Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-07804
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc., Judge Failla granted a hearing and limited discovery concerning alleged communications with class members, and imposed communication restrictions.
The order directly affects Defendant Swe, Defendant Win, their agents and employees Maya Swe and Kawng Set Tun, the class members, and class counsel. It requires the identified individuals to stop unauthorized communications with class members, provide information and communications, preserve records, and attend the hearing.
What happened
In Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc., the plaintiffs alleged that people connected to the defendants improperly pressured class members to opt out of the lawsuit. They asked the court for a hearing and other corrective measures. The defendants denied wrongdoing and argued that the allegations were unsupported.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a hearing and limited discovery beforehand. It prohibited Defendant Swe, Defendant Win, and their agents, including Maya Swe and Kawng Set Tun, from discussing the lawsuit with class members without the court’s permission. The court also ordered them to provide affidavits and preserve and produce communications and other information about contacts with class members.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla scheduled the hearing for September 16, 2025, and ordered the identified individuals to appear. The court did not decide whether the alleged communications were improper; it directed the parties to gather information and comply with the restrictions. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending matter at docket entry 93.
The detailed version
- Chakma v. Sushi Katsuei, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-07804
- Katherine Failla
- July 9, 2025
Background
The court received the plaintiffs’ letter at docket entry 93 concerning alleged communications between defendants’ agents and class members, as well as the defendants’ response at docket entry 94. The plaintiffs’ earlier letter at docket entry 88 was also considered. The allegations concerned efforts to influence class members’ decisions about opting out of the lawsuit.
The defendants’ response argued that the plaintiffs’ allegations were speculative and unsupported. It denied that Maya Swe or the individual defendants pressured class members and argued that communications by Kawng Set Tun could not be attributed to them without evidence of an agency relationship. The defendants asked the court to reject the allegations and deny corrective measures.
Court’s Action
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a hearing and scheduled it for September 16, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in New York, New York.
The court also granted the plaintiffs’ request for limited discovery before the hearing. Defendant Swe, Defendant Win, and their agents, including employees Maya Swe and Kawng Set Tun, were prohibited from communicating with class members about the lawsuit without the court’s express permission.
The court ordered A. Swe, A. Win, M. Swe, and K. Tun to provide class counsel with affidavits identifying every class member with whom they had discussed the lawsuit since February 7,
- They were also ordered to preserve written communications—including text messages, emails, and social-media messages—with class members and produce them to class counsel by July 18,
- The court separately ordered M. Swe to provide her call logs from May 1, 2025, through the present by July 18,
- The identified individuals were ordered to appear at the September 16 hearing.
Disposition and Scope
The order granted the hearing request and the request for limited discovery. It imposed communication, preservation, disclosure, and appearance requirements. The court stated that it viewed the plaintiffs’ allegations seriously but did not determine in this order whether coercion, misleading communications, agency, or other misconduct had occurred. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 93.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.