Case Activity (2632)

1. Order | Filed: August 06, 2026 | Entered: August 06, 2026 Rolleri & Sheppard CPAS, LLP et al v. Knight et al

   Other Statutory Actions | Connecticut

   Order on Motion to Dismiss

   ORDER granting 216 Motion to Dismiss. By Omnibus Order dated August 19, 2025, the Court (Williams, J.) dismissed Counts One and Four of Defendants' counterclaim with prejudice. ECF No. 196 , at 3-4. The Court dismissed the remainder of the counterclaims without prejudice and permitted Defendants to amend their counterclaim to "allege facts showing that supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate." Id. at 6. The Court determined that Defendants had failed to allege that the counterclaims "arise from a common nucleus of operative facts" such that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaims was appropriate. The Court observed that the claims in Plaintiff's ERISA complaint and Defendants' counterclaims "appear to be two separate and distinct courses of allegedly unlawful conduct," and that "[t]he prosecution of one may be done completely divorced from the prosecution of the other, and each would involve a separate body of evidence and a separate set of laws." Id. Indeed, it appears that Defendant Michael Knight's counterclaims (and other related claims) are, in fact, being separately litigated by Defendant Michael Knight in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut. See Knight v. Rolleri et al, Case No. FBT-CV-22-6119268-S, Compl.; Knight v. Rolleri et al, Case No. FBT-CV-25-6150399-S, Second Am. Compl., Entry No. 106.

   The Court has reviewed the original Counterclaim, as well as the Amended Counterclaim 214 , and has considered the parties' extensive briefing submitted on the instant motion. The Court first rejects any suggestion or argument that Defendants have pled any cause of action giving rise to federal question jurisdiction over the counterclaims. No such claims have been identified or plausibly alleged. As to supplemental jurisdiction, the Court does not write on a blank slate as Judge Williams has previously identified the deficiencies in the original Counterclaim as it relates to the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Although the Amended Counterclaims expand upon Defendants' allegations of wrongdoing by Plaintiffs as it relates to the aftermath of Mr. Knight's retirement from the partnership (including allegations stemming from conduct in this litigation), and makes repeated reference to the claims pled in the First Amended Complaint, the gravamen of the Amended Counterclaims remains wholly distinct and largely unrelated to the claims in the Complaint. For the reasons previously articulated by the Court, see ECF No. 196 , the 216 Motion to Dismiss the 214 Amended Counterclaim is GRANTED. The Amended Counterclaim is dismissed without prejudice but also without further leave to amend. Defendants may bring these claims in a Connecticut state court of competent jurisdiction.

   Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 8/6/2026. (AL)

2. Order | Filed: July 29, 2026 | Entered: July 29, 2026 KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc v. Man Wah Holdings, Ltd. et al

   Contract: Other | New York Southern

   Order for Initial Pretrial Conference

   NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, counsel for all parties shall appear for an initial pretrial conference with the Court on October 22, 2026 at 2:30 PM. The parties should dial in by calling (646) 453-4442 and entering the Phone Conference ID: 171 676 237, followed by the pound (#) sign. Initial Conference set for 10/22/2026 at 02:30 PM before Judge Arun Subramanian. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 7/29/2026) (sgz)

3. 2630 additional result(s)