MPHASIS Corporation v. Rojas
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-03175
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mphasis Corporation v. Rojas, Judge Furman denied Mphasis’s sanctions request without prejudice after alleged Temporary Restraining Order violations.
The ruling affected Mphasis Corporation’s request for attorney’s fees and Defendant Albert Rojas, who was warned about possible financial or other sanctions for knowingly violating the Temporary Restraining Order.
What happened
In Mphasis Corporation v. Albert Rojas, Mphasis told the court that Rojas violated a May 6 Temporary Restraining Order twice on May 7, 2025. The order barred him from using email addresses resembling Mphasis addresses and from accessing, possessing, disclosing, or using Mphasis’s confidential information.
Mphasis said Rojas emailed lawyers from an address using the domain “mphasis.cloud” and sent them confidential presentations, employee contact information, workplace chats, and email chains. Mphasis asked the court to require Rojas to pay attorney’s fees as a sanction and said he had also stated that he would not delete confidential information.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the request without prejudice to renewing it if further violations occurred. He warned Rojas that knowingly violating the order could lead to financial or other sanctions and reminded him not to make duplicative or inappropriate court submissions.
The detailed version
- MPHASIS Corporation v. Rojas · No. 1:25-cv-03175
- Jesse Furman
- May 8, 2025
Background
Mphasis submitted an endorsed letter asking the court to impose attorney’s fees as a sanction for alleged violations of a Temporary Restraining Order, or TRO, dated May 6, 2025. The TRO directed Rojas to stop using or creating email addresses or domain names resembling those of Mphasis, its employees, or its legal department. It also prohibited him from accessing, possessing, disclosing, or using Mphasis’s confidential or proprietary information, including Mphasis emails and documents created or used for its clients.
Mphasis alleged that on May 7, Rojas emailed Mphasis’s counsel and counsel for QBE from “legal@mphasis.cloud,” whose display name was “Legal.” Mphasis also alleged that Rojas sent confidential PowerPoint presentations and internal communications, including employee contact information, Teams chats, and email chains. Mphasis stated that Rojas had previously told the court that he did not possess confidential information, and that he later said he would not delete confidential information in his possession. Mphasis requested attorney’s fees for the filing to encourage compliance with the TRO.
Court’s ruling
The court denied the application, without prejudice to renewal if further violations of the TRO occurred. The court did not state that it had made a final finding that the alleged violations were proved. It reminded Rojas that the TRO is a court order and that a willful violation could result in financial or other sanctions. The court also reiterated that Rojas should avoid duplicative or inappropriate submissions. Mphasis was directed to promptly serve Rojas with the endorsed letter and file proof of service, and the Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 82.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addressed a request for sanctions and attorney’s fees related to compliance with a court order, rather than deciding the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.