Poddar, et al v. State Bank of India, No. 1:1998cv01691 - Document 114 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the foregoing reasons, defendants motion for equitable relief and to require plaintiffs to post a bond is denied. However, this case is now scheduled for trial on September 23, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. Unless plaintiffs are prepared to properly represent the class at that time, the class will be decertified and the case will be tried for the named plaintiffs only. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 3/27/2009) (jpo)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------X SHRIKUMAR PODDAR, individually and as plan administrator and trustee; MAYURIKA PODDAR, individually and as trustee; VAISHNAVA CENTER FOR ENLIGHTENMENT, INC., d.b.a. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE SOCIETY; and INDIA FOUNDATION, INC. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -againstSTATE BANK OF INDIA, Defendant. --------------------------------------X APPEARANCES: KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER Attorneys for Plaintiffs 350 Fairfield Avenue Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 By: Neal DeYoung, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF H. RAJAN SHARMA Attorneys for Plaintiffs 320 E. 73rd Street New York, New York 10021 By: H. Rajan Sharma, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP Attorneys for Defendant 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178 By: Paul F. Doyle, Esq. Joel Hankin, Esq. MEMORANDUM OPINION 98 Civ. 1691(MGC) CEDARBAUM, J. This is a class action for breach of the terms of bonds purchased from defendant, State Bank of India ( SBI ). Defendant moves to dismiss this action based on equitable grounds, or in the alternative seeks an order requiring plaintiffs to show cause why an $18,000 settlement is inequitable and to post bond in the amount of $600,000. For the reasons that follow, defendant s motion is denied. DISCUSSION I. Motion to Dismiss Defendant moves to dismiss this class action based solely on allegations of inequitable, vexatious and harassing litigation by plaintiffs. Throughout the course of this ten year litigation, plaintiffs have changed counsel numerous times and failed to prosecute their claims for periods lasting several months. Defendant asks that the court exercise its inherent equitable powers to dismiss the case based on plaintiffs litigation conduct. Defendant has not moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute because plaintiff has periodically sought to move forward, usually when a new lawyer appears. Moreover, I do not find that the delay in the prosecution of this case is due solely to plaintiffs procrastination. Rather, during those periods of time where the case reached a standstill, defendant often took no action to move it forward. Although the case is not yet ripe for dismissal, decertification of THE class may soon be an appropriate remedy. II. Motion For Order to Show Cause Defendant also moves for an order to show cause why an $18,000 settlement fund is inequitable. mutual agreement to end a lawsuit. A settlement is a There is no such agreement between the parties in this case. Therefore, defendant s motion to show cause is denied. III. Motion for Order Requiring Plaintiffs Counsel to Post $600,000 Bond Finally, Defendant moves for an order requiring plaintiffs and their counsel to post bond in the amount of $600,000 in order to make certain that the State Bank will be able to recoup costs should it successfully defend this action and be entitled to recover against plaintiffs and their counsel for sanctions, including attorneys fees. This motion has previously been made and denied. As I have previously held, defendant has not made the requisite showing that the circumstances in this case warrant requiring plaintiffs to post security. Poddar v. State Bank of India, 235 F.R.D. 592, 596-9 (S.D.N.Y 2006). Plaintiff has not proffered any new authority or evidence supporting its motion. The motion for an order requiring plaintiffs to post a bond is therefore denied. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendant s motion for equitable relief and to require plaintiffs to post a bond is denied. However, this case is now scheduled for trial on September 23, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. Unless plaintiffs are prepared to properly represent the class at that time, the class will be decertified and the case will be tried for the named plaintiffs only. Dated: New York, New York March 27, 2009 S/__________________________ MIRIAM GOLDMAN CEDARBAUM United States District Judge
]]>
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.
