This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
RICO
Fraud

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

Dale A. Drozd

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Pro Per


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.


#130886

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390