Global v. Prithvi Info. Sols. Ltd.

Decision Date06 July 2020
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 2:18-cv-01290-WSS
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
PartiesKYKO GLOBAL, INC. et al. Plaintiffs, v. PRITHVI INFORMATION SOLUTIONS LTD. et al., Defendants.

Hon. William S. Stickman IV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV, District Judge

On March 20, 2020, the Court denied motions to dismiss filed by the so-called "SSG Defendants"—SSG Capital Partners I, L.P. ("SSG Capital Partners"), SSG Capital Management Hong Kong, Ltd. ("SSG Hong Kong"), Wong Ching Him a/k/a/ Edwing Wong ("Him"), Andreas Vourloumis ("Vourloumis"), Shyam Maheshwari ("Maheshwari"), Dinesh Goel ("Goel"), and Ira Syavitri Noor a/k/a Ira Noor Vourloumis ("Noor") and Anandhan Jayaraman ("Jayaraman") (collectively "Defendants").1 Defendants have now filed motions for reconsideration.

There are now nine motions pending before the Court: Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Court's order striking the appearance of VTC as a final judgment, SSG Defendants' andJayaraman's motions for reconsideration of the Court's March 10, 2020 opinion, Plaintiffs' motion to strike Jayaraman's joinder to SSG Defendants' reply in support of their motion for reconsideration, SSG Defendants' motion requesting a stay until their motion for reconsideration is adjudicated, Plaintiffs' three discovery motions, and Jayaraman's motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery motions. The Court will address Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Court's order striking the appearance of VTC in a separate opinion and order. The Court will adjudicate the remaining eight motions here.

For the set forth below, the Court will deny SSG Defendants' motion to request a stay. The Court will deny SSG Defendants' and Jayaraman's motions in support of reconsideration. The Court will also deny Plaintiffs' motion to strike Jayaraman's joinder to SSG Defendants' reply in support of their motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs' three discovery motions, and Jayaraman's motion requesting an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery requests as moot. Because the Court already laid out the facts of this case in detail in its prior opinion, it will forgo reciting them again. Instead, the Court will proceed directly to its analysis.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

There are three standards of review applicable to the eight pending motions at issue: reconsideration of an interlocutory order under Rule 54(b), interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, and stays under federal common law.

I. Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 54(b)

The Rules do not explicitly mention "reconsideration" of interlocutory orders. Rule 54(b) appears to be pertinent by implication because it provides that a court can revise any order or decision not final before entry of final judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b); Patterson v. Nine Energy Serv., LLC, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1065, 1108 (D. N.M. 2018). Factors that courts shouldconsider when contemplating reconsideration of interlocutory orders are the thoroughness of the order being reviewed, the overall progress and posture of the case, new controlling authority, new evidence, and clear indication that a court erred.

II. Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292

The final judgment rule provides that an order or opinion of a federal district court must be final to be reviewable by a federal appellate court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Interlocutory appeals are permitted on a limited basis under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. The purpose of Section 1292 is narrow: to permit litigants to challenge interlocutory orders posing consequences that are serious, even irreparable. Gardner v Westinghouse Broad. Co., 559 F.2d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 1977) (citing Balt. Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 181 (1955), overruled by Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 288 (1988)); Albert v. Sch. Dist. of Pittsburgh, 181 F.2d 690, 691 (3d Cir. 1950). A federal district court determines whether an interlocutory appeal is justified by balancing a party's interest in the prompt resolution of the continuing validity of a dismissed claim with the court's interest in avoiding piecemeal litigation. In re Kelly, 876 F.2d 14, 15 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 153-54 (1964)).

III. Request for a Stay Under Federal Common Law

A stay is a matter of discretion, not of right. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009). A party requesting a stay has the burden of persuasion. Id. at 433-34. A court must consider four factors when reviewing a request for a stay: whether the applicant made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits, whether the applicant will be irreparably harmed if no stay is granted, whether granting a stay will substantially injure other parties interested in the proceeding, and public interest. Id. at 434 (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (2009)); see also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). The first two of these factors are the most critical.Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. An applicant's chance of success on the merits and potential for irreparable injury must be greater than a mere possibility. Id. at 435.

ANALYSIS

The Court will aggregate its analysis of the eight pending motions into three subject areas: (1) SSG Defendants' and Jayaraman's motions for reconsideration of the Court's prior opinion and Plaintiffs' motion to strike Jayaraman's reply in support, (2) SSG Defendants' motion requesting a stay, and (3) the parties' discovery-related motions.

I. Motions for Reconsideration

SSG Defendants' and Jayaraman's motions for reconsideration address five topics: the facts of the case, Jayaraman's admissions, personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, their request for a stay, and their alternative request for interlocutory appeal. The Court will discuss each in turn.2

A. Factual Errors

SSG Defendants and Jayaraman allege that there are two factual errors in the Court's opinion: 1) the Court's designation of PISL, PASL, and Madhavi as "SSG Defendants," and 2) the Court's holding that Jayaraman resided in Pittsburgh during the timeframe when the allegations in the Complaint took place. The first alleged factual error is an error of form, not substance, and does not materially impact the Court's analysis. The second allegation of error is meritless.

1. Designation of PISL, PASL, and Madhavi as "SSG Defendants"

The first alleged factual error is how the Court characterized SSG Defendants. SSG Defendants emphasize that PISL, PASL, and Madhavi are not a part of their group. SSG Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 133) ("SSG Def.'s Br. in Supp. of SSG Def.'s Mot. for Consideration") at p. 8. They are correct given that none of those three parties are designated as "SSG Defendants" in SSG Defendants' motion to dismiss. Designating PISL, PASL, and Madhavi as "SSG Defendants" is not inherently incorrect, however, for the Court is entitled to so designate them for the convenience of its analysis. A party's taxonomic preferences for characterizing individual defendants or groups of defendants are not legally entitled to deference. Taxonomically speaking, SSG Defendants and the so-called "Prithvi Defendants" are distinct. Typologically speaking, however, they are intertwined: they are all participants in a well-pleaded civil RICO enterprise. The Court's grouping them together at a prior point was only for purposes of its discussion, was not outcome determinative, and was thus appropriate.

2. Jayaraman's Residence

The Court determined that Jayaraman resided in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania during the timeframe when the unlawful conduct pleaded in the Complaint took place. The Court predicated this determination on Plaintiffs' supplemental brief, Plaintiffs' RICO Statement, and the affidavits of Plaintiffs' Director and Chief Executive Officer Kiran Kulkarni ("Kulkarni"), former PISL and PSI employee David Amorose ("Amorose"), and former PISL and PSI employee Guru Prasad Rao Pandyar ("Pandyar"). Kyko Global, Inc. v. Prithvi Info. Solutions Ltd., Case No. 2:18-cv-01290, 2020 WL 1159439, at **1, 28, 33 (W.D. Pa. March. 10, 2020). Having thoroughly reconsidered the matter, the Court holds that its residency determination was not erroneous.

Jayaraman opposes the Court's use of Plaintiffs' supplemental discovery in several ways. Id. at pp. 3-4, ¶ 10. Jayaraman attacks the use of the Kulkarni Declaration because Kulkarni apparently had no personal knowledge, therefore, his attestations should be disregarded. Id. at p. 3, ¶¶ 8, 10. This argument is not persuasive. Kulkarni, Amorose, and Pandyar all made their declarations based on their personal knowledge. They said as much and the Court must construe these statements in a light favorable to Plaintiffs. See Declaration of Kiran Kulkarni in Support of Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to SSG Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Obtain Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery Ex. 1 (ECF No. 40-1) ("Kulkarni Decl.") at p. 1; Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to SSG Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2) Ex. F (ECF No. 109-6) ("Amorose Decl.") at p. 1; Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Opposition to SSG Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2) Ex. M (ECF No. 109-13) ("Pandyar Decl.") at p. 1.

Jayaraman also attacks the Court's use of supplemental discovery, arguing that it does not show that Jayaraman resided in Pittsburgh and participated in the money laundering operation with Madhavi. Jayaraman's Joinder to SSG Def.'s Mot. for Reconsideration at pp. 2-6, ¶¶ 6-14. It is true, as Jayaraman says, that the Amorose Declaration does not explicitly establish his residency in Pittsburgh. But the Court's conclusion did not hinge on the Amorose Declaration alone. The Court never explicitly represented the Amorose Declaration as...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT