Madhu Sameer v. Sameer Khera
Published: Dec. 28, 2018 | Result Date: Dec. 5, 2018 |Case number: 1:17-cv-01748-DAD-EPG Settlement – Dismissal
Judge
Court
USDC Eastern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Jody L. Winter
(LloydWinter PC)
Marshall C. Whitney
(Whitney, Thompson & Jeffcoach LLP )
John S. Burton
(Law Offices of John S. Burton PC)
John Girarde
(Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney PC)
Kristin L. Iversen
(Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney)
Sharon M. Nagle
(Bold, Polisner, Maddow, Nelson & Judson)
Farley J. Neuman
(Goodman, Neuman & Hamilton LLP)
Kristin N. Blake
(Klinedinst PC)
Natalie P. Vance
(Klinedinst PC)
Arnold J. Anchordoquy
(Clifford & Brown)
Dennis P. Gallagher II
(Clifford & Brown)
Bruce D. MacLeod
(Willoughby, Stuart, Bening & Cook)
James D. Weakley
(Weakley & Arendt APC)
Leslie M. Dillahunty
(Weakley & Arendt APC)
Facts
Madhu Sameer filed suit against 30 defendants, including her ex-husband, Sameer Khera, his current wife, two corporations owned by them, all attorneys who represented her in the divorce proceedings, all attorneys who represented Khera in the divorce proceedings, two Santa Clara County judges, a Fresno County Superior Court judge, a Fresno County Superior Court commissioner, the California Dept. of Child Support Services, a certified public accountant, and a vocational assessment professional, in relation to her divorce.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff generally contended that the defendants were out to deprive her of her money. Specifically, she contended that defendants conspired to permit her ex-husband to steal millions of dollars in property, child support, and spousal support from her. Plaintiff asserted fifteen causes of action against defendants, including claims of attempt, fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment, civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, fraudulent conveyance, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, obstruction of justice, defamation, unfair business practices, aiding and abetting, misprision of a felony, insurrection, civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 and other provisions, and RICO conspiracy.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the allegations.
Result
The court found the claims to be frivolous and dismissed the case with prejudice.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390