Motion-Secondary: GREAT LAKES DEVELOPMENT, INC. vs. LEKHA & MEGHA, LLC, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                CAUSE NO. 21-09111

GREAT LAKES DEVELOPMENT,                    §                   IN THE DISTRICT COURT




                                         §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
INC., a Texas Corporation
       Plaintiff,
v.                                                               DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

LEKHA & MEGHA, LLC, a Texas
Limited Liability Company, UNI
KING, LLC, a Texas Limited
Liability Company, RAMU
NETTEM, individually, DINESH
TRIPURANENI, individually, and
MASHESWAR RAO CHALLA,
individually
       Defendants.                                              1015t   JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER GRANTINQ PEIEIIFF’S MOTION FOB SUMMARY JUDGMENT
      0N THIS DAY,     came to be considered                Plaintiff Great Lakes Development,

Inc.’s (“Great Lakes” or “Plaintiff ’) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) against

Defendants Lekha & Megha,       LLC (“L&M”), Ramu Nettem (“Nettem”), Dinesh

Tripuraneni (“Tripuraneni”), Masheswar Rao Challa (“Challa”), and Uni King, LLC

(“Uni King”) (collectively “Defendants”) in the above-styled and numbered cause.

Having considered Plaintiffs Motion, Defendants’ response thereto, if any, the other

papers of record, and the arguments of counsel, the Court finds the Motion well-taken

and, therefore, makes the following findings:




ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT                                   Page   1
         That Defendants L&M, Tripuraneni, Uni-King, and Challa breached their

lease agreement with Plaintiff by failing to pay all necessary charges due under the

Lease.

         That Defendants Nettem, Tripuraneni, and Challa breached their personal
                                                                          due under the
guaranties of the Lease by failing to pay Plaintiff all necessary charges

Lease.

         That Plaintiff has sustained actual monetary damages in the amount of Thirty-
                                                                                 due to
Eight Thousand Three Hundred Sixty-Six Dollars and 62/100 ($38,366.62)
Defendants’ respective breaches.

         The Court furthermore finds that, upon good and sufficient evidence present

to the Court, Plaintiff should recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of court

which the Court finds to be Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred One Dollars and 63/100

($16,601.63).

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion           be   GRANTED in its

entirety and that Plaintiff have and recover a judgment against Defendants, jointly

and severally, as follows:

         i.     Actual economic damages in the amount of $38,366.62;

         ii.    Accrued pre-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate per annum;

         iii.   Post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate per annum; and

          iv.   Reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of
                $16,601.63.

          IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have and          be entitled to   all

 writs of execution and other process necessary to effectuate the terms of this order.

 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT                           Page 2
     This Order is a full and final judgment disposing of all parties and issues and

may be appealed.

     All other relief not granted herein is hereby Denied.
      SO ORDERED this           day of               2022.



                                           JUDGE PRESIDING




ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT                       Page     3
                         Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Staci Bednarski on behalf of John Fraser
Bar No. 7393550
sbednarski@fbfk.law
Envelope ID: 64635653
Status as of 5/18/2022 3:57 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name                  BarNumber    Email              TimestampSubmitted       Status
John Douglas Fraser   7393550      jfraser@fbfk.law   5/18/2022 3:38:42 PM     SENT


Associated Case Party: DINESH TRIPURANENI

Name          BarNumber   Email                       TimestampSubmitted      Status
Jason Choe                jchoe@choewalker.com        5/18/2022 3:38:42 PM    SENT


Associated Case Party: GREAT LAKES DEVELOPMENT, INC.

Name              BarNumber     Email                  Timestam pSubmitted     Status

Patty Kelly                     pkelly@fbfk.law        5/18/2022 3:38:42 PM    SENT
Alex M.Campbel|                 acampbell@fbfk.law     5/18/2022 3:38:42 PM    SENT
Kashonna Ross                   kross@fbfk.law         5/18/2022 3:38:42 PM    SENT


Associated Case Party: UNI KING, LLC

Name          BarNumber   Email                       TimestampSubmitted      Status
Jason Choe                jchoe@choewalker.com        5/18/2022 3:38:42 PM    SENT


Associated Case Party: MASHESWAR RAO CHALLA

Name          BarNumber   Email                       TimestampSubmitted      Status
Jason Choe                jchoe@choewalker.com        5/18/2022 3:38:42 PM    SENT