Preview
Filing # 103837309 E-Filed 02/25/2020 09:46:38 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GOOD GATEWAY LLC SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDING
NO.: 2020-CA-001578-O
Plaintiff,
vs.
PROCEEDING SUPPLEMENTARY
ORLANDO GATEWAY PARTNERS, TO: CASE NO.: 2010-CA-015315-O
LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants. COMPLEX BUSINESS LITIGATION
DIVISION: 43
SEG GATEWAY, LLC,
Cross-Claimant,
PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION:
vs. 1) TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER FOR
ORLANDO GATEWAY PARTNERS, INSPECTION OF PROPERTY, 2) FOR
LLC, ET AL., SANCTIONS, AND 3) CONTEMPT
Cross-Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION: 1) TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER FOR INSPECTION OF PROPERTY, 2)
FOR SANCTIONS, AND 3) CONTEMPT
Plaintiff, Good Gateway, LLC, and Cross-claimant, SEG Gateway, LLC,
(hereinafter referred to collectively as “Plaintiffs”), by and through their
undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fl. R. Civ. P. 1.570 and 1.380 (b), and file the
Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Compel Defendants’ Compliance with this
Court’s order entered October 1, 2019 against Defendants Niloy and Rohan, LLC,
and Chittranjan K. Thakkar (“Thakkar”) (hereinafter referred to collectively as
“Thakkar” or “Defendants”) and states as follows:
I. THIS COURT SHOULD COMPEL JUDGMENT DEBTOR
DEFENDANTS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COURT’S ORDER
COMPELLING INSPECTION OF THAKKAR’S PROPERTY.
1. Thakkar has utterly ignored yet another order of this Court. Thakkar and
the Defendants are judgment debtors for over $20 million with accrued interest and
to date have not paid a nickel on their evasion and avoidance of responsibility for
their fraud. Thakkar persists in their vexatious, multijurisdictional evasion of
collection and violations of this Court’s orders, judgments and injunctions. They
have not been dissuaded by multiple sanctions, including for fraud on the court, nor
by the incarceration of Thakkar by a federal judge.
2. The Georgia court has already granted Plaintiffs motion for summary
judgment to foreclose on Thakkar’s multimillion home and Plaintiffs rights are
superior to Chittranjan Thakkar’s wife. The emergency involves an imminent
sheriffs’ sale set for March 3, 2020 which Thakkar has been well aware of for
months. The advertising is complete and Georgia court has ordered the sale of
Thakkar’s golf course home. Ex. A. It is imperative that the Thakkar’s property be
inspected by Plaintiffs who will credit bid their judgments. This Court’s order is
crystal clear that within 30 days counsel for the parties would coordinate the
inspections, which was October 31, 2019. Thakkar and his lawyers refuse to comply.
Thakkar has, and has never had, any respect for the court system of this country.
Thakkar will no doubt blame his wife Saloni, but Mrs. Thakkar has consistently
-2-
testified that her husband Chittranjan makes all the decisions, and specifically does so
for all matters related to this case. Notably, Mrs. Thakkar did not join the opposition
to the motion, nor has she appeared in this matter. More importantly, the Georgia
court has already ruled on her inferior position. Ex. E. Her son, Rohan, recently had
final judgment for fraud entered against him by the Supreme Court of New York for
over $3.6 million for Plaintiffs’ fraudulent transfer action.
3. Thakkar and Moffa have now asserted that they will not permit
inspection in spite of the litigation of this issue and the order. It is of no concern to
Thakkar and Moffa that they have no authority or any legal or factual basis for
obstructing the inspection approved by three judges (Munyon, Jennemann, and
O’Kane) who have overruled their opposition. It is time to put a stop to Thakkar’s
abuse and to impose a consequence.
4. Thakkar counsel Moffa has previously agreed to inspections and even
pretended to coordinate them. Moffa, no doubt because of his filing a petition in
bankruptcy against his own client after Thakkar stiffed him for over $300,000 in fees,
began to vacillate, and Plaintiffs had to seek more court intervention.
5. On October 1, 2019, this Court entered the order compelling the
inspection and that Thakkar must coordinate a date within thirty days. Ex. B. On
the same day, this Court entered summary judgment against Thakkar and granted
another motion for fees and costs as sanctions.
6. Moffa emailed that he had thirty days to arrange inspection, but then
-3-
blocked Plaintiffs. Ex. C, Moffa emails.
7. After years of pursing collections and chasing Thakkar around the
country, Plaintiffs finally set a sheriff’s foreclosure sale in Atlanta to sell one of
Thakkar’s several multi-million dollar homes. Zillow states that the value is over
$2,000,000.
8. Thakkar, trying to use a last minute negotiation to block the sale,
contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel. Thakkar counsel suggested in emails and phone
conferences that he could obtain approval for inspection, but on February 21, 2020
informed Plaintiffs that the Thakkar’s would NOT permit inspection.
9. Thakkar’s actions are a flagrant violation of this Court’s order, which is
nothing new for Thakkar.
10. Thakkar counsel Moffa has now brazenly asserted in multiple emails
that falsely approved inspection, asking “who is your appraiser?” Moffa continued
the same practice that has had him sanctioned for fraud, §57.105 and a bench warrant
issued. It must stop for the courts to maintain any degree of order and respect.
11. This Court may recall that the instant action arises from Thakkar’s
attempt to escape the judgments entered after an almost three week jury trial in these
cases which have been pending since 2009 and delayed repeatedly by all Defendants
who have been repeatedly sanctioned for dilatory practice and fraud, and Defendants’
innumerable substitutions of counsel. Ex, D, Court Findings of Thakkar’s History of
Abuse and Contempt.
-4-
12. Thakkar was jailed by Judge Jennemann for contempt in October 2016
which further evidences the need for this Court to impose sanctions of its own
volition. Plaintiffs note that there are seven pending motions for §57.105 sanctions in
this Court already and this Court has the authority under §57.105(1), Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.380(b)(2) and other authorities to sanction these Defendants and their attorneys for
violation of the order.
13. This Court, in its fraud order of August 1, 2014, already found that
striking pleadings was appropriate. The striking of a parties’ pleadings is appropriate
where there is “deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority.”
Barnett v. Barnett, 718 So. 2d 302, 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “Because corrupt intent
knows no stylistic boundaries, fraud on the court can take many forms.” Aoude v.
Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989). See also Moakley v.
Smallwood, 826 So. 2d. 221, 222 (Fla. 2002).
14. This Court enjoined Thakkar in 2011(Judge Smith’s and Judge Lauten’s
orders enforcing jurisdiction) and entered an emergency order against these same
Defendants in 2013 when they filed a bad faith bankruptcy petition on the eve of trial
in 2013 and subsequently sanctions under §57.105 were entered. Judge Jennemann
entered final judgment as to these fees - three years after Defendants’ bad actions.
15. Plaintiffs ask this Court to grant the relief requested in the Plaintiffs’
emergency motion without further delay.
II. MEMORANDUM OF LAW
-5-
16. Business Court Procedures permit the filing of emergency motions.
BCP 5.17. Here, the emergency is not the result of Plaintiffs’ lack of diligence, but
of Defendants’ willful violation of this Court’s order- in this case an order to compel
inspection of property about to be sold by the sheriff. Thakkar’s dilatory practice
continues to prejudice and dilute the Plaintiffs’ rights and interests. Fl. R. Civ. P.
1.380(b)(2) states that this Court may sanction Co-Defendants for failure to obey a
court order, and all judgement debtor Defendants are violating the Court’s order.
17. Fl. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b)(2)(d) permits sanctions for contempt of court
orders. Here, there is a pattern of violation of court orders which have been
consistently ignored by all the Defendants. This Court has jurisdiction to punish the
Defendants. Fla. Stat. §57.105(1) also permits this court to impose sanctions on its
own volition. This Court has inherent authority to impose sanctions and to police
against abuse of the judicial process.
18. A court must, on a case by case basis, determine the appropriate
sanctions. It is clear that another fraud on the court has occurred given Thakkar’s and
Moffa’s history, and such a remedy includes procedural games in addition to the
classic substantive frauds (i.e. lying about a fact to the court). Cox v. Burke, 706
So.2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). This Court must consider whether conduct was
willful or done in bad faith or was deliberate and is contumacious disregard of the
court’s authority. Dilatory tactics such as the gamesmanship over scheduling
inspection is the same as failing to show up for depositions- for the purpose of delay
-6-
– and may rise to a level justifying the court’s sanctions of dismissal of the case.
Levine v. DelAmerican Property, Inc., 642 So.2d 32 (5th DCA 1994) (affirming
dismissal where defendant refused to attend depositions). “Dilatory practices bring
the administration of justice into disrepute. The question is whether a competent
lawyer acting in good faith would regard the course of action as having some
substantive purpose other than delay.” Comment to Rule 4-3.2 Expediting Litigation,
Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. “A procedure or tactic that had no substantial
purpose other than delay constitutes representation outside the bounds of the spirit
and intent of the law.” The Florida Bar v. Thomas, 582 So.2d, 1177 (Fla. 1991); The
Florida Bar v. Hmielewski, 702 So.2d 218 (Fla. 1997). Both this Court, Judges
Munyan and Jennemann have specifically found that Thakkar and Moffa have filed
pleadings for delay in the past.
19. This Court clearly may impose sanctions under Fla. Stat. §57.105 on its
own initiative. See Koch v. Koch, 47 So.3d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (imposing
sanctions against a party pursuant to Fla. Stat. §57.105(1), even though it was the
sanctioned party's attorney who prepared and filed motions with no factual or legal
basis).
20. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm
from Defendants’ depriving Plaintiffs of their right to inspect and sell the property to
help satisfy its judgments. The judgments are still the law of the case, appeals have
been resolved for years. Defendants’ vexatious filings are illegal and improper.
-7-
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ request that this Court order the immediate access
to Thakkar’s properties prior to March 3, 2020, and as a sanction for Defendants’
behavior, Plaintiffs respectfully request an order that Defendants’ pay the
attorneys’ fees and costs for Plaintiffs’ having to file this motion, and that
Thakkar’s pleadings be stricken for his serial violation of court orders..
Dated: February 25, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
The Business Trial Group
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Clay M. Townsend
Clay M. Townsend, Esq. (FBN 363375)
Keith R. Mitnik, Esq. (FBN 436127)
20 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 1500
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 418-2075
Fax: (407) 245-3346
CTownsend@forthepeople.com
KMitnik@forthepeople.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was served via
CM/ECF electronic notification on all Electronic Filing Users on the list to receive
email notice/service for this case.
/s/ Clay M. Townsend
Clay M. Townsend (FBN: 363375)
Telephone: (407) 418-2075
Email: ctownsend@forthepeople.com
-8-
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
I. THAKKAR’S BACKGROUND OF FRAUD, CONTEMPT, POOR
MANAGEMENT, AND LITIGATION IMPROPRIETY
A. At a hearing of an order to show cause on February 7, 2019, Judge Hagenau
stated as to Thakkar that (see Ex. A, 2/7/19 Hrg. Tr.):
There are ways this could be done, but as you testified in here when we had
our hearing, you said, I will litigate with…Gateway…for the rest of my life.
You said that, right? (p. 51, 1-4) Thakkar answered “I didn’t mean that way,
but—“ (p.51:5). The court went on to say “I know, but you said it. And you
said it under oath. And so that leads me to believe that someone else has got
to take control and brink this to an end…you have shown mismanagement of
the bankruptcy case…That’s not how it works. You can’t get it out until you
taken care of everyone” (p. 51:6-16). Later during the same Hearing with
Judge Hagenau, the court stated (see 2/7/19 Hrg. Tr.) “You know, the deal
with Nilhan was clearly the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak,
right?...But clearly no level of borrowing money and granting liens was ever
approved. (p. 57:16-21) …I’m pretty convinced that had I – had that footnote
not been dropped in the brief, this Court would never have known what
happened with the Nilhan property, and it’s property of the estate, and you –
regardless of how smart a businessman you may be, that was not a smart
move for the purposes of managing a debtor in possession. Do you
understand the difference between gross mismanagement of a business type
and gross mismanagement of debtor in possession? And that’s just not, you
know, the way that we can – not the way that we can operate.”(p. 58:13-22)
B. At the Hearing on October 25, 2018 (see Ex. B, Hrg. Tr. 10/25/18), Judge
Hagenau stated:
I think this is offensive that a Debtor would purchase a piece of property for
$9.2 million, borrowing money from affiliates and I don’t know who the other
party is, completely liening the property, and then diving us a ho-hum. Had it
not been for the motion to Dismiss filed by the creditor—or the defendant an
adversary proceeding, we might never have known. That’s not how
Bankruptcy Court works, that’s now how this Court works…But you know,
there’s this idea that no harm, no foul; that’s not how itworks. We have
rules, we have procedures. And, you know, this is not a little thing that
somebody spent 5 grand on something. Somebody spent $9.2 million on
something and completely liened that property up and had no authority to do
it… The fact that Mr. Thakkar did this on his own without even involving his
counsel tells me he has no respect for how the bankruptcy process works.
He’s been through numerous motions to sell and motions to obtain financing
in this Court, and he knows that’s what’s supposed to be done. He just chose
not to do it, and we’re not going to have that…But at least from what I hear
right now, I’m very disturbed by…how this all came down.
C. At a hearing on Fraud on the Court, May 22, 2014, Thakkar testified that all of the
Thakkar entities are treated the same (see Ex. C, 5/22/14 Hrg. Tr.):
I can tell the Court this is family owned ...when I look at my son and my
wife, the changes between the two entities happens all the time in terms of
ownership. All of our entities are the Thakkar's family. We don't differentiate
...So ifthere's a transfer in my name or their name, my mind, it is in the
Thakkar family, so I have never differentiated. So for me when somebody
asks me who owns it,even today, I would not be able to accurately answer
my 50 entities in which we are hundred-percent owner, whether it's 10
percent maybe or 50 percent maybe.
Id. at 39:6-10, 17-23.
So, yes, it is not dealt with on a financial basis, because we consider our
family asset, our family asset. That's the simple explanation.
Id. at 41:6-8.
D. The accounting records for Thakkar and the Debtors have not been accurate and
no tax returns have been filed since 2015. As stated by Thakkar at the §341
Meeting held on May 18, 2015:
Right now, journal entries are not [being made] that's the reason why we
have this issue ...The transactions are entered by Rashid Mahmoud, okay?
So, if you get an invoice and so on. But on the other hand, all of the inter-
company transactions and journal entries will have to be done after a C.P.A.
goes back to January 1 of 2014 and accurately reflects all the journal entries
that need to be made; and they have not been made ... We've just not had the
infrastructure to do it.
Id. at 115-116.
E. Thakkar, Nilhan Financial and OGP do not know what amounts have been
transferred amongst OGP and other Thakkar owned entities. Money has been lent
and transferred, but there is no accurate recording or accounting of the financial
transaction between the related parties. Id. at 82, 97, 111, 129, 138, 151.
i. Thakkar and his co-defendants were warned by the Florida court in one
such order (Ex. D, dated January 16, 2014 at ¶ 36(f)) “that continued
abusive discovery practice may result in further sanctions, including
striking of pleadings.” In another order sanctioning Thakkar pursuant to
Florida Statute §57.105 (dated October 3, 2013), the court adjudged that
the Florida Defendants were “sanctioned for the [Claimants’] costs of
litigating the OGP bankruptcy petition” (Id.) and “for improperly asserting
a stay.” Id. at ¶ 35(c).
ii. At a hearing before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of
Florida on September 4, 2013 regarding the Florida Debtor OGP, Judge
Karen Jennemann, stated “…this Debtor [OGP] should probably – should
never have been here, in all likelihood, should not have filed. Likely in
bad faith” (see Ex. E. 9/4/13 Hrg. Tr. at10:10 - 12).
iii. On March 16, 2015, the Florida trial court again admonished Thakkar and
his co-defendants for their contemptuous behavior for not producing
financial records stating to their counsel: “Mr. Hoepker, I’m giving you an
opportunity to get your client under control … He’s going to produce them
[responsive documents to post judgment discovery requests], I am
confident, because he doesn’t want to go to jail.” (Judge Munyon, Ex. F,
3/16/15 Hrg. Tr. at 20:3-4, 11-12).
iv. In further support that Thakkar treats all of his affiliates as one, the CPA
(Hari Garwhal) for all of the Georgia Debtors as well as Thakkar’s over
fifty entities, Garhwal said of his adjusting journal entry “we just lumped
that into one party … CKT.” Id. at 77:4-13 (i.e. Garhwal took four
Thakkar entity entries and consolidated them under Thakkar personally on
the OGP books).
F. Judge Michael G. Williamson found: that C. Thakkar, while managing the affairs
of Jax Fairfield Financial, LLC (“Jax”) and Thakkar affiliate NF:
“is disadvantaged in the ethical department and business ethics. Because
this is a constant here in case after case.” (Excerpt of Hearing of June 18,
2019, p. 8:24-9:1) (emphasis added). Ex. G
G. Judge Michael G. Williamson also found:
“…they[Thakkar] all follow a pattern of …stiffing…This is just part of the
same modus operandi that Mr. Thakkar employs as a matter of his
business practice. There’s nothing surprising about this.”(Excerpt of
Hearing of June 19, 2019, p. 5:21-6:2) (emphasis added). Ex. H
H. Transcript of Middle District of Florida 341 Meeting of Creditors, March 28,
2018, wherein Thakkar testified:
“…Nilhan Financial had available approximately $215,000 to satisfy the
claim…it came from Jack’s[sic] Financial, which is one of the Thakkar
affiliates…(p.60:13-18)…Jack’s Fairfield Financial would loan money to
…Nilhan Financial to pay off Nilhan Financial’s creditors… (p. 61:7-10).
Ex. I
I. On April 15, 2019, Judge Michael G. Williamson found:
“There has been very little success on Mr. Thakkar’s side. It’s litigation for
strategic purpose…this objection to this claim[Thakkar’s objection which
was overruled by the court] is just another step in the overall pattern of
operating (p. 91:1-8)…they[the law firm claimants] worked for all the
entities…the representation is of all the entities. You can’t parse out…the
bill is jointly and several to the collective clients. Now there is an overriding
part of this, that from a credibility standpoint of view, Mr.
Thakkar…Frankly, that might have been credible, you know, several years
ago, until Mr. Thakkar—Mr. Thakkar’s method of operations has come
clear…And it works like this. We’ve heard about it today. I’ve been hearing
about it for the years that I’ve had this case…Mr. Thakkar had been put in
jail for contempt by Judge Jennemann. And I came into a case where every
time I showed up there was a new lawyer for Mr. Thakkar…and that is Mr.
Thakkar’s method of operation. (p. 220:10-221:16)…So all of Mr. Thakkar’s
excuses simply lack credibility, given that method of operation that this
record plainly—clearly supports.”(p. 222:2-6) (emphasis added). Ex. J.
J. On November 6, 2018, Judge Williamson found, in approving the compromise
between Good Gateway and Nilhan Financial, LLC and overruling Thakkar’s
objections that:
“That’s a typical global settlement that, frankly, only works in a bankruptcy
case because of the comprehensive jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and
the ability to deal with multiple parties. The alternative of litigating those
issues, if the settlement falls through, would be devastating in terms of the
fees that would result. And Mr. Thakkar is well familiar with those fees. He
has incurred substantial fees…there’s six of them that say they haven’t been
paid.”
“Bankruptcy is about closure and at some time you may have to live with an
imperfect settlement because it’s better than the alternatives which is at the
heart of the Justice Oaks factors. So I see nothing new here. It’s just a
continuation of a hopeful individual, Mr. Thakkar, that tomorrow is a better
deal and he can do better and he can have money here and he can do all
these things.” Ex. K, pp.46-47.
K. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Opinion Affirming
District Court’s Dismissal of Appeal Filed by Chittranjan K. Thakkar of Order
Granting Trustee’s Motion to Distribute Funds in Court Registry Pursuant to
Bench Warrant and Other Orders, filed on January 9, 2019 in case number 18-
12867 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, wherein the
court found, among other things, that:
i. Thakkar’s “...failure to timely file an initial brief, in violation of Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8018(a)(1).” Ex. L; M.
ii. Thakkar was held “…in civil contempt for failing to supply certain
documents to the Trustee. Thakkar was ultimately arrested for failure to
comply with the court’s order, and the court issued a bench warrant...” (p.
4).
iii. “...the disposition of his [Thakkar’s and purportedly Jax Fairfield
Financial’s] $200,000 bond [for his release from incarceration for
contempt] is a settled matter…,” (p. 5).
iv. “In brief, Thakkar is not going to see this money again.” (fn 2, p. 5).
v. “…Thakkar had failed to comply with Rule 8019(a)(1) in three prior
bankruptcies. Combined with the dilatory and uncooperative conduct that
was the impetus of the order that Thakkar was challenging...” (p.7).
vi. “In light of Thakkar’s consistently dilatory and uncooperative conduct, we
find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.” (p. 8).
L. Orders Granting Chapter 7 Trustee’s Motion to Compel Complete and Final
Reimbursement Pursuant to Bench Warrant and Other Orders, filed on February
12, 2019 (Ex. N) in case number 6:15-bk-03447-MGW (Doc 841) in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and in case number 6:15-
bk-03448-MGW (Doc 861) in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, wherein the court found, among other things, that:
i. Thakkar was ordered to pay a sanction in the amount of $42,712.82 within
twenty one (21) days;
ii. If Thakkar did not pay, the court would “...entertain coercive measures...
including potential incarceration.”;
iii. The Bench Warrant and contempt order “...remain in full effect.” Ex. O
M. Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Default Judgment, filed on
February 7, 2019 (Ex. P), in case number 160660/2016 in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York for New York County, wherein the court found, among
other things, that:
i. Thakkar was liable to Plaintiffs pursuant to the final judgments, including
for the judgment in favor of SEG Gateway, LLC, for “…a fraudulent
conveyance under Florida and New York law…”;
ii. “defendant Rohan has waived any objection to personal jurisdiction.”
iii. Thakkar “...fails to defeat plaintiffs’ showing of fraud.” (Ex. P)
iv. The Supreme Court of New York court of appeals affirmed final
judgment, dismissed Thakkar’s appeal and found that Thakkar had
displayed “numerous badges of fraud.” Ex. Q
N. Order affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to grant the retroactive
annulment and the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of the Motion to Reconsider,
entered on December 12, 2018 by Judge Richard W. Story in Case No. 1:18-cv-
02909-RWS in The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division. Ex. R
O. Judgment affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s Order of April 9, 2018 and dismissal
of the appeal, entered on December 12, 2018 by Judge Richard W. Story in Case
No. 1:18-cv-02909-RWS in The United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. Ex. S
P. Notice of Dismissal of Appeal with Prejudice, filed on December 10, 2018 in the
Middle District of Florida, Case No. 6:17-cv- 01281-PBG (the appeal was filed by
Thakkar and Nilhan Financial, LLC). Ex. T
Q. Order Granting Appellant’s [Thakkar’s]Notice of Dismissal of Appeal with
Prejudice, entered on December 11, 2018 by Judge Paul G. Byron in Case No.
6:17-cv-01281-PGB in The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division. Ex. U
R. Order of Contempt and Bench Warrant for Thakkar’s Arrest for Failure to
Turnover Estate Documents and Contempt. Ex. V.
S. On August 1, 2014, an Order Finding Thakkar Committed Fraud on the Court
(Ex. D) was entered by Judge Munyon, who found:
i. Thakkar willfully concealed NCT's involvement (c)
ii. The Court further finds that Thakkar has misrepresented his role in Nilhan
Hospitality…The Court finds that this was willful. (d)
iii. Thakkar was personally involved by investing his personal funds (e)
iv. Defendant's conduct has driven up the time and cost of this litigation
exponentially. (h)
v. Sanctions are appropriate. Because the prior sanctions have had no
apparent corrective effect, striking of pleadings is appropriate. However, a
combination of economic sanctions for the increased discovery cost and a
jury instruction is imposed in lieu of striking pleadings.
vi. Defendants' financial records and loan documents with Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. (hereinafter "Wells Fargo"), date back to 2008 and documents should
have been produced as early as 2010 as requested by Plaintiffs and ordered
by the Court.
vii. Plaintiffs made numerous written requests for the production of the Wells
Fargo documents
viii. Plaintiffs received only three (3) documents from the Defendants on
November 1,2013 via email wherein Defendants' counsel stated "Attached
are the Wells Fargo documents" which included only 40 pages.
ix. The Court finds that Defendants violated the Court's prior discovery
orders
x. The Court admonishes Defendants that continued abusive discovery
practice may result in future sanctions, including striking of pleadings.
T. Thakkar has been admonished and sanctioned for forum shopping in Florida and
in the N.D. of Georgia (Ex. W, p. 18, Judge Paul Bonapfel’s order finding that
“With regard to forum shopping, the Court notes that it is the most recent of
several attempts by a Thakkar entity to challenge the results of the Florida
Litigation in bankruptcy courts... Thakkar, at this late date and with a new lawyer
trying a new tactic, then belatedly filed.
U. Thakkar’s history of forum shopping, bad faith in litigation, evasion, avoidance,
contempt and fraud on the court is extensive. A few examples include findings by
numerous judges in state and federal court:
i. Thakkar and his co-defendants were warned by the Florida court in one
such order (dated January 16, 2014 at 36(f)) in the Good Gateway matter
which is related to Plaintiffs* claims in the
Preview
Filing # 103837309 E-Filed 02/25/2020 09:46:38 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA GOOD GATEWAY LLC SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDING NO.: 2020-CA-001578-O Plaintiff, vs. PROCEEDING SUPPLEMENTARY ORLANDO GATEWAY PARTNERS, TO: CASE NO.: 2010-CA-015315-O LLC, ET AL., Defendants. COMPLEX BUSINESS LITIGATION DIVISION: 43 SEG GATEWAY, LLC, Cross-Claimant, PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION: vs. 1) TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER FOR ORLANDO GATEWAY PARTNERS, INSPECTION OF PROPERTY, 2) FOR LLC, ET AL., SANCTIONS, AND 3) CONTEMPT Cross-Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION: 1) TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER FOR INSPECTION OF PROPERTY, 2) FOR SANCTIONS, AND 3) CONTEMPT Plaintiff, Good Gateway, LLC, and Cross-claimant, SEG Gateway, LLC, (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fl. R. Civ. P. 1.570 and 1.380 (b), and file the Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Compel Defendants’ Compliance with this Court’s order entered October 1, 2019 against Defendants Niloy and Rohan, LLC, and Chittranjan K. Thakkar (“Thakkar”) (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Thakkar” or “Defendants”) and states as follows: I. THIS COURT SHOULD COMPEL JUDGMENT DEBTOR DEFENDANTS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COURT’S ORDER COMPELLING INSPECTION OF THAKKAR’S PROPERTY. 1. Thakkar has utterly ignored yet another order of this Court. Thakkar and the Defendants are judgment debtors for over $20 million with accrued interest and to date have not paid a nickel on their evasion and avoidance of responsibility for their fraud. Thakkar persists in their vexatious, multijurisdictional evasion of collection and violations of this Court’s orders, judgments and injunctions. They have not been dissuaded by multiple sanctions, including for fraud on the court, nor by the incarceration of Thakkar by a federal judge. 2. The Georgia court has already granted Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment to foreclose on Thakkar’s multimillion home and Plaintiffs rights are superior to Chittranjan Thakkar’s wife. The emergency involves an imminent sheriffs’ sale set for March 3, 2020 which Thakkar has been well aware of for months. The advertising is complete and Georgia court has ordered the sale of Thakkar’s golf course home. Ex. A. It is imperative that the Thakkar’s property be inspected by Plaintiffs who will credit bid their judgments. This Court’s order is crystal clear that within 30 days counsel for the parties would coordinate the inspections, which was October 31, 2019. Thakkar and his lawyers refuse to comply. Thakkar has, and has never had, any respect for the court system of this country. Thakkar will no doubt blame his wife Saloni, but Mrs. Thakkar has consistently -2- testified that her husband Chittranjan makes all the decisions, and specifically does so for all matters related to this case. Notably, Mrs. Thakkar did not join the opposition to the motion, nor has she appeared in this matter. More importantly, the Georgia court has already ruled on her inferior position. Ex. E. Her son, Rohan, recently had final judgment for fraud entered against him by the Supreme Court of New York for over $3.6 million for Plaintiffs’ fraudulent transfer action. 3. Thakkar and Moffa have now asserted that they will not permit inspection in spite of the litigation of this issue and the order. It is of no concern to Thakkar and Moffa that they have no authority or any legal or factual basis for obstructing the inspection approved by three judges (Munyon, Jennemann, and O’Kane) who have overruled their opposition. It is time to put a stop to Thakkar’s abuse and to impose a consequence. 4. Thakkar counsel Moffa has previously agreed to inspections and even pretended to coordinate them. Moffa, no doubt because of his filing a petition in bankruptcy against his own client after Thakkar stiffed him for over $300,000 in fees, began to vacillate, and Plaintiffs had to seek more court intervention. 5. On October 1, 2019, this Court entered the order compelling the inspection and that Thakkar must coordinate a date within thirty days. Ex. B. On the same day, this Court entered summary judgment against Thakkar and granted another motion for fees and costs as sanctions. 6. Moffa emailed that he had thirty days to arrange inspection, but then -3- blocked Plaintiffs. Ex. C, Moffa emails. 7. After years of pursing collections and chasing Thakkar around the country, Plaintiffs finally set a sheriff’s foreclosure sale in Atlanta to sell one of Thakkar’s several multi-million dollar homes. Zillow states that the value is over $2,000,000. 8. Thakkar, trying to use a last minute negotiation to block the sale, contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel. Thakkar counsel suggested in emails and phone conferences that he could obtain approval for inspection, but on February 21, 2020 informed Plaintiffs that the Thakkar’s would NOT permit inspection. 9. Thakkar’s actions are a flagrant violation of this Court’s order, which is nothing new for Thakkar. 10. Thakkar counsel Moffa has now brazenly asserted in multiple emails that falsely approved inspection, asking “who is your appraiser?” Moffa continued the same practice that has had him sanctioned for fraud, §57.105 and a bench warrant issued. It must stop for the courts to maintain any degree of order and respect. 11. This Court may recall that the instant action arises from Thakkar’s attempt to escape the judgments entered after an almost three week jury trial in these cases which have been pending since 2009 and delayed repeatedly by all Defendants who have been repeatedly sanctioned for dilatory practice and fraud, and Defendants’ innumerable substitutions of counsel. Ex, D, Court Findings of Thakkar’s History of Abuse and Contempt. -4- 12. Thakkar was jailed by Judge Jennemann for contempt in October 2016 which further evidences the need for this Court to impose sanctions of its own volition. Plaintiffs note that there are seven pending motions for §57.105 sanctions in this Court already and this Court has the authority under §57.105(1), Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b)(2) and other authorities to sanction these Defendants and their attorneys for violation of the order. 13. This Court, in its fraud order of August 1, 2014, already found that striking pleadings was appropriate. The striking of a parties’ pleadings is appropriate where there is “deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority.” Barnett v. Barnett, 718 So. 2d 302, 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “Because corrupt intent knows no stylistic boundaries, fraud on the court can take many forms.” Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989). See also Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d. 221, 222 (Fla. 2002). 14. This Court enjoined Thakkar in 2011(Judge Smith’s and Judge Lauten’s orders enforcing jurisdiction) and entered an emergency order against these same Defendants in 2013 when they filed a bad faith bankruptcy petition on the eve of trial in 2013 and subsequently sanctions under §57.105 were entered. Judge Jennemann entered final judgment as to these fees - three years after Defendants’ bad actions. 15. Plaintiffs ask this Court to grant the relief requested in the Plaintiffs’ emergency motion without further delay. II. MEMORANDUM OF LAW -5- 16. Business Court Procedures permit the filing of emergency motions. BCP 5.17. Here, the emergency is not the result of Plaintiffs’ lack of diligence, but of Defendants’ willful violation of this Court’s order- in this case an order to compel inspection of property about to be sold by the sheriff. Thakkar’s dilatory practice continues to prejudice and dilute the Plaintiffs’ rights and interests. Fl. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b)(2) states that this Court may sanction Co-Defendants for failure to obey a court order, and all judgement debtor Defendants are violating the Court’s order. 17. Fl. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b)(2)(d) permits sanctions for contempt of court orders. Here, there is a pattern of violation of court orders which have been consistently ignored by all the Defendants. This Court has jurisdiction to punish the Defendants. Fla. Stat. §57.105(1) also permits this court to impose sanctions on its own volition. This Court has inherent authority to impose sanctions and to police against abuse of the judicial process. 18. A court must, on a case by case basis, determine the appropriate sanctions. It is clear that another fraud on the court has occurred given Thakkar’s and Moffa’s history, and such a remedy includes procedural games in addition to the classic substantive frauds (i.e. lying about a fact to the court). Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). This Court must consider whether conduct was willful or done in bad faith or was deliberate and is contumacious disregard of the court’s authority. Dilatory tactics such as the gamesmanship over scheduling inspection is the same as failing to show up for depositions- for the purpose of delay -6- – and may rise to a level justifying the court’s sanctions of dismissal of the case. Levine v. DelAmerican Property, Inc., 642 So.2d 32 (5th DCA 1994) (affirming dismissal where defendant refused to attend depositions). “Dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The question is whether a competent lawyer acting in good faith would regard the course of action as having some substantive purpose other than delay.” Comment to Rule 4-3.2 Expediting Litigation, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. “A procedure or tactic that had no substantial purpose other than delay constitutes representation outside the bounds of the spirit and intent of the law.” The Florida Bar v. Thomas, 582 So.2d, 1177 (Fla. 1991); The Florida Bar v. Hmielewski, 702 So.2d 218 (Fla. 1997). Both this Court, Judges Munyan and Jennemann have specifically found that Thakkar and Moffa have filed pleadings for delay in the past. 19. This Court clearly may impose sanctions under Fla. Stat. §57.105 on its own initiative. See Koch v. Koch, 47 So.3d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (imposing sanctions against a party pursuant to Fla. Stat. §57.105(1), even though it was the sanctioned party's attorney who prepared and filed motions with no factual or legal basis). 20. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm from Defendants’ depriving Plaintiffs of their right to inspect and sell the property to help satisfy its judgments. The judgments are still the law of the case, appeals have been resolved for years. Defendants’ vexatious filings are illegal and improper. -7- WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ request that this Court order the immediate access to Thakkar’s properties prior to March 3, 2020, and as a sanction for Defendants’ behavior, Plaintiffs respectfully request an order that Defendants’ pay the attorneys’ fees and costs for Plaintiffs’ having to file this motion, and that Thakkar’s pleadings be stricken for his serial violation of court orders.. Dated: February 25, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. The Business Trial Group Attorneys for Plaintiff /s/ Clay M. Townsend Clay M. Townsend, Esq. (FBN 363375) Keith R. Mitnik, Esq. (FBN 436127) 20 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 1500 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 418-2075 Fax: (407) 245-3346 CTownsend@forthepeople.com KMitnik@forthepeople.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was served via CM/ECF electronic notification on all Electronic Filing Users on the list to receive email notice/service for this case. /s/ Clay M. Townsend Clay M. Townsend (FBN: 363375) Telephone: (407) 418-2075 Email: ctownsend@forthepeople.com -8- EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D I. THAKKAR’S BACKGROUND OF FRAUD, CONTEMPT, POOR MANAGEMENT, AND LITIGATION IMPROPRIETY A. At a hearing of an order to show cause on February 7, 2019, Judge Hagenau stated as to Thakkar that (see Ex. A, 2/7/19 Hrg. Tr.): There are ways this could be done, but as you testified in here when we had our hearing, you said, I will litigate with…Gateway…for the rest of my life. You said that, right? (p. 51, 1-4) Thakkar answered “I didn’t mean that way, but—“ (p.51:5). The court went on to say “I know, but you said it. And you said it under oath. And so that leads me to believe that someone else has got to take control and brink this to an end…you have shown mismanagement of the bankruptcy case…That’s not how it works. You can’t get it out until you taken care of everyone” (p. 51:6-16). Later during the same Hearing with Judge Hagenau, the court stated (see 2/7/19 Hrg. Tr.) “You know, the deal with Nilhan was clearly the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, right?...But clearly no level of borrowing money and granting liens was ever approved. (p. 57:16-21) …I’m pretty convinced that had I – had that footnote not been dropped in the brief, this Court would never have known what happened with the Nilhan property, and it’s property of the estate, and you – regardless of how smart a businessman you may be, that was not a smart move for the purposes of managing a debtor in possession. Do you understand the difference between gross mismanagement of a business type and gross mismanagement of debtor in possession? And that’s just not, you know, the way that we can – not the way that we can operate.”(p. 58:13-22) B. At the Hearing on October 25, 2018 (see Ex. B, Hrg. Tr. 10/25/18), Judge Hagenau stated: I think this is offensive that a Debtor would purchase a piece of property for $9.2 million, borrowing money from affiliates and I don’t know who the other party is, completely liening the property, and then diving us a ho-hum. Had it not been for the motion to Dismiss filed by the creditor—or the defendant an adversary proceeding, we might never have known. That’s not how Bankruptcy Court works, that’s now how this Court works…But you know, there’s this idea that no harm, no foul; that’s not how itworks. We have rules, we have procedures. And, you know, this is not a little thing that somebody spent 5 grand on something. Somebody spent $9.2 million on something and completely liened that property up and had no authority to do it… The fact that Mr. Thakkar did this on his own without even involving his counsel tells me he has no respect for how the bankruptcy process works. He’s been through numerous motions to sell and motions to obtain financing in this Court, and he knows that’s what’s supposed to be done. He just chose not to do it, and we’re not going to have that…But at least from what I hear right now, I’m very disturbed by…how this all came down. C. At a hearing on Fraud on the Court, May 22, 2014, Thakkar testified that all of the Thakkar entities are treated the same (see Ex. C, 5/22/14 Hrg. Tr.): I can tell the Court this is family owned ...when I look at my son and my wife, the changes between the two entities happens all the time in terms of ownership. All of our entities are the Thakkar's family. We don't differentiate ...So ifthere's a transfer in my name or their name, my mind, it is in the Thakkar family, so I have never differentiated. So for me when somebody asks me who owns it,even today, I would not be able to accurately answer my 50 entities in which we are hundred-percent owner, whether it's 10 percent maybe or 50 percent maybe. Id. at 39:6-10, 17-23. So, yes, it is not dealt with on a financial basis, because we consider our family asset, our family asset. That's the simple explanation. Id. at 41:6-8. D. The accounting records for Thakkar and the Debtors have not been accurate and no tax returns have been filed since 2015. As stated by Thakkar at the §341 Meeting held on May 18, 2015: Right now, journal entries are not [being made] that's the reason why we have this issue ...The transactions are entered by Rashid Mahmoud, okay? So, if you get an invoice and so on. But on the other hand, all of the inter- company transactions and journal entries will have to be done after a C.P.A. goes back to January 1 of 2014 and accurately reflects all the journal entries that need to be made; and they have not been made ... We've just not had the infrastructure to do it. Id. at 115-116. E. Thakkar, Nilhan Financial and OGP do not know what amounts have been transferred amongst OGP and other Thakkar owned entities. Money has been lent and transferred, but there is no accurate recording or accounting of the financial transaction between the related parties. Id. at 82, 97, 111, 129, 138, 151. i. Thakkar and his co-defendants were warned by the Florida court in one such order (Ex. D, dated January 16, 2014 at ¶ 36(f)) “that continued abusive discovery practice may result in further sanctions, including striking of pleadings.” In another order sanctioning Thakkar pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105 (dated October 3, 2013), the court adjudged that the Florida Defendants were “sanctioned for the [Claimants’] costs of litigating the OGP bankruptcy petition” (Id.) and “for improperly asserting a stay.” Id. at ¶ 35(c). ii. At a hearing before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida on September 4, 2013 regarding the Florida Debtor OGP, Judge Karen Jennemann, stated “…this Debtor [OGP] should probably – should never have been here, in all likelihood, should not have filed. Likely in bad faith” (see Ex. E. 9/4/13 Hrg. Tr. at10:10 - 12). iii. On March 16, 2015, the Florida trial court again admonished Thakkar and his co-defendants for their contemptuous behavior for not producing financial records stating to their counsel: “Mr. Hoepker, I’m giving you an opportunity to get your client under control … He’s going to produce them [responsive documents to post judgment discovery requests], I am confident, because he doesn’t want to go to jail.” (Judge Munyon, Ex. F, 3/16/15 Hrg. Tr. at 20:3-4, 11-12). iv. In further support that Thakkar treats all of his affiliates as one, the CPA (Hari Garwhal) for all of the Georgia Debtors as well as Thakkar’s over fifty entities, Garhwal said of his adjusting journal entry “we just lumped that into one party … CKT.” Id. at 77:4-13 (i.e. Garhwal took four Thakkar entity entries and consolidated them under Thakkar personally on the OGP books). F. Judge Michael G. Williamson found: that C. Thakkar, while managing the affairs of Jax Fairfield Financial, LLC (“Jax”) and Thakkar affiliate NF: “is disadvantaged in the ethical department and business ethics. Because this is a constant here in case after case.” (Excerpt of Hearing of June 18, 2019, p. 8:24-9:1) (emphasis added). Ex. G G. Judge Michael G. Williamson also found: “…they[Thakkar] all follow a pattern of …stiffing…This is just part of the same modus operandi that Mr. Thakkar employs as a matter of his business practice. There’s nothing surprising about this.”(Excerpt of Hearing of June 19, 2019, p. 5:21-6:2) (emphasis added). Ex. H H. Transcript of Middle District of Florida 341 Meeting of Creditors, March 28, 2018, wherein Thakkar testified: “…Nilhan Financial had available approximately $215,000 to satisfy the claim…it came from Jack’s[sic] Financial, which is one of the Thakkar affiliates…(p.60:13-18)…Jack’s Fairfield Financial would loan money to …Nilhan Financial to pay off Nilhan Financial’s creditors… (p. 61:7-10). Ex. I I. On April 15, 2019, Judge Michael G. Williamson found: “There has been very little success on Mr. Thakkar’s side. It’s litigation for strategic purpose…this objection to this claim[Thakkar’s objection which was overruled by the court] is just another step in the overall pattern of operating (p. 91:1-8)…they[the law firm claimants] worked for all the entities…the representation is of all the entities. You can’t parse out…the bill is jointly and several to the collective clients. Now there is an overriding part of this, that from a credibility standpoint of view, Mr. Thakkar…Frankly, that might have been credible, you know, several years ago, until Mr. Thakkar—Mr. Thakkar’s method of operations has come clear…And it works like this. We’ve heard about it today. I’ve been hearing about it for the years that I’ve had this case…Mr. Thakkar had been put in jail for contempt by Judge Jennemann. And I came into a case where every time I showed up there was a new lawyer for Mr. Thakkar…and that is Mr. Thakkar’s method of operation. (p. 220:10-221:16)…So all of Mr. Thakkar’s excuses simply lack credibility, given that method of operation that this record plainly—clearly supports.”(p. 222:2-6) (emphasis added). Ex. J. J. On November 6, 2018, Judge Williamson found, in approving the compromise between Good Gateway and Nilhan Financial, LLC and overruling Thakkar’s objections that: “That’s a typical global settlement that, frankly, only works in a bankruptcy case because of the comprehensive jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and the ability to deal with multiple parties. The alternative of litigating those issues, if the settlement falls through, would be devastating in terms of the fees that would result. And Mr. Thakkar is well familiar with those fees. He has incurred substantial fees…there’s six of them that say they haven’t been paid.” “Bankruptcy is about closure and at some time you may have to live with an imperfect settlement because it’s better than the alternatives which is at the heart of the Justice Oaks factors. So I see nothing new here. It’s just a continuation of a hopeful individual, Mr. Thakkar, that tomorrow is a better deal and he can do better and he can have money here and he can do all these things.” Ex. K, pp.46-47. K. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Opinion Affirming District Court’s Dismissal of Appeal Filed by Chittranjan K. Thakkar of Order Granting Trustee’s Motion to Distribute Funds in Court Registry Pursuant to Bench Warrant and Other Orders, filed on January 9, 2019 in case number 18- 12867 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, wherein the court found, among other things, that: i. Thakkar’s “...failure to timely file an initial brief, in violation of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8018(a)(1).” Ex. L; M. ii. Thakkar was held “…in civil contempt for failing to supply certain documents to the Trustee. Thakkar was ultimately arrested for failure to comply with the court’s order, and the court issued a bench warrant...” (p. 4). iii. “...the disposition of his [Thakkar’s and purportedly Jax Fairfield Financial’s] $200,000 bond [for his release from incarceration for contempt] is a settled matter…,” (p. 5). iv. “In brief, Thakkar is not going to see this money again.” (fn 2, p. 5). v. “…Thakkar had failed to comply with Rule 8019(a)(1) in three prior bankruptcies. Combined with the dilatory and uncooperative conduct that was the impetus of the order that Thakkar was challenging...” (p.7). vi. “In light of Thakkar’s consistently dilatory and uncooperative conduct, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.” (p. 8). L. Orders Granting Chapter 7 Trustee’s Motion to Compel Complete and Final Reimbursement Pursuant to Bench Warrant and Other Orders, filed on February 12, 2019 (Ex. N) in case number 6:15-bk-03447-MGW (Doc 841) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and in case number 6:15- bk-03448-MGW (Doc 861) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, wherein the court found, among other things, that: i. Thakkar was ordered to pay a sanction in the amount of $42,712.82 within twenty one (21) days; ii. If Thakkar did not pay, the court would “...entertain coercive measures... including potential incarceration.”; iii. The Bench Warrant and contempt order “...remain in full effect.” Ex. O M. Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Default Judgment, filed on February 7, 2019 (Ex. P), in case number 160660/2016 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County, wherein the court found, among other things, that: i. Thakkar was liable to Plaintiffs pursuant to the final judgments, including for the judgment in favor of SEG Gateway, LLC, for “…a fraudulent conveyance under Florida and New York law…”; ii. “defendant Rohan has waived any objection to personal jurisdiction.” iii. Thakkar “...fails to defeat plaintiffs’ showing of fraud.” (Ex. P) iv. The Supreme Court of New York court of appeals affirmed final judgment, dismissed Thakkar’s appeal and found that Thakkar had displayed “numerous badges of fraud.” Ex. Q N. Order affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to grant the retroactive annulment and the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of the Motion to Reconsider, entered on December 12, 2018 by Judge Richard W. Story in Case No. 1:18-cv- 02909-RWS in The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. Ex. R O. Judgment affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s Order of April 9, 2018 and dismissal of the appeal, entered on December 12, 2018 by Judge Richard W. Story in Case No. 1:18-cv-02909-RWS in The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. Ex. S P. Notice of Dismissal of Appeal with Prejudice, filed on December 10, 2018 in the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 6:17-cv- 01281-PBG (the appeal was filed by Thakkar and Nilhan Financial, LLC). Ex. T Q. Order Granting Appellant’s [Thakkar’s]Notice of Dismissal of Appeal with Prejudice, entered on December 11, 2018 by Judge Paul G. Byron in Case No. 6:17-cv-01281-PGB in The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. Ex. U R. Order of Contempt and Bench Warrant for Thakkar’s Arrest for Failure to Turnover Estate Documents and Contempt. Ex. V. S. On August 1, 2014, an Order Finding Thakkar Committed Fraud on the Court (Ex. D) was entered by Judge Munyon, who found: i. Thakkar willfully concealed NCT's involvement (c) ii. The Court further finds that Thakkar has misrepresented his role in Nilhan Hospitality…The Court finds that this was willful. (d) iii. Thakkar was personally involved by investing his personal funds (e) iv. Defendant's conduct has driven up the time and cost of this litigation exponentially. (h) v. Sanctions are appropriate. Because the prior sanctions have had no apparent corrective effect, striking of pleadings is appropriate. However, a combination of economic sanctions for the increased discovery cost and a jury instruction is imposed in lieu of striking pleadings. vi. Defendants' financial records and loan documents with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter "Wells Fargo"), date back to 2008 and documents should have been produced as early as 2010 as requested by Plaintiffs and ordered by the Court. vii. Plaintiffs made numerous written requests for the production of the Wells Fargo documents viii. Plaintiffs received only three (3) documents from the Defendants on November 1,2013 via email wherein Defendants' counsel stated "Attached are the Wells Fargo documents" which included only 40 pages. ix. The Court finds that Defendants violated the Court's prior discovery orders x. The Court admonishes Defendants that continued abusive discovery practice may result in future sanctions, including striking of pleadings. T. Thakkar has been admonished and sanctioned for forum shopping in Florida and in the N.D. of Georgia (Ex. W, p. 18, Judge Paul Bonapfel’s order finding that “With regard to forum shopping, the Court notes that it is the most recent of several attempts by a Thakkar entity to challenge the results of the Florida Litigation in bankruptcy courts... Thakkar, at this late date and with a new lawyer trying a new tactic, then belatedly filed. U. Thakkar’s history of forum shopping, bad faith in litigation, evasion, avoidance, contempt and fraud on the court is extensive. A few examples include findings by numerous judges in state and federal court: i. Thakkar and his co-defendants were warned by the Florida court in one such order (dated January 16, 2014 at 36(f)) in the Good Gateway matter which is related to Plaintiffs* claims in the