ICICI Bank Limited, New York Branch v. Doshi

Background

ICICI Bank Limited, New York Branch (ICICI NY) and ICICI Bank UK, PLC (ICICI UK) brought eight claims against Vishal Doshi, Nihar Parikh, Sanjay Shah, and Hiren Shah. The banks alleged that the defendants participated in a scheme involving fraudulent financial reports, shell companies, sham transactions, and loans or credit facilities extended to Simon Golub & Sons, Inc. ICICI NY alleged losses connected to a $20 million loan and related credit facilities. ICICI UK alleged a separate fraud involving a $5 million loan facility.

The defendants did not answer the amended complaint or respond to the banks’ motions. The Clerk entered defaults against them. The banks asked the court to enter default judgment for $120,115,786.60. The court had previously denied an earlier request for default judgment without prejudice and allowed the banks to renew the request with additional explanation about claim preclusion and the rule concerning two voluntary dismissals.

Court’s Analysis

A default did not automatically require judgment. The court considered whether the defendants’ failure to participate was willful, whether they had potentially valid defenses, and whether denying judgment would prejudice the banks. The court found that the defendants’ conduct appeared willful and that denying judgment would prejudice the banks, but it also found that the defendants had valid legal defenses apparent from the pleadings and supporting materials.

ICICI NY’s claims

The court held that claim preclusion barred ICICI NY’s claims. Claim preclusion generally prevents a party from bringing claims that arise from the same factual grouping as claims involved in an earlier proceeding. The court also applied the rule that a second voluntary dismissal of the same claim can operate as a decision on the merits.

The court determined that the earlier Seattle third-party proceeding and the earlier Southern District of New York action involved transactions connected to the same $20 million loan. Although the banks characterized the transactions in the two proceedings as different, the court found that they shared the same origin and motivation and involved related credit and security agreements. The court also concluded that the four defendants were sufficiently connected for claim-preclusion purposes, even though only Nihar Parikh had been named as a defendant in the Seattle third-party proceeding.

The court therefore denied the motion for default judgment as to ICICI NY’s claims and directed that those claims be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state claims on which relief could be granted.

ICICI UK’s claims

The court concluded that the earlier proceedings did not bar ICICI UK’s claims because ICICI UK was not a party to the Seattle proceeding and alleged a separate set of transactions. However, the court independently examined whether it had personal jurisdiction, meaning legal authority over the defendants for these claims.

The court found no general personal jurisdiction because the defendants were domiciled in India and the amended complaint did not show that they were essentially at home in New York. The court also found no specific personal jurisdiction. Although the complaint stated generally that the defendants transacted business in New York and had purposefully engaged with the state, it did not identify conduct in New York connected to ICICI UK’s claims. The court held that these general assertions were insufficient.

The court therefore denied the motion for default judgment as to ICICI UK’s claims and directed that those claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for default judgment, directed the Clerk to dismiss ICICI NY’s claims with prejudice, directed the Clerk to dismiss ICICI UK’s claims without prejudice, and directed the Clerk to close the case. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the memorandum order on March 31, 2025.