Verificient Technologies, Inc. v. Dutta

Background

On June 10, 2025, Respondent Apratim Dutta filed a letter requesting sanctions concerning the alleged unauthorized practice of law by Attorneys Timothy B. Mills and A.J. Merrill. Dutta asked the court to strike all pleadings signed during the alleged unauthorized practice and to dismiss Verificient Technologies, Inc.’s petition with prejudice.

Court’s Analysis

The court found no basis to strike the pleadings or dismiss the petition based on whether Mills or Merrill were authorized to practice in the matter. The petition to confirm the arbitration award and all supporting papers filed by Verificient were signed by Attorney Arthur Jakoby, whom Dutta did not dispute was a member of the New York bar. The court also noted that Dutta provided no evidence that Jakoby knew about any alleged misrepresentations connected to Mills’s or Merrill’s requests for permission to appear in the case.

The court declined to take action on Dutta’s other requests at that time. It stated that whether a violation occurred and what sanctions, if any, should be imposed are matters within the trial court’s discretion. The court said Dutta could pursue any grievances against counsel through the appropriate professional-conduct bodies.

Disposition

The court denied Dutta’s requests to strike the pleadings and dismiss the petition. It declined to take action on his other requests at that time. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the Clerk of Court to mail Dutta a copy of the order by certified mail.