Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-10578
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Shukla v. Deloitte LLP, Judge Nathan denied reconsideration of an injunction ruling, rejected hearing requests, and found any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Ashu Shukla and Deloitte LLP; the order also addressed Shukla’s requests involving law-enforcement entities that were not parties to the lawsuit.
What happened
In Shukla v. Deloitte LLP, Ashu Shukla asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his request for an emergency permanent injunction or temporary restraining order. He argued that the court had not fully considered his filings and had overlooked facts and evidence.
The court said it had considered all properly filed submissions. It acknowledged an incorrect docket number in one citation but found that this was only a clerical error. The court also said that filings submitted after briefing without the court’s permission did not need to be addressed, and that Shukla had not identified any specific overlooked argument, fact, or evidence.
Judge Nathan denied the motion for reconsideration and denied Shukla’s requests for a hearing. The court also rejected his request to direct law-enforcement entities to investigate, explaining that reconsideration was not the proper way to raise a new request and that the court lacked a stated legal basis to issue injunctions against nonparties. The court found that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP · No. 1:19-cv-10578
- Alison Nathan
- Jan. 28, 2021
Background
The court had previously denied Ashu Shukla’s emergency motion for a permanent injunction or temporary restraining order. Shukla then moved for reconsideration. He argued primarily that the court had failed to consider all of his submissions, pointing to the absence of specific citations to some filings and an incorrect docket number for his reply brief.
Shukla also asked the court to direct law-enforcement entities to investigate his claims against Deloitte LLP and requested hearings.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy available only when the movant identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain another hearing on the merits.
The court found that it had fully considered Shukla’s properly filed submissions. Although the court had cited the wrong docket number for his reply brief, it had considered the reply, and the error was clerical only. The court did not cite supplemental filings that Shukla submitted after briefing without permission, but explained that those filings were not properly before it and repeated substantially the same arguments as his earlier submissions.
The court also found that Shukla did not identify any specific argument, fact, or evidence that it had failed to consider. The court had already reviewed his submissions and exhibits and concluded that they did not show a reasonable possibility that Deloitte LLP was engaged in the conduct alleged. The court therefore found no basis to reconsider that determination.
As to the request for law-enforcement investigations, the court held that a reconsideration motion was not the proper vehicle for raising a new request. It also stated that Shukla had provided no legal basis for injunctions against people or entities that were not parties to the lawsuit.
Disposition
The court denied Shukla’s motion for reconsideration. It also denied his requests for a hearing and stated that the ruling resolved Docket Numbers 159, 188, and 192. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court found that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.