 96 CORRECTED NOTICE TO CLERK ON CHANGE OF DOCKET TEXT FOR FILING #92, re: #94 Notice (Other). Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(sc)
November 19, 2021	Filing 95 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #94 Notice (Other) filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: Applications DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this endorsed document to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/19/21) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
November 19, 2021	Mailed a copy of #95 Memo Endorsement, to Ashu Shukla at 202 Salem Court, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540. (dsh)
November 18, 2021	Filing 94 NOTICE TO CLERK ON CHANGE OF DOCKET TEXT FOR FILING #92/ NOTICE TO CLERK ON FEE PAYMENT FOR APPEAL. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(sc)
November 18, 2021	Filing 93 ORDER. Shukla's memorandum is stricken, and the Court will disregard it. (To be clear, the Clerk's Office need not strike the memorandum from the docket as it should remain part of the record in the case. But the Court will not consider the memorandum.) Additionally, it has come to the Court's attention that Shukla filed the memorandum and another document pertaining to this case on the docket for Case No. 19-CV-10578, Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP. See 19-CV-1078, ECF Nos. 339, 340. It is not clear to the Court whether these filings were by accident, or an attempt by Shukla to circumvent the Court's revocation of his electronic filing privileges in this case, see ECF No. 91 at 6-7. In any event, and to be clear, Shukla may not file documents relating to this case on the 19-CV-10578 docket. The Court will not consider documents in this case filed on any docket other than this docket, and continuing to file documents pertaining to this case on other dockets may result in sanctions. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Shukla. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/18/21) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
November 18, 2021	Mailed a copy of #93 Order, to Ashu Shukla at 202 Salem Court, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540. (dsh)
November 12, 2021	Filing 92 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE FURMAN PURS. TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LOCAL RULES, re: #69 MOTION for Recusal The plaintiff has received umpteen biased orders from Judge Furman on this case. Specifically, the plaintiff never filed a motion / response for reconsideration for the Court Order# 57, and the plaintiff identified on doc &. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Exhibit, #9 Exhibit, #10 Exhibit, #11 Exhibit, #12 Exhibit, #13 Exhibit, #14 Exhibit, #15 Exhibit, #16 Certificate of Service)(sc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/18/2021: #17 Exhibit Exhibit P) (nb).
November 12, 2021	Filing 91 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: re: #69 MOTION for Recusal The plaintiff has received umpteen biased orders from Judge Furman on this case. Specifically, the plaintiff never filed a motion / response for reconsideration for the Court Order # 57, and the plaintiff identified on doc& filed by Ashu Shukla, #79 LETTER MOTION to Compel District Judge Jesse Furman to Compel Judge Furman to provide clarification on order# 78. The plaintiff never asked for Judge Furmans (who is facing recusal on this case) opinion whether plaintiff the should make or as filed by Ashu Shukla, #70 LETTER MOTION to Continue MOTION for Recusal (doc# 69) The plaintiff has received umpteen biased orders from Judge Furman on this case. Specifically, the plaintiff never filed a motion / response for reconsideration for the Court Order# filed by Ashu Shukla. On October 4, 2021, Shukla filed a motion to recuse the undersigned. See ECF Nos. 69, 70. For the reasons that follow, Shukla's motion is DENIED as frivolous. Moreover, in light of Shukla's repeated violations of this Court's rules and orders, Shukla's electronic filing privileges are hereby REVOKED and he is ORDERED to show cause as to why his claims should not be dismissed and a litigation bar as to the claims imposed. To the extent Shukla continues to seek recusal of the presiding judge, that motion is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, no later than December 10, 2021, Shukla shall show cause, in a memorandum not to exceed twenty-five pages, why his claims should not be dismissed and a litigation bar imposed. Defendants may (but are not required to) respond by memorandum of law to be filed by December 23, 2021. (No reply may be filed without prior leave of Court.) All other dates and deadlines, including Shukla's November 25, 2021 deadline to file an amended complaint or his opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss, see ECF No. 57, remain in effect. The Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 69, 70, and 79 and, after docketing this Memorandum Opinion and Order (to ensure that Shukla receives it), to revoke Shukla's privileges to use the ECF System. Future orders of the Court will be mailed to Shukla at the mailing address on record, as is typical in pro se cases. Defendants shall serve Shukla with any future filings by mail as well and promptly filed proof of such service on the docket. SO ORDERED., ( Amended Pleadings due by 11/25/2021., Show Cause Response due by 12/10/2021.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/12/2021) (ama)
November 12, 2021	Filing 90 MEMO ENDORSEMENT: on re: #89 Notice (Other) filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. ENDORSEMENT: Application Granted. SO ORDERED., Attorney Gregory Scott Tabakman terminated. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/12/2021) (ama)
November 12, 2021	Mailed a copy of #91 Memorandum & Opinion, Set Deadlines/Hearings, to Ashu Shukla at 202 Salem Court, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540. (dsh)
November 12, 2021	Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: #91 Memorandum & Opinion,,,,,,,,,,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,,,, to the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing..(ama)
November 10, 2021	Filing 89 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Tabakman, Gregory)
November 8, 2021	Filing 88 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 11-08-2021 re: Plaintiffs Motion for Leave of Court to Request for Filing Plaintiffs Amended Complaint after defendant Deloitte Consulting LLP responds to pending discovery is again delayed due to Deloitte HR Joanna Rohdes constant biomedical manipulation and harassment of the plaintiff. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A).(Shukla, Ashu)
November 4, 2021	Filing 87 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 11/04/2021 re: There is clear and convincing pattern of abuse of discretion and abuse of due process or procedural violation on multiple cases filed by the plaintiff as identifed on this letter and on doc# 83. November 4th and 5th are religious holidays for the plaintiff, and his posting for the defective motion documents filed on doc# 85 will be reposted on the next business day. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)
November 2, 2021	Filing 86 MEMO ENDORSED ORDER denying #85 Motion for Leave to File Document. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiff references a memorandum of law and an affirmation or declaration "submitted herewith," but submitted no such things with his motion. Regardless, the motion is DENIED. The Court has already granted Plaintiff until November 25, 2021, to file an amended complaint in response to Defendants' motions to dismiss. See ECF No. 57. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks discovery pending his response to either of the motions to dismiss, the request is without merit, as the mere act of filing of a complaint does "not unlock the doors of discovery." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 85. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/2/21) (yv) Modified on 11/3/2021 (yv).
November 1, 2021	Filing 85 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed on October 30th 2021. The court must grant plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint after Deloitte responds to pending discovery items. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)
November 1, 2021	Filing 84 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Leslie Ann Lajewski on behalf of Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Lajewski, Leslie)
October 29, 2021	Filing 83 ORDER denying #81 Motion re: #81 MOTION for leave of court to request for relief from filing Fee on plaintiff's Writ on Mandamus re: #66 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,, . Plaintiff Ashu Shukla filed a motion asking the Court to waive his appeal fee. See ECF Nos. 81-82. Plaintiff has not filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as is necessary to seek waiver of an appeal fee. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is hereby DENIED. As a courtesy, the Court hereby EXTENDS Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis until November 12, 2021. By that date, Plaintiff must either file a motion proceed in forma pauperis on appeal or pay the appeal fee. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 81. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/29/2021) (rro)
October 29, 2021	Filing 82 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #81 MOTION for leave of court to request for relief from filing Fee on plaintiff's Writ on Mandamus re: #66 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,, . . Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Certificate of Service).(Shukla, Ashu)
October 29, 2021	Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 11/12/2021. (rro)
October 28, 2021	Filing 81 MOTION for leave of court to request for relief from filing Fee on plaintiff's Writ on Mandamus re: #66 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,, . Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)
October 25, 2021	Filing 80 ORDER: Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint and Summons, and those portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief seeking modification of the filing date and extension of the service deadline, are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. If either Defendant later seeks to assert any defense implicating these issues, Plaintiff may renew his applications. Those portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief asking the Court to "recognize the well pleaded facts on the complaint" and "recognize that certain sections of [P]laintiff's complaint have not been reviewed by any court previously" are unsupported by any relevant law-or discernable argumentand have no procedural basis of which the Court is aware. They are DENIED accordingly. Thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint and Summons is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT, and Plaintiffs Motion for Miscellaneous Relief is DENIED in part and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT in part. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 10/25/2021) (js)
October 22, 2021	Filing 79 LETTER MOTION to Compel District Judge Jesse Furman to Compel Judge Furman to provide clarification on order# 78. The plaintiff never asked for Judge Furmans (who is facing recusal on this case) opinion whether plaintiff the should make or asset allegations and arguments on the collaboration of Deloitte Consulting LLP (or their DOJ agent) with Judge or Court Staff. The plaintiff requests for clarification from the Judge, as to the legal basis for his order and opinion, which denied the plaintiffs from making his legal arguments against the collaboration between a private corporation and a government body. It is upto the general public to decide such matters on Trial, and a Judge facing his recusal, cannot deny the plaintiff his right to make factual arguments or inferences that support his arguments (see Supreme Court Judgement on Adickes, 398 US at 158 which states it would be open to a Jury to infer..). Whether Judge Furman has fulfilled his obligations as a district court Judge is a question of fact to be decided by a Jury (Commerzbank vs. US Bank National Association, cv-04569, SDNY 2020). Given the threats made by Judge Furman, a jury could reasonably find that the remark made by Judge Furman is probative of his general attitude towards the plaintiff or his demographic group, which may affect his decision on plaintiff's case, particularly since the alleged remarks on the Judgement (doc# 78) arose in a discussion of Plaintiff's discrimination claims and Judge Furman's Recusal. addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 10/22/2021. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)
October 22, 2021	Filing 78 ORDER granting #77 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File ; denying #77 Letter Motion to Continue. Application GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is granted an extension until November 4, 2021, to file a memorandum in support of his motion to recuse. All other requests, including the request to file an oversize memorandum, are denied; accordingly, the memorandum may not be more than 25 pages in length. Plaintiff is cautioned in no uncertain terms that his memorandum of law (indeed, all of his submissions) may not contain baseless allegations or arguments and that he should refrain from casting unfounded and contemptuous aspersions on the judges or the staff of this Court. Continuing failure to abide by those standards may result in dismissal of Plaintiff's lawsuit, if not entry of an order limiting his right to file future lawsuits in this Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 77. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/22/2021) (kv)
October 21, 2021	Filing 77 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File his Memorandum of Law in Support of Judge Furmans Recusal. The court must refrain from its pattern of baseless denials prior to the defendant filing a response to plaintiffs motions. If the plaintiff presents "reasonable basis both in law and fact" adopted by the vast majority of US Courts of Appeals, the filing is not frivolous. See United States v. Yoffe, 775 F. 2d 447, 449-450 (CA1 1985); Ramos v. Haig, 716 F. 2d 471, 473 (CA7 1983); Foster v. Tourtellotte, 704 F. 2d 1109, 1112 (CA9 1983) (per curiam). The courts have previously stated that when a court deliberately marks such valid filings as frivolous, the court has abused its discretion on multiple fronts addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 10/21/2021., AMENDED LETTER MOTION to Continue (originally filed as doc# 71). Currently, Deloitte and Joanna Rohde are hoping to develop immunity from potential lawsuits (a) within a three-year period of plaintiffs discrimination allegations based on race (see case#1:19-cv-10578-AJN, doc# 48 order); (b) within a three-year period of plaintiffs termination in November 2018; (c) within a one-year period of SDNY Courts Approval of Plaintiffs Retaliation and discrimination claims (see case#1:19-cv-10578-AJN, doc# 143 order); (d) within a one-year period of Deloitte and Joanna Rohdes direct involvement in creating a fraudulent medical record for the plaintiff at University of Pennsylvania Family clinic and Capital Health Regional Medical Systems (see case# 2:20-cv-05634-WB, doc# 14). Since Fraud has been committed by Deloitte umpteen number of times, such fraud is sufficient to toll the statute of limitations (on the allegations or claims) on the above identified themes addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 10/21/2021. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)
October 14, 2021	***NOTICE TO COURT REGARDING PROPOSED ORDER. Document No. #76 Proposed Order was reviewed and approved as to form. (dt)
October 13, 2021	Filing 76 PROPOSED ORDER. Document filed by Apple Inc.. Related Document Number: #74 ..(Robinson, Blair) Proposed Order to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.
October 13, 2021	Filing 75 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #74 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to Apple Inc. . Document filed by Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)
October 13, 2021	Filing 74 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to Apple Inc. Document filed by Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)
October 12, 2021	Filing 73 NOTICE of Clerk of Court for ECF Filing Error on doc# 71. Based on the sequence and timing of events on plaintiff's court cases, the plaintiff's notice contains (a) clear and convincing examples of abuse of discretion by District Judges, (b) double standards by Deloitte, (c) pattern of fradulent cases recently filed against Deloitte to self provide defense from (i) Pregnant Supervisor (see case# 1:21-cv-02644-AJN at the SDNY), (ii) Judge Aarons incorrect denial of plaintiffs hostile work environment claims (see case# 2:21-cv-02828-JHS), (iii) denied unemployment benefits to the plaintiff (case# 5:21-cv-00179-AKW-MJF), (iv) plaintiffs recruitment fraud at Google aided and abetted by Deloitte (case# 5:21-cv-00179-AKW-MJF), and (v) intellectual property or trademark infringement to provide defense on Dr. Niti Aggarwals book on Cardiology (case# 1:21-cv-02967-AT at SDNY). These cases appear to provide Deloitte direct immunity against their own recruitment fraud instituted by their transition services, and contain one more reason for suppression of facts related to Mr. Sriram Ramamurthys coordination with Deloitte Leaders and the accused on plaintiffs ethics complaint. Deloitte Financial Services team and their self acclaimed DOJ agent Joanna Rohde discriminated and retaliated against the plaintiff including providing the plaintiff with a false letter of reprimand, and such merits can never be denied. re: #71 Letter,,. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A).(Shukla, Ashu)
October 8, 2021	Filing 72 REPLY to Response to Motion re: #7 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons together., #10 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons to 4/8/21; and requesting the Court to recognize the well-pleaded facts on the complaint - specially related to gender discrimination allegations etc.. Given the fact that Deloitte tampered evidence such as inserting comments by HR like the plaintiff held client meetings without Christina Young present in office, when in fact no such meetings took place as the client project scheduled to start in UK did not even start, Deloitte is very well aware of its malicious employment practices and is making every effort to both tamper evidence and witnesses on the case. Upon knowledge and belief, Deloitte is reluctant in having the plaintiff correct its filing dates because the firm has indulged in providing material benefits to witnesses, such as promotion, which amount to Tampering of Witness. Given Deloittes own malicious employment practices, Deloitte understands it is easier to provide material benefits to witnesses than to defend potential retaliation lawsuits by such witnesses based on clear and convincing facts. Such witness have long expired their statue of limitations, and Deloitte is unnecessarily delaying plaintiff's valid lawsuit in an effort to maintain an illegal control of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's filing delayed due to internet outage. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Supplement Internet Outage Screenshot, #6 Supplement Certificate of Service).(Shukla, Ashu)
October 5, 2021	Filing 71 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 10-05-2021 re: The Plaintiff would be filing detailed Memorandum of Law in Support of Judge Furmans Recusal on 10-05-2021. The court must refrain from its pattern of baseless denials prior to the defendant filing a response to plaintiffs motions. If the plaintiff presents "reasonable basis both in law and fact" adopted by the vast majority of US Courts of Appeals, the filing is not frivolous. See United States v. Yoffe, 775 F. 2d 447, 449-450 (CA1 1985); Ramos v. Haig, 716 F. 2d 471, 473 (CA7 1983); Foster v. Tourtellotte, 704 F. 2d 1109, 1112 (CA9 1983) (per curiam); This letter is for infromation purposes only.. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu) Modified on 10/12/2021 (ldi).
October 4, 2021	Filing 70 LETTER MOTION to Continue MOTION for Recusal (doc# 69) The plaintiff has received umpteen biased orders from Judge Furman on this case. Specifically, the plaintiff never filed a motion / response for reconsideration for the Court Order# 57, and the plaintiff identified on doc# 59 that his Motion for reconsideration would follow as filed on doc# 67. Baseless threats by a biased Judge would not be entertained by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff reserves the right to challenge each such threat and each incorrect denial. The plaintiff received a filing error while filing motion# 69, and previously, as a continuing pattern, each such filing error has been followed by a denial of plaintiff's valid motion. The plaintiff has been receiving notices signed by the Judge, but has no way to verify whether such decisions were actually taken by the Judge or by a motivated female clerk on behalf of the Judge or by the Deloitte DOJ agent and scam artist Joanna Rohde (posted on the name of the Judge) addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 10/04/2021. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Filing Error Received on Doc# 69. It appears that Deloitte DOJ agent has been sabotaging plaintiff's internet such that plaintiff's valid filings do not reach the Judge).(Shukla, Ashu)
October 4, 2021	Filing 69 MOTION for Recusal The plaintiff has received umpteen biased orders from Judge Furman on this case. Specifically, the plaintiff never filed a motion / response for reconsideration for the Court Order# 57, and the plaintiff identified on doc# 59 that his Motion for reconsideration would follow as filed on doc# 67. Baseless threats by a biased Judge would not be entertained by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff reserves the right to challenge each such threat and each incorrect denial. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)
October 4, 2021	Filing 68 ORDER denying #67 Motion for Reconsideration re #67 MOTION for Reconsideration re; #60 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, #57 Order, Set Deadlines, Deloitte is incorrectly using the name of key witnesses on this case like Niti Aggarwal to provide false information as filed by Ashu Shukla. Shukla's latest motion to reconsider is DENIED as frivolous. For avoidance of doubt: Shukla may not file any further motions for reconsideration of the Court's scheduling order at ECF No. 57. More broadly, the Court cautions Shukla, as it has in the past, see ECF No. 37, that further vexatious behavior may result not only in dismissal of this suit, but also in the imposition of a "litigation bar" that prohibits the filing of new lawsuits without prior leave of the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 67. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/4/21) (yv)
October 2, 2021	Filing 67 MOTION for Reconsideration re; #60 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,, #57 Order,,,,,,, Set Deadlines,,,,,, Deloitte is incorrectly using the name of key witnesses on this case like Niti Aggarwal to provide false information as identified on [Exhitit H]. There is no reason for the court to help Deloitte and their malicious HR professions who have actively tried to recruit the plaintiff into their money laundering scheme. There is no reason for the court not to consider plaintiff's filings, doc# 47 and 50, which provide credible evidence of Deloitte' malicious activities and a reasonable inference why Apple should not be given additional time to respond. The motion contains credible evidence that Deloitte Consulting LLP has lost all credibility on the case. Previously, SDNY court has approved eight discrimination claims on plaintiff's complaint against Deloitte, and this motion contains reasoning or rationale based on case law why the other identified discrimination claims against Deloitte are valid. Defendant Deloitte Consulting has indulged in systemic tampering of witnesses which greatly prejudice the plaintiff. The plaintiff received a filing error while filing this motion on October 1st 2021 (Ex. 22, 23, 24) and has correcte and filed his motion a few minutes after. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M, #14 Exhibit N, #15 Exhibit O, #16 Exhibit P, #17 Exhibit Q, #18 Exhibit R, #19 Exhibit S, #20 Exhibit T, #21 Exhibit U, #22 Exhibit Filing Error on Oct 1 2021 1, #23 Exhibit Filing Error on Oct 1 2021 2, #24 Exhibit Filing Error on Oct 1 2021 3).(Shukla, Ashu)
September 30, 2021	Filing 66 ORDER terminating #61 Motion for miscellaneous relief on plaintiff's fee payment. re: #61 MOTION Motion for miscellaneous relief on plaintiff's fee payment. Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that his discrimination claims against Deloitte Consulting LLP were properly filed on this case, and that Delotte consulting is barred from usi. The Clerk of Court is directed to return the payment received from Plaintiff. Plaintiff is directed to pay the fee in one of the methods accepted by the Court. The filing fee for a notice of appeal is $505 payable in cash, by certified check, or money order, made payable to "Clerk of Court, S.D.N.Y." No personal checks are accepted. Plaintiff's deadline to pay the appeal fee is hereby EXTENDED, nunc pro tunc, to October 28, 2021. Failure to pay the fee in a proper manner by that date will result in the notice of appeal being stricken. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 61. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/30/21) (yv) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
September 29, 2021	Filing 65 LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron from Blair Robinson dated September 29, 2021 re: #7 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons together., #10 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons to 4/8/21; and requesting the Court to recognize the well-pleaded facts on the complaint - specially related to gender discrimination allegations etc.. . Document filed by Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)
September 29, 2021	Filing 64 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: #7 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons together., #10 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons to 4/8/21; and requesting the Court to recognize the well-pleaded facts on the complaint - specially related to gender discrimination allegations etc.. . Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Brochin, Heather)
September 25, 2021	Filing 63 DECLARATION of Ashu Shukla in Support re: #61 MOTION Motion for miscellaneous relief on plaintiff's fee payment. Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that his discrimination claims against Deloitte Consulting LLP were properly filed on this case, and that Delotte consulting is barred from usi. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B).(Shukla, Ashu)
September 25, 2021	Filing 62 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #61 MOTION Motion for miscellaneous relief on plaintiff's fee payment. Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that his discrimination claims against Deloitte Consulting LLP were properly filed on this case, and that Delotte consulting is barred from usi Each and every discrimination and retaliation claim that the plaintiff has filed against Deloitte, be it discrimination based on disability, race, national origin or gender is valid as approved and provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff's case is a Classic Whistleblower Case which warrants special protections. Clear Effort to deny plaintiffs valid cases without proper reasons to support the business interest of Deloitte. Deloitte intends to force its former employees to give false testimony against the plaintiff - such motivation clearly amounts to tampering of witnesses. Since Breach of duty has been established by the plaintiff on his complaint, the burden of proof has long shifted to both Deloitte Consulting LLP and Apple Inc to prove that their negligent actions were not the but-for cause of harm to the plaintiff. The Clerk of Court has not presented a photograph of plaintiff's bank check through Chase bank. The court may grant the plaintiff an extension to file the filing fees. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Supplement Certificate of Service).(Shukla, Ashu)
September 25, 2021	Filing 61 MOTION Motion for miscellaneous relief on plaintiff's fee payment. Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that his discrimination claims against Deloitte Consulting LLP were properly filed on this case, and that Delotte consulting is barred from using defense like res judicata or collateral estoppel on plaintiff's cases per US Supreme Court Mandate re: Deficient Fee Payment - Received, docket entry by court clerk. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)
September 24, 2021	Deficient Pro Se Payment of Fee Received: Incorrect Payment Type - Online Bill Payment received by the Finance Department on 09/21/2021, in the amount of $505.00. Payment will be held by the Finance Office pending further order of the Court. (bwi)
September 17, 2021	Filing 60 MEMO ENDORSED ORDER terminating #59 Motion for Take Judicial notice that Plaintiffs complete opposition to Order# 57 on this Classis Whistle-Blower case will be filed on September 20 th 2021. The Court must enter default Judgement against Deloitte Consulting LLP for (a) filing an inco re: #59 MOTION Take Judicial notice that Plaintiffs complete opposition to Order# 57 on this Classis Whistle-Blower case will be filed on September 20 th 2021. The Court must enter default Judgement against Deloitte Consulting LLP for (a) filing an inco. ENDORSEMENT: The Court doesn't really understand what Plaintiff is seeking or intends to seek. To the extent that he objects to the Scheduling Order entered at ECF No. 57, the objection is frivolous. The Court has broad discretion to manage the cases on its docket. Exercising that discretion, the Court ordered that Plaintiff should not respond to Deloitte's motion until Apple answers or otherwise responds to the complaint by the October 13, 2021 deadline, see ECF No. 46, to minimize confusion and maximize efficiency. Plaintiff will have a full and fair opportunity to respond to Deloitte's motion - but he may not do so before Apple responds to the Complaint. If he does, his submission will be stricken - without prejudice to refiling it once Apple has filed its response. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that anyappeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 59. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/17/21) (yv)
September 16, 2021	Filing 59 MOTION Take Judicial notice that Plaintiffs complete opposition to Order# 57 on this Classis Whistle-Blower case will be filed on September 20 th 2021. The Court must enter default Judgement against Deloitte Consulting LLP for (a) filing an incomplete and inconsistent motion to dismiss, and for (b) misleading the Court and the Judicial System on plaintiffs claims. Deloitte has overlooked the guidance provided by the US courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Deloitte has failed to identify the 200+ discrimination and retaliation allegations and corresponding claims on this updated operative complaint and by doing so have foreclosed their opportunity to dismiss such claims. re: #57 Order,,,,,,, Set Deadlines,,,,,, on plaintiff's amended complaint. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)
September 15, 2021	Filing 58 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)
September 15, 2021	Filing 57 ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint by November 25, 2021. For avoidance of doubt: Plaintiff should not file an amended complaint until Apple Inc. either answers or files its own motion to dismiss. If Plaintiff believes that the pleading of additional facts will cure deficiencies identified in Deloitte Consulting LLP's motion to dismiss or in Apple Inc.'s motion in the event that Apple Inc. files such a motion, the Plaintiff should include those facts in the amended complaint. Plaintiff will not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion(s) to dismiss. If Plaintiff does amend, by three (3) weeks after the amended complaint is filed, Defendants shall: (1) file an answer; (2) file a new motion to dismiss; or (3) file a letter on ECF stating that it relies on the previously filed motion to dismiss. If Defendants file an answer or a new motion to dismiss, the Court will deny the previously filed motion to dismiss as moot. If no amended complaint is filed, Plaintiff shall serve any opposition to the motion(s) to dismiss by November 25, 2021. In the event that Apple Inc. also files a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff shall file a single, consolidated opposition to both motions. Defendants' replies, if any, shall be served by December 9, 2021. Any party may request an extension of the briefing schedule for the motion. A deadline will be extended if the party demonstrates that its pursuit of the action has been diligent and that there is a good reason for extending the deadline. SO ORDERED. ( Amended Pleadings due by 11/25/2021.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/15/2021) (vfr)
September 15, 2021	Filing 56 ORDER: Pending before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) a "Motion to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiffs Complaint and Summons," dated April 28, 2021 (ECF No. 7); and (2) a "Motion for Miscellaneous Relief," dated May 7, 2021 (ECF No. 10), also appearing to seek modification of the filing date of Plaintiff's Complaint and Summons (see Pl.'s 5/7/21 Mem. of L., ECF No. 11). Defendants shall file any response to these motions no later than Wednesday, September 29, 2021. Plaintiff shall file any reply in further support of these motions no later than Wednesday, October 6, 2021. SO ORDERED. ( Responses due by 9/29/2021, Replies due by 10/6/2021.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 9/15/2021) (vfr)
September 15, 2021	***NOTICE TO COURT REGARDING PROPOSED ORDER. Document No. #55 Proposed Order was reviewed and approved as to form. (dt)
September 14, 2021	Filing 55 PROPOSED ORDER. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. Related Document Number: #53 ..(Brochin, Heather) Proposed Order to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.
September 14, 2021	Filing 54 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #53 MOTION to Dismiss as to Defendant Deloitte. . Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Brochin, Heather)
September 14, 2021	Filing 53 MOTION to Dismiss as to Defendant Deloitte. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. Responses due by 10/14/2021.(Brochin, Heather)
September 14, 2021	Filing 52 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Corporate Parent Deloitte LLP for Deloitte Consulting LLP. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Brochin, Heather)
September 14, 2021	Filing 51 NOTICE of Notice to Clerk of Court for Payment of Appeal fee of $505 via bank check on 09-14-2021 re: Appeal Fee Due. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B).(Shukla, Ashu)
September 13, 2021	Filing 50 LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron from Ashu Shukla dated 09/13/2021 re: #45 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: #39 Notice (Other), #1 Complaint addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron from Blair Robinson dated September 9, 2021. By denying plaintiffs valid allegations on their ANSWER to plaintiffs complaint case# 1:19-cv-10578-AJN, doc# 240), Deloitte Consulting LLP has LOST ALL CREDIBILITY on this lawsuit and all related lawsuits. Now, on the name of saving the firm from potential lawsuits (which technically do not exist because Deloitte Leaders, Supervisors and Human Resource professionals aided and abetted themselves) Deloitte is using their government affiliations to fraudulently deny plaintiffs valid Motions / Lawsuits such that the plaintiff is forced to file a response and waste courts valuable resources. This is a CLASSIC TALE of a HR professional who intends to abuse her position and authority to SIPHON MONEY from a corporation. Apples request for 51- day extension is not a court scheduling issue, but a frivolous appeal specifically targeted to help Deloitte Consulting LLP conceal their fraud on court and use improper doctrines like Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F).(Shukla, Ashu)
September 13, 2021	Filing 49 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Gregory Scott Tabakman on behalf of Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Tabakman, Gregory)
September 13, 2021	Filing 48 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Heather Weine Brochin on behalf of Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Brochin, Heather)
September 10, 2021	Filing 47 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron from ASHU SHUKLA dated 09/10/2021 re: Apple has demonstrated bad faith by not posting plaintiffs letter to the defendant. The plaintiff has clearly stated that plaintiff would contest Apples Motion, and Apple has not included this information in their letter to court. September 10 th 2021 is a religious holiday and the plaintiff would be filing his response the next business day. Previously, defemdant Deloitte Consulting LLP has lost all credibility by denying plaintiffs allegations on their answer to plaintiff's employment complaint (Case# 1-19-cv-10578-AJN), the plaintiff has clear and convincing evidence on multiple such issues as identified on (doc# 329) on the identified case. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)
September 10, 2021	Filing 46 ORDER granting #45 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #45 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: #39 Notice (Other), #1 Complaint addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron from Blair Robinson dated September 9, 2021.Request GRANTED. The Court finds Apple's extension request reasonable, as Apple has provided a sufficient rationale, there is no evidence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff, and this is Apple's first such application. See, e.g., Remer v. Sebelius, No. 13-CV-07110 {PAC) {JLC), 2014 WL 1202989, at *1 {S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2014). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 9/10/2021) (js)
September 10, 2021	Set/Reset Deadlines: Apple Inc. answer due 10/13/2021. (kl)
September 9, 2021	Filing 45 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: #39 Notice (Other), #1 Complaint addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron from Blair Robinson dated September 9, 2021. Document filed by Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)
September 9, 2021	Filing 44 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Kaitlin Mary Thompson on behalf of Apple Inc...(Thompson, Kaitlin)
September 9, 2021	Filing 43 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Blair Joseph Robinson on behalf of Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)
September 1, 2021	Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: #41 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (tp)
September 1, 2021	Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for #41 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp)
August 31, 2021	Appeal Fee Due: for #41 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. Appeal fee due by 9/14/2021. (tp)
August 31, 2021	Filing 42 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 08/31/2021 re: Plaintiffs Writ of Mandamus on Plaintiffs Motion for disqualification of Judge Aaron before the Court of Appeals. Any rational observer, just like the plaintiff, under similar circumstances would be filing identical motions as filed by the plaintiff on this case. Court order dated August 25 th 2021 is conclusionary and does not interpret or analyze the basic facts, case law citations or precedence by the higher courts of the United States. Since each and every motion filed by the plaintiff is within plaintiffs right, and has been clearly filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, there is no sustained or willful intransigence by the plaintiff.. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A).(Shukla, Ashu)
August 31, 2021	Filing 41 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL from #37 Order,,,, #31 Memo Endorsement,, #33 Order,,,. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H).(Shukla, Ashu)
August 27, 2021	Filing 40 ORDER granting #6 Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing: Pending before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) a "Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing," dated April 21, 2021 (ECF No. 6); (2) a "Motion to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint and Summons," dated April 28, 2021 (ECF No. 7); and (3) a "Motion for Miscellaneous Relief," dated May 7, 2021 (ECF No. 10), also appearing to seek modification of the filing date of Plaintiff's Complaint and Summons (see Pl.'s 5/7/21 Mem. of L., ECF No. 11). The Court notes that Plaintiff already appears to be participating in electronic case filing. (See, e.g., Pl.'s 8/20/21 Ltr., ECF No. 35, at 1-2 (Because [P]laintiff has electronic access to court documents, the [C]ourt must refrain from sending paper mail to [P]laintiff.").) Nevertheless, Plaintiff's Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing is GRANTED. With regard to Plaintiff's two other pending motions, the Court intends to set a schedule for Defendants' responses once Defendants have appeared. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 8/27/2021) (Aaron, Stewart)
August 26, 2021	Filing 39 NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF COURT ON PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE TO DEFENDANT APPLE INC. re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Certificate of Service)(sc)
August 25, 2021	Filing 38 NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF COURT ON PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE TO DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Certificate of Service)(sc)
August 25, 2021	Filing 37 ORDER. Shukla's motion to reconsider is once again DENIED as frivolous. For avoidance of doubt: Shukla may not file any further motions for reconsideration of the Court's denial of the motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Aaron. More broadly, the Court cautions Shukla just as Judge Nathan did in her recent opinion, see id. at 9 that further vexatious behavior may result not only in dismissal of this suit, but also in the imposition of a "litigation bar" that prohibits the filing of new lawsuits without prior leave of the Court. See, e.g., Gertskis v. New York Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 13-CV-2024 JMF, 2014 WL 2933149, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2014). The Clerk of Court need not mail this Order to Shukla as he has confirmed that he hass received electronic notice of filings and that "the court must refrain from sending paper mail to the plaintiff." ECF No. 35, at 1-2. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/25/21) (yv)
August 25, 2021	Filing 36 NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF COURT ON PLAINTIFF'S SERVICE OF COMPLAINT & SUMMONS TO DEFENDANT DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP & APPLE INC. re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Certificate of Service)(sc)
August 20, 2021	Filing 35 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 8/20/21 re: NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF COURT ON PLAINTIFF'S RETURNED MAIL. THE PLAINTIFF IS TRAVELLING INTERNATIONALLY AND IS IN RECEIPT OF ALL ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS. IF NEEDED, THE RETURNED MAIL CAN BE FORWARDED TO DR. NITI AGGARWAL, KEY WITNESS ON THE CASE. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc) Modified on 8/23/2021 (sc).
August 20, 2021	Received returned mail re: #21 FRCP 4 Service Package - Mailed. Mail was addressed to Ashu Shukla at 202 Salem Court, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540 and was returned for the following reason(s): Return to Sender, Unable to Forward. (ok)
August 14, 2021	Filing 34 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla dated 8/13/21 re: "LETTER MOTION TO REOPEN & RECONSIDER JUDGE FURMAN'S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AS FRIVOLOUS" - Magistrate Judge Aaron's atitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, thus Magistrate Judge Aaron must be disqualified. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162(1994). Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit)(sc)
July 29, 2021	Filing 33 ORDER: Shukla's motion to reconsider is once again DENIED as frivolous. To be clear, however, the Court does not and has not intimated any views one way or the other about the merits or lack thereof of the claims in this case. The Courts prior rulings and description of Shukla's filings as "frivolous" concerned only his motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Aaron and subsequent motion for reconsideration. (It is thus irrelevant for present purposes that "District Judge Nathan Alison [sic] has already approved eight (8) similar claims"related to discrimination" as Shukla argues. ECF No. 32, at 3.) Shukla is once again warned however, that if he continues to file frivolous submissions and abuse the litigation process for example, by seeking reconsideration serially that sanctions may be imposed, up to and including dismissal of his case. (And as further set forth herein) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/29/2021) (jca)
July 27, 2021	Filing 32 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 7/27/21 re: "LETTER MOTION TO REOPEN & RECONSIDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AARON. DIRECT INFERENCE OF DISCRIMINATION, RECRUITMENT FRAUD, AND DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF" - Wherefore, the Court must re-consider plaintiff's motion for disqualification in its entirety; provide valid explanation for denying plaintiff's rational motion as frivolous etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit)(sc)
July 13, 2021	Filing 31 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #30 Letter, filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: The Court construes this letter, in part, as a motion to reconsider the denial of the motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Aaron. The motion to reconsider is DENIED as frivolous. The Court leaves to Magistrate Judge Aaron to address the open motions at ECF Nos. 6, 7, and 10 in the first instance pursuant to the Order referring this case to Magistrate Judge Aaron for general pretrial purposes. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/13/2021) (kv)
July 11, 2021	Filing 30 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla, dated 7/11/21 re: LETTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL. PLAINTIFF CURRENTLY HAS A PENDING MOTION WITH JUDGE ALISON NATHAN ON THE SAME ISSUES RAISED ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit)(sc)
June 21, 2021	Filing 29 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 6/21/21 re: NOTICE TO JUDGE FURMAN - THE PLAINTIFF WILL NOT ACCEPT ORDER #28 POSTED ON THIS CASE, AS PLAINTIFF'S VALID REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DISQUALIFICATION WAS FRIVOLOUSLY DENIED. SUCH POOR-QUALITY DECISION MAKING DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR JUDGE FURMAN. THE PLAINTIFF HAS ALREADY PROVIDED A NOTICE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE AARON THAT HE WILL BE FILING A LAWSUIT AGAINST HIM. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc)
June 21, 2021	Filing 28 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court will not impose sanctions on Mr. Shukla at this time given that he has not been previously warned in this case about the use of such language or the filing of baseless requests. But Mr. Shukla is warned that future such filings may result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of his claims. See, e.g., Wood v. Mut. Redevelopment Houses, Inc., No. 14-CV-7535 (AT) (DCF), 2019 WL 11590155, at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2019); Uppal v. W. Express, Inc., No. 15-CV-9976 (AT) (RWL), 2019 WL 2450794, at 10 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 1434234 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2019). This Court certifies, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(a) (3), that any appeal from this Memorandum Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45(1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 24. So Ordered (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/21/2021) (js)
June 16, 2021	Filing 27 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla, dated 6/16/21 re: NOTICE TO JUDGE FURMAN - The plaintiff will not accept an order posted on the matter without a hearing by Judge Furman. Letter requesting for a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge Aaron since plainitff's various discrimination allegations on his employment lawsuit were incorrectly denied by him, and this case filed in early April 2021 have allegations which provide a direct inference of discrimination based on gender; Judge Aaron has previously held suboptimal quality decisions on plaintiff's employment lawsuit such as denial of plaintiff's service to government agencies under Rule 4(i). Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(sc)
June 10, 2021	Filing 26 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON THE CASE PURS. TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LOCAL RULES, re: #24 MOTION to Disqualify Judge. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)
June 10, 2021	Filing 25 DECLARATION of Ashu Shukla in Support re: #24 MOTION to Disqualify Magistrate Judge. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)
June 10, 2021	Filing 24 NOTICE OF MOTION, re: to Disqualify the Magistrate Judge on this case. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Certificate of Service)(sc)
June 10, 2021	Filing 23 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 6/7/21 re: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AARON FROM THE CASE; PLAINTIFF'S PENDING MOTIONS ON THIS COURT - INCLUDING THE CHANGE OF FILING DATE ON THIS CASE; DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP HAS PREVIOUSLY INFLUENCED COURT PERSONNEL TO MALICIOUSLY DENY PLAINTIFF'S VALID CLAIMS;. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc)
May 28, 2021	Filing 22 ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties must discuss whether they are willing to consent, under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), to conducting all further proceedings before the assigned Magistrate Judge. If the parties consent to having the Magistrate Judge decide the case, the Magistrate Judge replaces the District Judge, thereby speeding up the resolution of the case (because only one judge instead of two will be involved in the case). Any appeal from a Magistrate Judges decision following consent is directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the same way that an appeal from a District Judges decision would be taken. By contrast, if the parties do not consent to having the Magistrate Judge decide the case, the Magistrate Judge will first issue a Report and Recommendation, and the District Judge will then consider any objections either party has to the Report and Recommendation before a final judgment is entered, at which point an appeal to the Second Circuit could be taken. The parties may consider consenting to proceed before the Magistrate Judge both in this case and in Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, No. 19-CV-10578 (AJN) (SDA), given Magistrate Judge Aaron's familiarity with the issues raised in both cases. The Clerk of Court is directed to electronically notify Plaintiff of this order by transmitting it to Plaintiff's email address, ashu.shukla@gmail.com. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/27/21) (yv)
May 27, 2021	Filing 21 INFORMATION PACKAGE MAILED to Ashu Shukla, at 202 Salem CT, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540, on 5/27/2021 Re: #17 Order of Service. The following document(s) were enclosed in the Service Package: a copy of the order of service or order to answer and other orders entered to date, the individual practices of the district judge and magistrate judge assigned to your case, Instructions for Litigants Who Do Not Have Attorneys, Notice Regarding Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files, a flyer about the free legal assistance clinic located in the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse (only in non prisoner cases), a Motions guide, a notice that the Pro Se Manual has been discontinued, a Notice of Change of Address form to use if your contact information changes, a handout explaining matters handled by magistrate judges and consent form to complete if all parties agree to proceed for all purposes before the magistrate judge, a form for you to complete if you consent to receive filings electronically (only in nonprisoner cases), one or more summonses (only if you have paid the fee in person or if the judge has ordered that a summons be issued to you) - 2 copies of Summons(es) mailed. (sha)
May 27, 2021	Filing 20 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Deloitte Consulting LLP. (sha)
May 27, 2021	Filing 19 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Apple Inc.. (sha)
May 27, 2021	Filing 18 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement). Referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/27/21) (yv)
May 27, 2021	Filing 17 ORDER OF SERVICE: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, paid the filing fees to commence this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue summonses as to Defendants Apple, Inc., and Deloitte Consulting, LLP. Plaintiff is directed to serve the summons and complaint on each Defendant within 90 days of the issuance of the summonses. If within those 90 days, Plaintiff has not either served Defendants or requested an extension of time to do so, the Court may dismiss the claims against Defendants under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to electronically notify Plaintiff of this order by transmitting it to Plaintiff's email address, ashu.shukla@gmail.com. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/27/2021) (mml)
May 27, 2021	Filing 16 NOTICE TO COURT & CLERK OF COURT ON (a)DENIAL OF CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND (b) DENIAL OF CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE STEWART D. AARON. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(sc)
May 26, 2021	Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (wb)
May 26, 2021	NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Jesse M. Furman. Judge Laura Taylor Swain is no longer assigned to the case..(wb)
May 24, 2021	Pro Se Payment of Fee Processed: $402.00 Check processed by the Finance Department on 05/21/2021, Receipt Number 465401279956. (bwi)
May 17, 2021	Filing 14 NOTICE TO THE COURT AND CLERK OF COURT ON (A) PLAITNIFF'S FILING FEE, AND (B) DEFENDANT's INFLUENCE ON MOTIVATED COURT CLERKS. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit).(ks)
May 17, 2021	Filing 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs Notice to the Court and the Clerk of the Court served on Apple Inc. and Deloitte Consulting LLP on 5/14/2021. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(ks)
May 7, 2021	Filing 12 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT of Ashu Shukla, re: #10 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons to 4/8/21; and requesting the Court to recognize the well-pleaded facts on the complaint - specially related to gender discrimination allegations etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)
May 7, 2021	Filing 11 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CHANGE THE DATE OF FILING OF COMPLAINT & SUMMONS PURS. TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LOCAL RULES, re: #10 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons to 4/8/21; and requesting the Court to recognize the well-pleaded facts on the complaint - specially related to gender discrimination allegations etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)
May 7, 2021	Filing 10 NOTICE OF MOTION, re: to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons to 4/8/21; and requesting the Court to recognize the well-pleaded facts on the complaint - specially related to gender discrimination allegations etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Certificate of Service)(sc)
April 27, 2021	Filing 9 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CHANGE THE DATE OF FILING OF COMPLAINT & SUMMONS PURS. TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LOCAL RULES, re: #7 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons together. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)
April 27, 2021	Filing 8 DECLARATION of Ashu Shukla IN SUPPORT, re: #7 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons together. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)
April 27, 2021	Filing 7 MOTION, re: to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Exhibit, #9 Certificate of Service)(sc)
April 21, 2021	Filing 6 MOTION FOR PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC CASE FILING, re: for Permission for Ashu Shukla to participate in electronic case filing in this case. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc)
April 21, 2021	Filing 5 PRO SE CONSENT TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The following party: A. Shukla consents to receive electronic service via the ECF system. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc)
April 16, 2021	Filing 4 ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE BALANCE: Plaintiff is directed to render payment of the $2.00 filing fee balance to the Cashier within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. The Cashiers Unit shall hold Plaintiffs $400.00 certified check for 30 days from the date of this order. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Filing Fee due by 5/17/2021. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 4/16/2021) (keb) Transmission to Civil Case Openings Clerk for processing. Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
April 16, 2021	Mailed a copy of #4 Order Directing Payment of Fee or IFP Application, to Ashu Shukla at 202 Salem CT, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540. (dsh)
April 16, 2021	NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT - SUA SPONTE to Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case..(bcu)
April 14, 2021	Filing 3 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Apple Inc., Deloitte Consulting LLP, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sac)
April 14, 2021	Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (sac)
April 14, 2021	Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Apple Inc., Deloitte Consulting LLP. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sac)
April 14, 2021	Case Designated ECF. (sac)

December 5, 2022

Filing 141 MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to #131 Notice of Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla, #136 Notice of Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla, #105 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla USCA Case Number 22-591 (L), v. 21-3095 (Con), 22-640 (Con).Appellant, pro se, moves for in forma pauperis ("IFP") status and other relief. Appellee Deloitte Consulting LLP moves to dismiss the appeal in 21-3095 (Con) for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is DENIED. See Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655, 663 n.6 (explaining that a premature notice of appeal from nonfinal orders ripens into a valid notice of appeal if a final judgment has been entered, the appeal has not yet been decided, and there is no prejudice to the appellee); cf. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) (providing that a notice of appeal filed before entry of judgment is treated as filed on the date of and after entry). It is further ORDERED that Appellant's IFP motions are DENIED and the appeals are DISMISSED because they are moot and/or "lack[] an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. 1915(e); Video Tutorial Servs., Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 79 F.3d 3, 6 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam) ("When an appeal becomes moot, we must dismiss it, since we have no jurisdiction over moot controversies."). It is further ORDERED that Appellant's motions for other relief are DENIED as moot.. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 09/01/2022..(nd)

April 11, 2022

Filing 139 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #138 Notice (Other) filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED. Attorney Leslie Ann Lajewski terminated. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/11/2022) (vfr)

April 8, 2022

Filing 138 NOTICE of of Withdrawal of Appearance. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Lajewski, Leslie)

March 25, 2022

Filing 137 ORDER denying #134 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Application denied, as stated at ECF No. 135. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 134. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/25/2022) (ate)

March 23, 2022

Filing 136 NOTICE OF APPEAL from #135 Order on Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. Form D-P is due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Certificate of Service). (tp)

March 23, 2022

Filing 135 ORDER denying #132 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Accordingly, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 132 and transmit this order to the Court of Appeals. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/23/2022) (jca) Transmission to Appeals Clerk.

March 23, 2022

Filing 134 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Accompanying Motion for IFP, #2 Exhibit Gmail Receipt, #3 Exhibit Gmail Acknowledgment, #4 Certificate of Service). (tp)

March 23, 2022

First Supplemental ROA Sent to USCA (Electronic File). USCA Case Number 22-591, Certified Supplemental Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for #135 Order on Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals..(nd)

March 23, 2022

Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for #136 Notice of Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp)

March 23, 2022

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: #136 Notice of Appeal..(tp)

March 22, 2022

Filing 133 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #132 MOTION for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (tp)

March 22, 2022

Filing 132 MOTION for Leave to Appeal In Porma Pauperis. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Accompanying IFP, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G, #9 Exhibit H, #10 Certificate of Service.(tp)

March 21, 2022

Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for #131 Notice of Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp)

March 21, 2022

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: #131 Notice of Appeal. (tp)

March 20, 2022

Filing 131 NOTICE OF APPEAL from #130 Order. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. Form D-P is due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G). (tp)

March 18, 2022

Filing 130 ORDER: The Court has been informed that Plaintiff has sent the Court two payments which are not of a type accepted by the Court. The Court has previously advised Plaintiff of the only payment types accepted by the Court: certified check or money order made payable to "Clerk of Court, S.D.N.Y." See ECF No. 66. The Clerk of Court is directed to destroy the payments sent by Plaintiff, and to reject all future payments of a type not accepted by the Court. Separately, although this case is now closed, the Court retains jurisdiction to decide whether sanctions or a litigation bar should be imposed. See ECF No. 116. As the Court has previously warned Plaintiff, any future vexatious filings, like those at ECF Nos. 123-26, could result in a litigation bar. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/18/2022) (vfr) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.

March 18, 2022

Filing 129 ORDER granting #127 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Deloitte's letter requesting relief from Order. Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 127. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/18/2022) (jca)

March 18, 2022

Filing 128 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Deloitte's letter requesting relief from Order requiring service by mail upon Plaintiff served on Ashu Shukla on March 18, 2022. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Brochin, Heather)

March 18, 2022

Filing 127 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Deloitte's letter requesting relief from Order requiring service by mail upon Plaintiff addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Heather Brochin dated March 18, 2022. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Brochin, Heather)

March 16, 2022

Filing 126 NOTICE OF DEFENDANT'S DEFAULT ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ABEYANCE re: #122 Remark. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit)(sc)

March 16, 2022

Deficient Pro Se Payment of Fee Received: Incorrect Payment Type, Online Bill Payment received by the Finance Department on 3/15/2022, in the amount of $505.00. Payment will be held by the Finance Office pending further order of the Court. (jcf)

March 4, 2022

Filing 125 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 3/4/22 re: "PLAINTIFF'S WHISTLE BLOWER CLAIMS. ON 3/4/22, THE U.S. CLERK OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS COURT HAS IDENTIFIED THAT PLAINTIFF'S PAYMENT WAS A VALID FORM OF PAYMENT". Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit)(sc)

March 3, 2022

Filing 124 DECLARATION of Ashu Shukla IN SUPPORT re: #122 Remark(Motion),. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Certificate of Service)(sc)

March 1, 2022

Filing 123 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO HOLD APPEAL ON DISMISSAL OF CASE IN ABEYANCE PURS. TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LOCAL RULES, re: #122 Remark. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)

March 1, 2022

Filing 122 NOTICE OF MOTION, re: to hold Appeal on Dismissal of Case in Abeyance against Deloitte Consulting LLP and Apple, Inc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Certificate of Service) (sc)

February 22, 2022

Received returned mail re: #91 Memorandum & Opinion, Set Deadlines/Hearings. Mail was addressed to Ashu Shukla, 202 Salem Court, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540 and was returned for the following reason(s): Return To Sender Not Deliverable As Addressed Unable To Forward. (vn)

February 15, 2022

Filing 121 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #120 Notice (Other) filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiff's application to reopen this case is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Court's February 10, 2022 Order. See ECF No. 119. Future motions to reopen will be disregarded. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/15/2022) (ate)

February 12, 2022

Filing 120 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWL OF NOTICE OF CASE ABANDONMENT. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit)(sc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/14/2022: #3 Certiificate of Service) (sc).

February 10, 2022

Filing 119 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: re: #117 MOTION for Reconsideration re; #116 Order of Dismissal filed by Ashu Shukla. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. In short, Plaintiff's change of heart is not a valid basis for reconsideration. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration is DENIED as meritless and the case remains closed. As noted in the Court's February 9, 2022 endorsement, the Court retains jurisdiction to decide whether sanctions or a litigation bar should be imposed. See ECF No. 116. at 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 117. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/10/2022) (ama)

February 10, 2022

Filing 118 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN THE CASE PURS. TO FED. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LOCAL RULES, re: #117 MOTION for Reconsideration re; #116 Order of Dismissal. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit)(sc)

February 10, 2022

Filing 117 NOTICE OF MOTION, re: to reopen case against Deloitte Consulting LLP and Apple Inc., for reconsideration of re: #116 Order of Dismissal. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(sc)

February 9, 2022

Filing 116 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #114 Letter abandoning this case, filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: This case is hereby dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Nevertheless, the Court retains jurisdiction to decide whether sanctions or a litigation bar should be imposed. See, e.g., Rice v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, No. 19-CV-447 (JMF), 2019 WL 3000808, at *4(S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2019) ("[V]oluntary dismissal 'does not preclude the district court from considering collateral issues such as sanctions.'" (quoting U.S. D.I.D. Corp. v. Windstream Commc'ns, Inc., 775 F.3d 128, 134 (2d Cir. 2014)); see also, e.g., In re Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig., 317 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 2003) (Whenever a district court has federal jurisdiction over a case, it retains ancillary jurisdiction after dismissal to adjudicate collateral matters.). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. All conferences are canceled. All motions are denied as moot. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/9/22) (yv)

February 9, 2022

***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 115 Memo Endorsement. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (ate)

February 7, 2022

Filing 114 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla,. dated 2/7/22 re: "NOTICE OF CASE ABANDONMENT TO THE COURT & JUDGE FURMAN"- Because of Judge Furman's consistent biased orders on this case, as clearly visible on the Court docket, the plaintiff hereby abandons this case etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc)

February 4, 2022

Filing 113 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #110 Letter,,, filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: To the extent that this filing seeks relief, the request is denied as frivolous. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/4/2022) (ks)

February 2, 2022

Filing 112 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 2/1/22 re: REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE RECUSAL FOR JUDGE FURMAN & MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO FILE A RECUSAL. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/3/2022: #1 Exhibit) (sc).

January 31, 2022

Filing 111 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Heather Weine Brochin dated January 31, 2022 re: Opposition to Plaintiff's Letter Motion for leave of court and continuation to file recusal for Judge Furman. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Certification of Service).(Brochin, Heather)

January 18, 2022

Filing 110 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 1/18/22 re: "LETTER MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT & CONTINUATION TO FILE RECUSAL FOR JUDGE FURMAN" - Thus, because of the confusion created by Judge Furman's court, the plaintiff requests that the Court either grant him leave of court and continuance to file his Re-file his Motion for Recusal, or certify orders (doc#93, 98) on the recusal as Final orders. In any case, Magistrate Judge Aaron will be disqualified from the case, and each order held by him on plaintiff's employment lawsuit would be reversed. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Certificate of Service)(sc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/19/2022: #3 Exhibit) (sc).

January 4, 2022

Received returned mail re: #93 Order. Mail was addressed to Ashu Shukla, 202 Salem Court, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540 and was returned for the following reason(s): Unable to Forward. (vn)

January 3, 2022

Filing 109 ORDER: On December 23, 2021, Defendant Deloitte Consulting LLP filed a letter asking the Court to dismiss Plaintiff Ashu Shukla's December 17, 2021 Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 105, on the basis that it is untimely. Accordingly, Defendant's application is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/3/2022) (jca)

December 31, 2021

Filing 108 LETTER from A. Shukla, dated 12/30/21 re: PLAINTIFF'S LETTER IN SUPPORT FOR HIS APPEAL FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE FURMAN. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc)

December 23, 2021

Filing 106 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Heather Weine Brochin dated 12/23/2021 re: requesting leave to file objection to Plaintiff's notice of appeal. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Certification of Service).(Brochin, Heather)

December 22, 2021

Filing 107 NOTICE OF MOTION, re: to Compel Judge Furman to provide clarification on ECF Order, #104. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(sc) Modified on 12/28/2021 (sc). Modified on 12/28/2021 (sc).

December 20, 2021

Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for #105 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp)

December 20, 2021

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: #105 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (tp)

December 17, 2021

Filing 105 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL from #98 Memo Endorsement, #93 Order. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. Form D-P is due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Exhibit, #9 Exhibit, #10 Exhibit, #11 Certificate of Service). (tp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/20/2021: #12 Exhibit, #13 Exhibit) (tp).

December 17, 2021

Filing 104 ORDER: On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff Ashu Shukla filed a letter responding to Defendant Deloitte's reply memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 102. Plaintiff did not seek, and the Court did not grant, leave to file a sur-reply or otherwise respond to Deloitte's reply. Thus, Plaintiff's submission is procedurally improper and will be disregarded. Defendants' motions to dismiss are now fully submitted. Separately, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing by December 10, 2021, why his claims in this case should not be dismissed and a litigation bar imposed. See ECF No. 91, at 8. He did not file a response by that date. Having failed to meet the deadline, he may not do so now. In light of the foregoing, all future filings will be disregarded unless, prior to making the filing, the filing party seeks and obtains leave of the Court to make a filing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/17/2021) (vfr)

December 9, 2021

Filing 103 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #74 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to Apple Inc. . Document filed by Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)

December 8, 2021

Filing 102 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla dated 12/8/21 re: "FRAUD INSTITUTED BY DELOITTE DEFENSE ATTORNEY & FEMALE HUMAN RESOURCE PROFESSIONALS"- This letter is for Court's information purposes and for the Court to act upon if needed. On 12/8/21, Deloitte Defense Attorney Heather Weine Brochin instituted fraud on the court by filing on a court motion that "Deloitte respectfully requests that, in addition to granting Deloitte's motion to dismiss, the Court enter an order barring Shukla from filing any future factual allegations against Joanna Rohde, Deloitte, or other Deloitte employees for which he has no evidentiary support etc." The Court must note that the plaintiff has repeatedly observed that he is not the only victim of fraud instituted by Deloitte, and there exist other witnesses, in addition to direct or circumstantial evidence to support such facts or related facts. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit)(sc) Modified on 12/13/2021 (sc).

December 7, 2021

Filing 101 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #53 MOTION to Dismiss as to Defendant Deloitte. . Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. (Attachments: #1 Certification of Service).(Brochin, Heather)

November 25, 2021

Filing 100 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 11/25/21 re: PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT APPLE INC. & DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP'S FRIVOLOUS RULE 12(b)(6) MOTIONS TO DISMISS. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(sc)

November 22, 2021

Filing 99 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #97 Notice (Other) filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. The Court will not mail future Orders to Plaintiff. Plaintiff should promptly inform the Court if he wishes to receive mail service in the future. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/22/2021) (tg)

November 22, 2021

Filing 98 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #96 Notice (Other) filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: Applications DENIED. See ECF Nos. 83, 95. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/22/2021) (tg)

November 19, 2021

Filing 97 NOTICE TO CLERK ON MAILING DOCUMENTS TO THE PLAINTIFF.- Plaintiff would like to notate the Clerk of the Court not to send any physical mails of the Court orders to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has full Electronic Filing access on Pacer etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc) Modified on 11/22/2021 (sc). Modified on 11/23/2021 (sc).

November 19, 2021

Filing 96 CORRECTED NOTICE TO CLERK ON CHANGE OF DOCKET TEXT FOR FILING #92, re: #94 Notice (Other). Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(sc)

November 19, 2021

Filing 95 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #94 Notice (Other) filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: Applications DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this endorsed document to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/19/21) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

November 19, 2021

Mailed a copy of #95 Memo Endorsement, to Ashu Shukla at 202 Salem Court, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540. (dsh)

November 18, 2021

Filing 94 NOTICE TO CLERK ON CHANGE OF DOCKET TEXT FOR FILING #92/ NOTICE TO CLERK ON FEE PAYMENT FOR APPEAL. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(sc)

November 18, 2021

Filing 93 ORDER. Shukla's memorandum is stricken, and the Court will disregard it. (To be clear, the Clerk's Office need not strike the memorandum from the docket as it should remain part of the record in the case. But the Court will not consider the memorandum.) Additionally, it has come to the Court's attention that Shukla filed the memorandum and another document pertaining to this case on the docket for Case No. 19-CV-10578, Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP. See 19-CV-1078, ECF Nos. 339, 340. It is not clear to the Court whether these filings were by accident, or an attempt by Shukla to circumvent the Court's revocation of his electronic filing privileges in this case, see ECF No. 91 at 6-7. In any event, and to be clear, Shukla may not file documents relating to this case on the 19-CV-10578 docket. The Court will not consider documents in this case filed on any docket other than this docket, and continuing to file documents pertaining to this case on other dockets may result in sanctions. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Shukla. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/18/21) (yv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

November 18, 2021

Mailed a copy of #93 Order, to Ashu Shukla at 202 Salem Court, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540. (dsh)

November 12, 2021

Filing 92 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE FURMAN PURS. TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LOCAL RULES, re: #69 MOTION for Recusal The plaintiff has received umpteen biased orders from Judge Furman on this case. Specifically, the plaintiff never filed a motion / response for reconsideration for the Court Order# 57, and the plaintiff identified on doc &. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Exhibit, #9 Exhibit, #10 Exhibit, #11 Exhibit, #12 Exhibit, #13 Exhibit, #14 Exhibit, #15 Exhibit, #16 Certificate of Service)(sc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/18/2021: #17 Exhibit Exhibit P) (nb).

November 12, 2021

Filing 91 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: re: #69 MOTION for Recusal The plaintiff has received umpteen biased orders from Judge Furman on this case. Specifically, the plaintiff never filed a motion / response for reconsideration for the Court Order # 57, and the plaintiff identified on doc& filed by Ashu Shukla, #79 LETTER MOTION to Compel District Judge Jesse Furman to Compel Judge Furman to provide clarification on order# 78. The plaintiff never asked for Judge Furmans (who is facing recusal on this case) opinion whether plaintiff the should make or as filed by Ashu Shukla, #70 LETTER MOTION to Continue MOTION for Recusal (doc# 69) The plaintiff has received umpteen biased orders from Judge Furman on this case. Specifically, the plaintiff never filed a motion / response for reconsideration for the Court Order# filed by Ashu Shukla. On October 4, 2021, Shukla filed a motion to recuse the undersigned. See ECF Nos. 69, 70. For the reasons that follow, Shukla's motion is DENIED as frivolous. Moreover, in light of Shukla's repeated violations of this Court's rules and orders, Shukla's electronic filing privileges are hereby REVOKED and he is ORDERED to show cause as to why his claims should not be dismissed and a litigation bar as to the claims imposed. To the extent Shukla continues to seek recusal of the presiding judge, that motion is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, no later than December 10, 2021, Shukla shall show cause, in a memorandum not to exceed twenty-five pages, why his claims should not be dismissed and a litigation bar imposed. Defendants may (but are not required to) respond by memorandum of law to be filed by December 23, 2021. (No reply may be filed without prior leave of Court.) All other dates and deadlines, including Shukla's November 25, 2021 deadline to file an amended complaint or his opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss, see ECF No. 57, remain in effect. The Court finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 69, 70, and 79 and, after docketing this Memorandum Opinion and Order (to ensure that Shukla receives it), to revoke Shukla's privileges to use the ECF System. Future orders of the Court will be mailed to Shukla at the mailing address on record, as is typical in pro se cases. Defendants shall serve Shukla with any future filings by mail as well and promptly filed proof of such service on the docket. SO ORDERED., ( Amended Pleadings due by 11/25/2021., Show Cause Response due by 12/10/2021.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/12/2021) (ama)

November 12, 2021

Filing 90 MEMO ENDORSEMENT: on re: #89 Notice (Other) filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. ENDORSEMENT: Application Granted. SO ORDERED., Attorney Gregory Scott Tabakman terminated. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/12/2021) (ama)

November 12, 2021

Mailed a copy of #91 Memorandum & Opinion, Set Deadlines/Hearings, to Ashu Shukla at 202 Salem Court, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540. (dsh)

November 12, 2021

Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: #91 Memorandum & Opinion,,,,,,,,,,,, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,,,, to the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing..(ama)

November 10, 2021

Filing 89 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Tabakman, Gregory)

November 8, 2021

Filing 88 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 11-08-2021 re: Plaintiffs Motion for Leave of Court to Request for Filing Plaintiffs Amended Complaint after defendant Deloitte Consulting LLP responds to pending discovery is again delayed due to Deloitte HR Joanna Rohdes constant biomedical manipulation and harassment of the plaintiff. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A).(Shukla, Ashu)

November 4, 2021

Filing 87 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 11/04/2021 re: There is clear and convincing pattern of abuse of discretion and abuse of due process or procedural violation on multiple cases filed by the plaintiff as identifed on this letter and on doc# 83. November 4th and 5th are religious holidays for the plaintiff, and his posting for the defective motion documents filed on doc# 85 will be reposted on the next business day. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)

November 2, 2021

Filing 86 MEMO ENDORSED ORDER denying #85 Motion for Leave to File Document. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiff references a memorandum of law and an affirmation or declaration "submitted herewith," but submitted no such things with his motion. Regardless, the motion is DENIED. The Court has already granted Plaintiff until November 25, 2021, to file an amended complaint in response to Defendants' motions to dismiss. See ECF No. 57. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks discovery pending his response to either of the motions to dismiss, the request is without merit, as the mere act of filing of a complaint does "not unlock the doors of discovery." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 85. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/2/21) (yv) Modified on 11/3/2021 (yv).

November 1, 2021

Filing 85 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed on October 30th 2021. The court must grant plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint after Deloitte responds to pending discovery items. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)

November 1, 2021

Filing 84 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Leslie Ann Lajewski on behalf of Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Lajewski, Leslie)

October 29, 2021

Filing 83 ORDER denying #81 Motion re: #81 MOTION for leave of court to request for relief from filing Fee on plaintiff's Writ on Mandamus re: #66 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,, . Plaintiff Ashu Shukla filed a motion asking the Court to waive his appeal fee. See ECF Nos. 81-82. Plaintiff has not filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as is necessary to seek waiver of an appeal fee. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is hereby DENIED. As a courtesy, the Court hereby EXTENDS Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis until November 12, 2021. By that date, Plaintiff must either file a motion proceed in forma pauperis on appeal or pay the appeal fee. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 81. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/29/2021) (rro)

October 29, 2021

Filing 82 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #81 MOTION for leave of court to request for relief from filing Fee on plaintiff's Writ on Mandamus re: #66 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,, . . Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Certificate of Service).(Shukla, Ashu)

October 29, 2021

Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 11/12/2021. (rro)

October 28, 2021

Filing 81 MOTION for leave of court to request for relief from filing Fee on plaintiff's Writ on Mandamus re: #66 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,, . Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)

October 25, 2021

Filing 80 ORDER: Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint and Summons, and those portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief seeking modification of the filing date and extension of the service deadline, are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. If either Defendant later seeks to assert any defense implicating these issues, Plaintiff may renew his applications. Those portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Miscellaneous Relief asking the Court to "recognize the well pleaded facts on the complaint" and "recognize that certain sections of [P]laintiff's complaint have not been reviewed by any court previously" are unsupported by any relevant law-or discernable argumentand have no procedural basis of which the Court is aware. They are DENIED accordingly. Thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint and Summons is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT, and Plaintiffs Motion for Miscellaneous Relief is DENIED in part and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT in part. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 10/25/2021) (js)

October 22, 2021

Filing 79 LETTER MOTION to Compel District Judge Jesse Furman to Compel Judge Furman to provide clarification on order# 78. The plaintiff never asked for Judge Furmans (who is facing recusal on this case) opinion whether plaintiff the should make or asset allegations and arguments on the collaboration of Deloitte Consulting LLP (or their DOJ agent) with Judge or Court Staff. The plaintiff requests for clarification from the Judge, as to the legal basis for his order and opinion, which denied the plaintiffs from making his legal arguments against the collaboration between a private corporation and a government body. It is upto the general public to decide such matters on Trial, and a Judge facing his recusal, cannot deny the plaintiff his right to make factual arguments or inferences that support his arguments (see Supreme Court Judgement on Adickes, 398 US at 158 which states it would be open to a Jury to infer..). Whether Judge Furman has fulfilled his obligations as a district court Judge is a question of fact to be decided by a Jury (Commerzbank vs. US Bank National Association, cv-04569, SDNY 2020). Given the threats made by Judge Furman, a jury could reasonably find that the remark made by Judge Furman is probative of his general attitude towards the plaintiff or his demographic group, which may affect his decision on plaintiff's case, particularly since the alleged remarks on the Judgement (doc# 78) arose in a discussion of Plaintiff's discrimination claims and Judge Furman's Recusal. addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 10/22/2021. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)

October 22, 2021

Filing 78 ORDER granting #77 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File ; denying #77 Letter Motion to Continue. Application GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is granted an extension until November 4, 2021, to file a memorandum in support of his motion to recuse. All other requests, including the request to file an oversize memorandum, are denied; accordingly, the memorandum may not be more than 25 pages in length. Plaintiff is cautioned in no uncertain terms that his memorandum of law (indeed, all of his submissions) may not contain baseless allegations or arguments and that he should refrain from casting unfounded and contemptuous aspersions on the judges or the staff of this Court. Continuing failure to abide by those standards may result in dismissal of Plaintiff's lawsuit, if not entry of an order limiting his right to file future lawsuits in this Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 77. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/22/2021) (kv)

October 21, 2021

Filing 77 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File his Memorandum of Law in Support of Judge Furmans Recusal. The court must refrain from its pattern of baseless denials prior to the defendant filing a response to plaintiffs motions. If the plaintiff presents "reasonable basis both in law and fact" adopted by the vast majority of US Courts of Appeals, the filing is not frivolous. See United States v. Yoffe, 775 F. 2d 447, 449-450 (CA1 1985); Ramos v. Haig, 716 F. 2d 471, 473 (CA7 1983); Foster v. Tourtellotte, 704 F. 2d 1109, 1112 (CA9 1983) (per curiam). The courts have previously stated that when a court deliberately marks such valid filings as frivolous, the court has abused its discretion on multiple fronts addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 10/21/2021., AMENDED LETTER MOTION to Continue (originally filed as doc# 71). Currently, Deloitte and Joanna Rohde are hoping to develop immunity from potential lawsuits (a) within a three-year period of plaintiffs discrimination allegations based on race (see case#1:19-cv-10578-AJN, doc# 48 order); (b) within a three-year period of plaintiffs termination in November 2018; (c) within a one-year period of SDNY Courts Approval of Plaintiffs Retaliation and discrimination claims (see case#1:19-cv-10578-AJN, doc# 143 order); (d) within a one-year period of Deloitte and Joanna Rohdes direct involvement in creating a fraudulent medical record for the plaintiff at University of Pennsylvania Family clinic and Capital Health Regional Medical Systems (see case# 2:20-cv-05634-WB, doc# 14). Since Fraud has been committed by Deloitte umpteen number of times, such fraud is sufficient to toll the statute of limitations (on the allegations or claims) on the above identified themes addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 10/21/2021. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)

October 14, 2021

***NOTICE TO COURT REGARDING PROPOSED ORDER. Document No. #76 Proposed Order was reviewed and approved as to form. (dt)

October 13, 2021

Filing 76 PROPOSED ORDER. Document filed by Apple Inc.. Related Document Number: #74 ..(Robinson, Blair) Proposed Order to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.

October 13, 2021

Filing 75 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #74 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to Apple Inc. . Document filed by Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)

October 13, 2021

Filing 74 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to Apple Inc. Document filed by Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)

October 12, 2021

Filing 73 NOTICE of Clerk of Court for ECF Filing Error on doc# 71. Based on the sequence and timing of events on plaintiff's court cases, the plaintiff's notice contains (a) clear and convincing examples of abuse of discretion by District Judges, (b) double standards by Deloitte, (c) pattern of fradulent cases recently filed against Deloitte to self provide defense from (i) Pregnant Supervisor (see case# 1:21-cv-02644-AJN at the SDNY), (ii) Judge Aarons incorrect denial of plaintiffs hostile work environment claims (see case# 2:21-cv-02828-JHS), (iii) denied unemployment benefits to the plaintiff (case# 5:21-cv-00179-AKW-MJF), (iv) plaintiffs recruitment fraud at Google aided and abetted by Deloitte (case# 5:21-cv-00179-AKW-MJF), and (v) intellectual property or trademark infringement to provide defense on Dr. Niti Aggarwals book on Cardiology (case# 1:21-cv-02967-AT at SDNY). These cases appear to provide Deloitte direct immunity against their own recruitment fraud instituted by their transition services, and contain one more reason for suppression of facts related to Mr. Sriram Ramamurthys coordination with Deloitte Leaders and the accused on plaintiffs ethics complaint. Deloitte Financial Services team and their self acclaimed DOJ agent Joanna Rohde discriminated and retaliated against the plaintiff including providing the plaintiff with a false letter of reprimand, and such merits can never be denied. re: #71 Letter,,. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A).(Shukla, Ashu)

October 8, 2021

Filing 72 REPLY to Response to Motion re: #7 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons together., #10 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons to 4/8/21; and requesting the Court to recognize the well-pleaded facts on the complaint - specially related to gender discrimination allegations etc.. Given the fact that Deloitte tampered evidence such as inserting comments by HR like the plaintiff held client meetings without Christina Young present in office, when in fact no such meetings took place as the client project scheduled to start in UK did not even start, Deloitte is very well aware of its malicious employment practices and is making every effort to both tamper evidence and witnesses on the case. Upon knowledge and belief, Deloitte is reluctant in having the plaintiff correct its filing dates because the firm has indulged in providing material benefits to witnesses, such as promotion, which amount to Tampering of Witness. Given Deloittes own malicious employment practices, Deloitte understands it is easier to provide material benefits to witnesses than to defend potential retaliation lawsuits by such witnesses based on clear and convincing facts. Such witness have long expired their statue of limitations, and Deloitte is unnecessarily delaying plaintiff's valid lawsuit in an effort to maintain an illegal control of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's filing delayed due to internet outage. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Supplement Internet Outage Screenshot, #6 Supplement Certificate of Service).(Shukla, Ashu)

October 5, 2021

Filing 71 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 10-05-2021 re: The Plaintiff would be filing detailed Memorandum of Law in Support of Judge Furmans Recusal on 10-05-2021. The court must refrain from its pattern of baseless denials prior to the defendant filing a response to plaintiffs motions. If the plaintiff presents "reasonable basis both in law and fact" adopted by the vast majority of US Courts of Appeals, the filing is not frivolous. See United States v. Yoffe, 775 F. 2d 447, 449-450 (CA1 1985); Ramos v. Haig, 716 F. 2d 471, 473 (CA7 1983); Foster v. Tourtellotte, 704 F. 2d 1109, 1112 (CA9 1983) (per curiam); This letter is for infromation purposes only.. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu) Modified on 10/12/2021 (ldi).

October 4, 2021

Filing 70 LETTER MOTION to Continue MOTION for Recusal (doc# 69) The plaintiff has received umpteen biased orders from Judge Furman on this case. Specifically, the plaintiff never filed a motion / response for reconsideration for the Court Order# 57, and the plaintiff identified on doc# 59 that his Motion for reconsideration would follow as filed on doc# 67. Baseless threats by a biased Judge would not be entertained by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff reserves the right to challenge each such threat and each incorrect denial. The plaintiff received a filing error while filing motion# 69, and previously, as a continuing pattern, each such filing error has been followed by a denial of plaintiff's valid motion. The plaintiff has been receiving notices signed by the Judge, but has no way to verify whether such decisions were actually taken by the Judge or by a motivated female clerk on behalf of the Judge or by the Deloitte DOJ agent and scam artist Joanna Rohde (posted on the name of the Judge) addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 10/04/2021. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Filing Error Received on Doc# 69. It appears that Deloitte DOJ agent has been sabotaging plaintiff's internet such that plaintiff's valid filings do not reach the Judge).(Shukla, Ashu)

October 4, 2021

Filing 69 MOTION for Recusal The plaintiff has received umpteen biased orders from Judge Furman on this case. Specifically, the plaintiff never filed a motion / response for reconsideration for the Court Order# 57, and the plaintiff identified on doc# 59 that his Motion for reconsideration would follow as filed on doc# 67. Baseless threats by a biased Judge would not be entertained by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff reserves the right to challenge each such threat and each incorrect denial. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)

October 4, 2021

Filing 68 ORDER denying #67 Motion for Reconsideration re #67 MOTION for Reconsideration re; #60 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, #57 Order, Set Deadlines, Deloitte is incorrectly using the name of key witnesses on this case like Niti Aggarwal to provide false information as filed by Ashu Shukla. Shukla's latest motion to reconsider is DENIED as frivolous. For avoidance of doubt: Shukla may not file any further motions for reconsideration of the Court's scheduling order at ECF No. 57. More broadly, the Court cautions Shukla, as it has in the past, see ECF No. 37, that further vexatious behavior may result not only in dismissal of this suit, but also in the imposition of a "litigation bar" that prohibits the filing of new lawsuits without prior leave of the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 67. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/4/21) (yv)

October 2, 2021

Filing 67 MOTION for Reconsideration re; #60 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,, #57 Order,,,,,,, Set Deadlines,,,,,, Deloitte is incorrectly using the name of key witnesses on this case like Niti Aggarwal to provide false information as identified on [Exhitit H]. There is no reason for the court to help Deloitte and their malicious HR professions who have actively tried to recruit the plaintiff into their money laundering scheme. There is no reason for the court not to consider plaintiff's filings, doc# 47 and 50, which provide credible evidence of Deloitte' malicious activities and a reasonable inference why Apple should not be given additional time to respond. The motion contains credible evidence that Deloitte Consulting LLP has lost all credibility on the case. Previously, SDNY court has approved eight discrimination claims on plaintiff's complaint against Deloitte, and this motion contains reasoning or rationale based on case law why the other identified discrimination claims against Deloitte are valid. Defendant Deloitte Consulting has indulged in systemic tampering of witnesses which greatly prejudice the plaintiff. The plaintiff received a filing error while filing this motion on October 1st 2021 (Ex. 22, 23, 24) and has correcte and filed his motion a few minutes after. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M, #14 Exhibit N, #15 Exhibit O, #16 Exhibit P, #17 Exhibit Q, #18 Exhibit R, #19 Exhibit S, #20 Exhibit T, #21 Exhibit U, #22 Exhibit Filing Error on Oct 1 2021 1, #23 Exhibit Filing Error on Oct 1 2021 2, #24 Exhibit Filing Error on Oct 1 2021 3).(Shukla, Ashu)

September 30, 2021

Filing 66 ORDER terminating #61 Motion for miscellaneous relief on plaintiff's fee payment. re: #61 MOTION Motion for miscellaneous relief on plaintiff's fee payment. Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that his discrimination claims against Deloitte Consulting LLP were properly filed on this case, and that Delotte consulting is barred from usi. The Clerk of Court is directed to return the payment received from Plaintiff. Plaintiff is directed to pay the fee in one of the methods accepted by the Court. The filing fee for a notice of appeal is $505 payable in cash, by certified check, or money order, made payable to "Clerk of Court, S.D.N.Y." No personal checks are accepted. Plaintiff's deadline to pay the appeal fee is hereby EXTENDED, nunc pro tunc, to October 28, 2021. Failure to pay the fee in a proper manner by that date will result in the notice of appeal being stricken. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 61. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/30/21) (yv) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.

September 29, 2021

Filing 65 LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron from Blair Robinson dated September 29, 2021 re: #7 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons together., #10 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons to 4/8/21; and requesting the Court to recognize the well-pleaded facts on the complaint - specially related to gender discrimination allegations etc.. . Document filed by Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)

September 29, 2021

Filing 64 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: #7 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons together., #10 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons to 4/8/21; and requesting the Court to recognize the well-pleaded facts on the complaint - specially related to gender discrimination allegations etc.. . Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Brochin, Heather)

September 25, 2021

Filing 63 DECLARATION of Ashu Shukla in Support re: #61 MOTION Motion for miscellaneous relief on plaintiff's fee payment. Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that his discrimination claims against Deloitte Consulting LLP were properly filed on this case, and that Delotte consulting is barred from usi. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B).(Shukla, Ashu)

September 25, 2021

Filing 62 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #61 MOTION Motion for miscellaneous relief on plaintiff's fee payment. Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that his discrimination claims against Deloitte Consulting LLP were properly filed on this case, and that Delotte consulting is barred from usi Each and every discrimination and retaliation claim that the plaintiff has filed against Deloitte, be it discrimination based on disability, race, national origin or gender is valid as approved and provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff's case is a Classic Whistleblower Case which warrants special protections. Clear Effort to deny plaintiffs valid cases without proper reasons to support the business interest of Deloitte. Deloitte intends to force its former employees to give false testimony against the plaintiff - such motivation clearly amounts to tampering of witnesses. Since Breach of duty has been established by the plaintiff on his complaint, the burden of proof has long shifted to both Deloitte Consulting LLP and Apple Inc to prove that their negligent actions were not the but-for cause of harm to the plaintiff. The Clerk of Court has not presented a photograph of plaintiff's bank check through Chase bank. The court may grant the plaintiff an extension to file the filing fees. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Supplement Certificate of Service).(Shukla, Ashu)

September 25, 2021

Filing 61 MOTION Motion for miscellaneous relief on plaintiff's fee payment. Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that his discrimination claims against Deloitte Consulting LLP were properly filed on this case, and that Delotte consulting is barred from using defense like res judicata or collateral estoppel on plaintiff's cases per US Supreme Court Mandate re: Deficient Fee Payment - Received, docket entry by court clerk. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)

September 24, 2021

Deficient Pro Se Payment of Fee Received: Incorrect Payment Type - Online Bill Payment received by the Finance Department on 09/21/2021, in the amount of $505.00. Payment will be held by the Finance Office pending further order of the Court. (bwi)

September 17, 2021

Filing 60 MEMO ENDORSED ORDER terminating #59 Motion for Take Judicial notice that Plaintiffs complete opposition to Order# 57 on this Classis Whistle-Blower case will be filed on September 20 th 2021. The Court must enter default Judgement against Deloitte Consulting LLP for (a) filing an inco re: #59 MOTION Take Judicial notice that Plaintiffs complete opposition to Order# 57 on this Classis Whistle-Blower case will be filed on September 20 th 2021. The Court must enter default Judgement against Deloitte Consulting LLP for (a) filing an inco. ENDORSEMENT: The Court doesn't really understand what Plaintiff is seeking or intends to seek. To the extent that he objects to the Scheduling Order entered at ECF No. 57, the objection is frivolous. The Court has broad discretion to manage the cases on its docket. Exercising that discretion, the Court ordered that Plaintiff should not respond to Deloitte's motion until Apple answers or otherwise responds to the complaint by the October 13, 2021 deadline, see ECF No. 46, to minimize confusion and maximize efficiency. Plaintiff will have a full and fair opportunity to respond to Deloitte's motion - but he may not do so before Apple responds to the Complaint. If he does, his submission will be stricken - without prejudice to refiling it once Apple has filed its response. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that anyappeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 59. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/17/21) (yv)

September 16, 2021

Filing 59 MOTION Take Judicial notice that Plaintiffs complete opposition to Order# 57 on this Classis Whistle-Blower case will be filed on September 20 th 2021. The Court must enter default Judgement against Deloitte Consulting LLP for (a) filing an incomplete and inconsistent motion to dismiss, and for (b) misleading the Court and the Judicial System on plaintiffs claims. Deloitte has overlooked the guidance provided by the US courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Deloitte has failed to identify the 200+ discrimination and retaliation allegations and corresponding claims on this updated operative complaint and by doing so have foreclosed their opportunity to dismiss such claims. re: #57 Order,,,,,,, Set Deadlines,,,,,, on plaintiff's amended complaint. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)

September 15, 2021

Filing 58 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)

September 15, 2021

Filing 57 ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint by November 25, 2021. For avoidance of doubt: Plaintiff should not file an amended complaint until Apple Inc. either answers or files its own motion to dismiss. If Plaintiff believes that the pleading of additional facts will cure deficiencies identified in Deloitte Consulting LLP's motion to dismiss or in Apple Inc.'s motion in the event that Apple Inc. files such a motion, the Plaintiff should include those facts in the amended complaint. Plaintiff will not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion(s) to dismiss. If Plaintiff does amend, by three (3) weeks after the amended complaint is filed, Defendants shall: (1) file an answer; (2) file a new motion to dismiss; or (3) file a letter on ECF stating that it relies on the previously filed motion to dismiss. If Defendants file an answer or a new motion to dismiss, the Court will deny the previously filed motion to dismiss as moot. If no amended complaint is filed, Plaintiff shall serve any opposition to the motion(s) to dismiss by November 25, 2021. In the event that Apple Inc. also files a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff shall file a single, consolidated opposition to both motions. Defendants' replies, if any, shall be served by December 9, 2021. Any party may request an extension of the briefing schedule for the motion. A deadline will be extended if the party demonstrates that its pursuit of the action has been diligent and that there is a good reason for extending the deadline. SO ORDERED. ( Amended Pleadings due by 11/25/2021.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/15/2021) (vfr)

September 15, 2021

Filing 56 ORDER: Pending before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) a "Motion to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiffs Complaint and Summons," dated April 28, 2021 (ECF No. 7); and (2) a "Motion for Miscellaneous Relief," dated May 7, 2021 (ECF No. 10), also appearing to seek modification of the filing date of Plaintiff's Complaint and Summons (see Pl.'s 5/7/21 Mem. of L., ECF No. 11). Defendants shall file any response to these motions no later than Wednesday, September 29, 2021. Plaintiff shall file any reply in further support of these motions no later than Wednesday, October 6, 2021. SO ORDERED. ( Responses due by 9/29/2021, Replies due by 10/6/2021.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 9/15/2021) (vfr)

September 15, 2021

***NOTICE TO COURT REGARDING PROPOSED ORDER. Document No. #55 Proposed Order was reviewed and approved as to form. (dt)

September 14, 2021

Filing 55 PROPOSED ORDER. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. Related Document Number: #53 ..(Brochin, Heather) Proposed Order to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.

September 14, 2021

Filing 54 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: #53 MOTION to Dismiss as to Defendant Deloitte. . Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Brochin, Heather)

September 14, 2021

Filing 53 MOTION to Dismiss as to Defendant Deloitte. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP. Responses due by 10/14/2021.(Brochin, Heather)

September 14, 2021

Filing 52 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Corporate Parent Deloitte LLP for Deloitte Consulting LLP. Document filed by Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Brochin, Heather)

September 14, 2021

Filing 51 NOTICE of Notice to Clerk of Court for Payment of Appeal fee of $505 via bank check on 09-14-2021 re: Appeal Fee Due. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B).(Shukla, Ashu)

September 13, 2021

Filing 50 LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron from Ashu Shukla dated 09/13/2021 re: #45 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: #39 Notice (Other), #1 Complaint addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron from Blair Robinson dated September 9, 2021. By denying plaintiffs valid allegations on their ANSWER to plaintiffs complaint case# 1:19-cv-10578-AJN, doc# 240), Deloitte Consulting LLP has LOST ALL CREDIBILITY on this lawsuit and all related lawsuits. Now, on the name of saving the firm from potential lawsuits (which technically do not exist because Deloitte Leaders, Supervisors and Human Resource professionals aided and abetted themselves) Deloitte is using their government affiliations to fraudulently deny plaintiffs valid Motions / Lawsuits such that the plaintiff is forced to file a response and waste courts valuable resources. This is a CLASSIC TALE of a HR professional who intends to abuse her position and authority to SIPHON MONEY from a corporation. Apples request for 51- day extension is not a court scheduling issue, but a frivolous appeal specifically targeted to help Deloitte Consulting LLP conceal their fraud on court and use improper doctrines like Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F).(Shukla, Ashu)

September 13, 2021

Filing 49 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Gregory Scott Tabakman on behalf of Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Tabakman, Gregory)

September 13, 2021

Filing 48 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Heather Weine Brochin on behalf of Deloitte Consulting LLP..(Brochin, Heather)

September 10, 2021

Filing 47 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron from ASHU SHUKLA dated 09/10/2021 re: Apple has demonstrated bad faith by not posting plaintiffs letter to the defendant. The plaintiff has clearly stated that plaintiff would contest Apples Motion, and Apple has not included this information in their letter to court. September 10 th 2021 is a religious holiday and the plaintiff would be filing his response the next business day. Previously, defemdant Deloitte Consulting LLP has lost all credibility by denying plaintiffs allegations on their answer to plaintiff's employment complaint (Case# 1-19-cv-10578-AJN), the plaintiff has clear and convincing evidence on multiple such issues as identified on (doc# 329) on the identified case. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(Shukla, Ashu)

September 10, 2021

Filing 46 ORDER granting #45 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #45 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: #39 Notice (Other), #1 Complaint addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron from Blair Robinson dated September 9, 2021.Request GRANTED. The Court finds Apple's extension request reasonable, as Apple has provided a sufficient rationale, there is no evidence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff, and this is Apple's first such application. See, e.g., Remer v. Sebelius, No. 13-CV-07110 {PAC) {JLC), 2014 WL 1202989, at *1 {S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2014). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 9/10/2021) (js)

September 10, 2021

Set/Reset Deadlines: Apple Inc. answer due 10/13/2021. (kl)

September 9, 2021

Filing 45 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: #39 Notice (Other), #1 Complaint addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron from Blair Robinson dated September 9, 2021. Document filed by Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)

September 9, 2021

Filing 44 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Kaitlin Mary Thompson on behalf of Apple Inc...(Thompson, Kaitlin)

September 9, 2021

Filing 43 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Blair Joseph Robinson on behalf of Apple Inc...(Robinson, Blair)

September 1, 2021

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: #41 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (tp)

September 1, 2021

Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for #41 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by Ashu Shukla were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp)

August 31, 2021

Appeal Fee Due: for #41 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. Appeal fee due by 9/14/2021. (tp)

August 31, 2021

Filing 42 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla dated 08/31/2021 re: Plaintiffs Writ of Mandamus on Plaintiffs Motion for disqualification of Judge Aaron before the Court of Appeals. Any rational observer, just like the plaintiff, under similar circumstances would be filing identical motions as filed by the plaintiff on this case. Court order dated August 25 th 2021 is conclusionary and does not interpret or analyze the basic facts, case law citations or precedence by the higher courts of the United States. Since each and every motion filed by the plaintiff is within plaintiffs right, and has been clearly filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, there is no sustained or willful intransigence by the plaintiff.. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A).(Shukla, Ashu)

August 31, 2021

Filing 41 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL from #37 Order,,,, #31 Memo Endorsement,, #33 Order,,,. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H).(Shukla, Ashu)

August 27, 2021

Filing 40 ORDER granting #6 Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing: Pending before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) a "Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing," dated April 21, 2021 (ECF No. 6); (2) a "Motion to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint and Summons," dated April 28, 2021 (ECF No. 7); and (3) a "Motion for Miscellaneous Relief," dated May 7, 2021 (ECF No. 10), also appearing to seek modification of the filing date of Plaintiff's Complaint and Summons (see Pl.'s 5/7/21 Mem. of L., ECF No. 11). The Court notes that Plaintiff already appears to be participating in electronic case filing. (See, e.g., Pl.'s 8/20/21 Ltr., ECF No. 35, at 1-2 (Because [P]laintiff has electronic access to court documents, the [C]ourt must refrain from sending paper mail to [P]laintiff.").) Nevertheless, Plaintiff's Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing is GRANTED. With regard to Plaintiff's two other pending motions, the Court intends to set a schedule for Defendants' responses once Defendants have appeared. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 8/27/2021) (Aaron, Stewart)

August 26, 2021

Filing 39 NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF COURT ON PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE TO DEFENDANT APPLE INC. re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Certificate of Service)(sc)

August 25, 2021

Filing 38 NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF COURT ON PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE TO DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Certificate of Service)(sc)

August 25, 2021

Filing 37 ORDER. Shukla's motion to reconsider is once again DENIED as frivolous. For avoidance of doubt: Shukla may not file any further motions for reconsideration of the Court's denial of the motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Aaron. More broadly, the Court cautions Shukla just as Judge Nathan did in her recent opinion, see id. at 9 that further vexatious behavior may result not only in dismissal of this suit, but also in the imposition of a "litigation bar" that prohibits the filing of new lawsuits without prior leave of the Court. See, e.g., Gertskis v. New York Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 13-CV-2024 JMF, 2014 WL 2933149, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2014). The Clerk of Court need not mail this Order to Shukla as he has confirmed that he hass received electronic notice of filings and that "the court must refrain from sending paper mail to the plaintiff." ECF No. 35, at 1-2. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/25/21) (yv)

August 25, 2021

Filing 36 NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF COURT ON PLAINTIFF'S SERVICE OF COMPLAINT & SUMMONS TO DEFENDANT DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP & APPLE INC. re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Certificate of Service)(sc)

August 20, 2021

Filing 35 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 8/20/21 re: NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF COURT ON PLAINTIFF'S RETURNED MAIL. THE PLAINTIFF IS TRAVELLING INTERNATIONALLY AND IS IN RECEIPT OF ALL ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS. IF NEEDED, THE RETURNED MAIL CAN BE FORWARDED TO DR. NITI AGGARWAL, KEY WITNESS ON THE CASE. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc) Modified on 8/23/2021 (sc).

August 20, 2021

Received returned mail re: #21 FRCP 4 Service Package - Mailed. Mail was addressed to Ashu Shukla at 202 Salem Court, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540 and was returned for the following reason(s): Return to Sender, Unable to Forward. (ok)

August 14, 2021

Filing 34 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla dated 8/13/21 re: "LETTER MOTION TO REOPEN & RECONSIDER JUDGE FURMAN'S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AS FRIVOLOUS" - Magistrate Judge Aaron's atitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, thus Magistrate Judge Aaron must be disqualified. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162(1994). Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit)(sc)

July 29, 2021

Filing 33 ORDER: Shukla's motion to reconsider is once again DENIED as frivolous. To be clear, however, the Court does not and has not intimated any views one way or the other about the merits or lack thereof of the claims in this case. The Courts prior rulings and description of Shukla's filings as "frivolous" concerned only his motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Aaron and subsequent motion for reconsideration. (It is thus irrelevant for present purposes that "District Judge Nathan Alison [sic] has already approved eight (8) similar claims"related to discrimination" as Shukla argues. ECF No. 32, at 3.) Shukla is once again warned however, that if he continues to file frivolous submissions and abuse the litigation process for example, by seeking reconsideration serially that sanctions may be imposed, up to and including dismissal of his case. (And as further set forth herein) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/29/2021) (jca)

July 27, 2021

Filing 32 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 7/27/21 re: "LETTER MOTION TO REOPEN & RECONSIDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AARON. DIRECT INFERENCE OF DISCRIMINATION, RECRUITMENT FRAUD, AND DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF" - Wherefore, the Court must re-consider plaintiff's motion for disqualification in its entirety; provide valid explanation for denying plaintiff's rational motion as frivolous etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit)(sc)

July 13, 2021

Filing 31 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: #30 Letter, filed by Ashu Shukla. ENDORSEMENT: The Court construes this letter, in part, as a motion to reconsider the denial of the motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Aaron. The motion to reconsider is DENIED as frivolous. The Court leaves to Magistrate Judge Aaron to address the open motions at ECF Nos. 6, 7, and 10 in the first instance pursuant to the Order referring this case to Magistrate Judge Aaron for general pretrial purposes. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/13/2021) (kv)

July 11, 2021

Filing 30 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla, dated 7/11/21 re: LETTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL. PLAINTIFF CURRENTLY HAS A PENDING MOTION WITH JUDGE ALISON NATHAN ON THE SAME ISSUES RAISED ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit)(sc)

June 21, 2021

Filing 29 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 6/21/21 re: NOTICE TO JUDGE FURMAN - THE PLAINTIFF WILL NOT ACCEPT ORDER #28 POSTED ON THIS CASE, AS PLAINTIFF'S VALID REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DISQUALIFICATION WAS FRIVOLOUSLY DENIED. SUCH POOR-QUALITY DECISION MAKING DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR JUDGE FURMAN. THE PLAINTIFF HAS ALREADY PROVIDED A NOTICE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE AARON THAT HE WILL BE FILING A LAWSUIT AGAINST HIM. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc)

June 21, 2021

Filing 28 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court will not impose sanctions on Mr. Shukla at this time given that he has not been previously warned in this case about the use of such language or the filing of baseless requests. But Mr. Shukla is warned that future such filings may result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of his claims. See, e.g., Wood v. Mut. Redevelopment Houses, Inc., No. 14-CV-7535 (AT) (DCF), 2019 WL 11590155, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2019); Uppal v. W. Express, Inc., No. 15-CV-9976 (AT) (RWL), 2019 WL 2450794, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 1434234 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2019). This Court certifies, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(a) (3), that any appeal from this Memorandum Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45(1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 24. So Ordered (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/21/2021) (js)

June 16, 2021

Filing 27 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ashu Shukla, dated 6/16/21 re: NOTICE TO JUDGE FURMAN - The plaintiff will not accept an order posted on the matter without a hearing by Judge Furman. Letter requesting for a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge Aaron since plainitff's various discrimination allegations on his employment lawsuit were incorrectly denied by him, and this case filed in early April 2021 have allegations which provide a direct inference of discrimination based on gender; Judge Aaron has previously held suboptimal quality decisions on plaintiff's employment lawsuit such as denial of plaintiff's service to government agencies under Rule 4(i). Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(sc)

June 10, 2021

Filing 26 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON THE CASE PURS. TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LOCAL RULES, re: #24 MOTION to Disqualify Judge. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)

June 10, 2021

Filing 25 DECLARATION of Ashu Shukla in Support re: #24 MOTION to Disqualify Magistrate Judge. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)

June 10, 2021

Filing 24 NOTICE OF MOTION, re: to Disqualify the Magistrate Judge on this case. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Certificate of Service)(sc)

June 10, 2021

Filing 23 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from A. Shukla, dated 6/7/21 re: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AARON FROM THE CASE; PLAINTIFF'S PENDING MOTIONS ON THIS COURT - INCLUDING THE CHANGE OF FILING DATE ON THIS CASE; DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP HAS PREVIOUSLY INFLUENCED COURT PERSONNEL TO MALICIOUSLY DENY PLAINTIFF'S VALID CLAIMS;. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc)

May 28, 2021

Filing 22 ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties must discuss whether they are willing to consent, under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), to conducting all further proceedings before the assigned Magistrate Judge. If the parties consent to having the Magistrate Judge decide the case, the Magistrate Judge replaces the District Judge, thereby speeding up the resolution of the case (because only one judge instead of two will be involved in the case). Any appeal from a Magistrate Judges decision following consent is directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the same way that an appeal from a District Judges decision would be taken. By contrast, if the parties do not consent to having the Magistrate Judge decide the case, the Magistrate Judge will first issue a Report and Recommendation, and the District Judge will then consider any objections either party has to the Report and Recommendation before a final judgment is entered, at which point an appeal to the Second Circuit could be taken. The parties may consider consenting to proceed before the Magistrate Judge both in this case and in Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, No. 19-CV-10578 (AJN) (SDA), given Magistrate Judge Aaron's familiarity with the issues raised in both cases. The Clerk of Court is directed to electronically notify Plaintiff of this order by transmitting it to Plaintiff's email address, ashu.shukla@gmail.com. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/27/21) (yv)

May 27, 2021

Filing 21 INFORMATION PACKAGE MAILED to Ashu Shukla, at 202 Salem CT, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540, on 5/27/2021 Re: #17 Order of Service. The following document(s) were enclosed in the Service Package: a copy of the order of service or order to answer and other orders entered to date, the individual practices of the district judge and magistrate judge assigned to your case, Instructions for Litigants Who Do Not Have Attorneys, Notice Regarding Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files, a flyer about the free legal assistance clinic located in the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse (only in non prisoner cases), a Motions guide, a notice that the Pro Se Manual has been discontinued, a Notice of Change of Address form to use if your contact information changes, a handout explaining matters handled by magistrate judges and consent form to complete if all parties agree to proceed for all purposes before the magistrate judge, a form for you to complete if you consent to receive filings electronically (only in nonprisoner cases), one or more summonses (only if you have paid the fee in person or if the judge has ordered that a summons be issued to you) - 2 copies of Summons(es) mailed. (sha)

May 27, 2021

Filing 20 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Deloitte Consulting LLP. (sha)

May 27, 2021

Filing 19 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Apple Inc.. (sha)

May 27, 2021

Filing 18 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement). Referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/27/21) (yv)

May 27, 2021

Filing 17 ORDER OF SERVICE: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, paid the filing fees to commence this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue summonses as to Defendants Apple, Inc., and Deloitte Consulting, LLP. Plaintiff is directed to serve the summons and complaint on each Defendant within 90 days of the issuance of the summonses. If within those 90 days, Plaintiff has not either served Defendants or requested an extension of time to do so, the Court may dismiss the claims against Defendants under Rules 4 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to electronically notify Plaintiff of this order by transmitting it to Plaintiff's email address, ashu.shukla@gmail.com. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/27/2021) (mml)

May 27, 2021

Filing 16 NOTICE TO COURT & CLERK OF COURT ON (a)DENIAL OF CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND (b) DENIAL OF CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE STEWART D. AARON. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(sc)

May 26, 2021

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (wb)

May 26, 2021

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Jesse M. Furman. Judge Laura Taylor Swain is no longer assigned to the case..(wb)

May 24, 2021

Pro Se Payment of Fee Processed: $402.00 Check processed by the Finance Department on 05/21/2021, Receipt Number 465401279956. (bwi)

May 17, 2021

Filing 14 NOTICE TO THE COURT AND CLERK OF COURT ON (A) PLAITNIFF'S FILING FEE, AND (B) DEFENDANT's INFLUENCE ON MOTIVATED COURT CLERKS. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit).(ks)

May 17, 2021

Filing 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs Notice to the Court and the Clerk of the Court served on Apple Inc. and Deloitte Consulting LLP on 5/14/2021. Document filed by Ashu Shukla..(ks)

May 7, 2021

Filing 12 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT of Ashu Shukla, re: #10 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons to 4/8/21; and requesting the Court to recognize the well-pleaded facts on the complaint - specially related to gender discrimination allegations etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)

May 7, 2021

Filing 11 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CHANGE THE DATE OF FILING OF COMPLAINT & SUMMONS PURS. TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LOCAL RULES, re: #10 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons to 4/8/21; and requesting the Court to recognize the well-pleaded facts on the complaint - specially related to gender discrimination allegations etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)

May 7, 2021

Filing 10 NOTICE OF MOTION, re: to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons to 4/8/21; and requesting the Court to recognize the well-pleaded facts on the complaint - specially related to gender discrimination allegations etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Certificate of Service)(sc)

April 27, 2021

Filing 9 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CHANGE THE DATE OF FILING OF COMPLAINT & SUMMONS PURS. TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LOCAL RULES, re: #7 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons together. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)

April 27, 2021

Filing 8 DECLARATION of Ashu Shukla IN SUPPORT, re: #7 MOTION to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons together. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sc)

April 27, 2021

Filing 7 MOTION, re: to Change the Date of Filing of Plaintiff's Complaint & Summons etc. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit, #8 Exhibit, #9 Certificate of Service)(sc)

April 21, 2021

Filing 6 MOTION FOR PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC CASE FILING, re: for Permission for Ashu Shukla to participate in electronic case filing in this case. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc)

April 21, 2021

Filing 5 PRO SE CONSENT TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The following party: A. Shukla consents to receive electronic service via the ECF system. Document filed by Ashu Shukla.(sc)

April 16, 2021

Filing 4 ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE BALANCE: Plaintiff is directed to render payment of the $2.00 filing fee balance to the Cashier within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. The Cashiers Unit shall hold Plaintiffs $400.00 certified check for 30 days from the date of this order. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Filing Fee due by 5/17/2021. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 4/16/2021) (keb) Transmission to Civil Case Openings Clerk for processing. Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.

April 16, 2021

Mailed a copy of #4 Order Directing Payment of Fee or IFP Application, to Ashu Shukla at 202 Salem CT, Apt. 11, Princeton, NJ 08540. (dsh)

April 16, 2021

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT - SUA SPONTE to Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case..(bcu)

April 14, 2021

Filing 3 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Apple Inc., Deloitte Consulting LLP, re: #1 Complaint. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sac)

April 14, 2021

Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (sac)

April 14, 2021

Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Apple Inc., Deloitte Consulting LLP. Document filed by Ashu Shukla. (sac)

April 14, 2021

Case Designated ECF. (sac)

Search for this case: Shukla v. Apple Inc. 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: Apple Inc.
Represented By:	Blair Joseph Robinson
Represented By:	Kaitlin Mary Thompson
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: Deloitte Consulting LLP
Represented By:	Gregory Scott Tabakman
Represented By:	Heather Weine Brochin
Represented By:	Leslie Ann Lajewski
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: Ashu Shukla
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 ]