Koopman v. Shah et al, No. 1:2019cv00959 - Document 97 (E.D. Va. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - GRANTS Mr. Koopman's motion summary judgment Dkt. 83 , and GRANTS IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment Dkt. 86 . Count II of Mr. Koopman's complaint is dismissed. Counts I and III will proceed as to Defendant Navika.. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 6/25/2021. (ahas)

Download PDF

Koopman v. Shah et al Doc. 97 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division William J. Benjamin Koopman, Plaintiff, Case No. l:19-cv-0959 Hon. Liam O'Grady Naveen Shah, et al. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are the Parties' cross-motions for summary judgment(Dkts. 83, 86). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Mr. Koopman's motion summary judgment (Dkt. 83), and GRANTS IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment(Dkt. 86). BACKGROUND This dispute stems from a failed attempt to implement a hotel management business. Plaintiff Ben Koopman is a career hotel management executive. Dkt. 84, at 3,^ 1. Defendant Naveen Shah is the President and CEO of Defendant Navika Group of Companies LLC ("Navika"). Id. 15. Navika is a holding company that "owns and manages real estate across the United States, including a portfolio of full and limited-service hotels." Id. Mr. Shah and Navika first worked with Mr. Koopman in or about 2010, when Mr. Koopman managed several of Navika's hotels as Vice President of Operations for a third-party entity, Jackson Hospitality Services. Dkt. 87-2, at 133. This relationship was short-lived; Mr. Shah and Navika fired Mr. Koopman and his company for a "lack ofcompetence." See id. at 132-33. Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.