Bhagat v. Shah

Nature of the document

The provided text appears to be a letter from Lawrence Katz of The Alber Firm, counsel for Defendant Anuja Sharad Shah, rather than a court opinion or order. It refers to a letter motion at ECF 204 and another motion at ECF 203, and says those matters would be discussed at a telephone conference scheduled for May 1, 2025. The letter is addressed to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky.

Defendant’s position and requests

Shah’s counsel argues that Plaintiff Viral Bhagat has not supported his claimed $3.5 million in damages. The letter states that Bhagat’s damages claim is the sole basis for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which generally requires the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. Counsel points to Bhagat’s alleged termination from Meta and subsequent employment within several months, and asserts that he has not produced offer letters, proof of lost earnings or salary differences, documentation of mitigation efforts, expert analysis of economic loss, or medical and psychological records supporting more than ordinary emotional distress.

Counsel asks the court to order Bhagat to provide a complete, itemized damages calculation and supporting documents; require compliance within seven days; preclude him from introducing damages evidence at depositions or trial if he does not comply; and dismiss or remand the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if he cannot substantiate a good-faith claim exceeding $75,000. Counsel requests expedited consideration because depositions were scheduled to begin on May 16, 2025.

Disposition

The provided text does not state that the court granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on Shah’s requests. It therefore does not establish any change in the parties’ legal rights or the case’s jurisdiction. Although the supplied case metadata identifies Judge Valerie Caproni, the document itself is directed to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky.