Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 9, 2022

Shukla v. Apple Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:21-cv-03287
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Shukla v. Apple Inc., Judge Furman dismissed the case after Shukla abandoned it, while retaining jurisdiction over possible sanctions or a litigation bar.

Who this affects

The dismissal affected Ashu Shukla’s case against Apple Inc. and Deloitte Consulting LLP. The court retained jurisdiction concerning possible sanctions or a litigation bar.

What happened

In Shukla v. Apple Inc., Ashu Shukla told the court that he was abandoning his case against Apple Inc. and Deloitte Consulting LLP. He cited what he described as biased orders and a pending appeal seeking Judge Furman’s recusal.

The court dismissed the case and directed the Clerk of Court to close it. The court also canceled all conferences and denied all motions as moot.

Judge Jesse Furman stated that the court would retain jurisdiction to decide whether sanctions or a litigation bar should be imposed. The opinion does not decide the underlying allegations against the defendants.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Shukla v. Apple Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-03287
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Feb. 9, 2022

Background

Ashu Shukla’s filing identified Apple Inc. and Deloitte Consulting LLP as defendants. Shukla told the court that he was abandoning the case, citing what he called biased orders by Judge Jesse M. Furman. The filing also stated that Shukla had filed an appeal seeking Judge Furman’s recusal.

Ruling

The court stated: “This case is hereby dismissed,” citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(G) as written in the opinion. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case, all conferences were canceled, and all motions were denied as moot.

The court retained jurisdiction—meaning authority to decide a matter connected with the case—to determine whether sanctions or a litigation bar should be imposed. The court cited decisions explaining that dismissal does not prevent consideration of collateral issues such as sanctions. The opinion does not decide the merits of Shukla’s allegations against Apple Inc. or Deloitte Consulting LLP.

Disposition

The case was dismissed. The court retained jurisdiction over possible sanctions or a litigation bar, but the opinion does not state that either was imposed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.