Choksi et al v. Trivedi et al

Filing 11

Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. [Order mailed to each plaintiff individually on 5/15/2017.](PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
LEENA CHOKSI and VIKAS CHOKSI,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RUPAL TRIVEDI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
16-12340-WGY

ORDER
YOUNG, D.J.

May 15, 2017

For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this
action without prejudice.
On November 18, 2016, Leena Choksi and her adult son Vikas
Choksi, filed a self-prepared complaint in which they allege that
three individuals--a married couple and their daughter--were
responsible for the sexual exploitation and abuse of Vikas Choksi
in 1988.

The alleged misconduct occurred in India, where all the

parties resided at the time; they later moved to the United
States.
On April 4, 2017, the Court issues a memorandum and order
[#8] directing the plaintiffs to show cause why this case should
not be dismissed.

The Court explained that, under choice-of-law

principles, the law of India governing the statute of limitations
and the survival of actions would apply to the plaintiffs’
claims.

Applying that law, the Court determined that plaintiffs’

claims were barred.
The plaintiffs timely filed a show cause response [#10], in

which they represent that they had understood that the claims
would be governed by Massachusetts law because the defendants
moved to the United States the same calendar year as the abuse
occurred in India.

The plaintiffs state that they are

“withdrawing out” the claim against the parents but that they
“need more time to consult lawyers in India to have better
understanding about India laws, Jurisdiction and Statue of
limitations [sic].”

Show Cause Resp., ¶¶ 1-2.

They request

that, if the Court “still must dismiss the case, please dismiss
it without prejudice so we can refile the case after further
research.”

Id. ¶ 3.

The defendants’ relocation to the United States in the same
calendar year in which the alleged misconduct occurred in India
does not alter the Court’s choice-of-law analysis.

The

plaintiffs’ show cause response does not provide any
justification for keeping this case open for an undetermined
amount of time while the plaintiffs obtain legal advice.
Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), this case
is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ William G. Young
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2