Mahadevan
Filing
10
OPINION denying 8 MOTION Appellant's Opposed Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(GabrielleLyons, 4)
Case 4:22-cv-04416 Document 10 Filed on 07/10/23 in TXSD Page 1 of 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
In re:
JAGANNATHAN MAHADEVAN,
Debtor.
PREM BIKKINA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAGANNATHAN MAHADEVAN a/k/a
JAGAN MAHADEVAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
July 10, 2023
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
BANKRUPTCY NO. 21-30545
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-22-4416
ADV. PROCEEDING NO. 21-03054
OPINION
This court dismissed Jagannathan Mahadevan’s appeal from the bankruptcy court’s denial
of his motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Docket Entry No. 7). Mahadevan now moves to
certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. (Docket Entry Nos. 8, 9). The court denies
Mahadevan’s motion for the reasons discussed in its order dismissing the appeal and supplements
its reasoning with the following.
Mahadevan argues that his motion in the bankruptcy court should have been granted
because “[Prem] Bikkina did not plead any facts in his complaint before the bankruptcy court that
Mahadevan’s allegations . . . were made with intention to harm or that they were substantially
certain to result in injury.” (Docket Entry No. 8 ¶ 12). Bikkina’s complaint referred to his
California state-court complaint. (Id. ¶ 10). The California proceeding resulted in a jury verdict
finding Mahadevan liable for defaming Bikkina. The issue in the adversary proceeding in the
bankruptcy court is whether some or all of that judgment is nondischargeable in bankruptcy
Case 4:22-cv-04416 Document 10 Filed on 07/10/23 in TXSD Page 2 of 2
because it reflects “willful and malicious” conduct on the part of Mahadevan. This court
previously reversed the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment to Bikkina. See In re
Mahadevan, 617 F. Supp. 3d 654 (S.D. Tex. 2022). The court found that further proceedings were
necessary because the California judgment neither proved nor disproved that Mahadevan’s
conduct was “willful and malicious.” Id. at 666–67.
The basis for the adversary proceeding is the same conduct underlying the California
judgment. Bikkina attached the judgment and complaint in that matter to his complaint initiating
the adversary proceeding. See Docket Entry No. 1, Bikkina v. Mahadevan, No. 21-30545 (Bankr.
S.D. Tex. April 14, 2021).
The bankruptcy complaint informed both Mahadevan and the
bankruptcy court of the factual and legal bases of the claims asserted. Additionally, Mahadevan
will have the opportunity to appeal any final judgment issued by the bankruptcy court. Cf. Skinner
v. W. T. Grant Co., 642 F.2d 981, 984 (5th Cir. 1981) (“[C]ertification should be allowed if the
issues decided on . . . appeal are not likely to be raised by another party in a subsequent appeal and
an early determination is not likely to prejudice that party’s rights.”). 1
The motion is denied. (Docket Entry No. 8).
SIGNED on July 10, 2023, at Houston, Texas.
_______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge
1
The Fifth Circuit’s opinion in In re Ichinose, 946 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1991), does not show that this court
erred in dismissing Mahadevan’s appeal. The Ichinose court merely confirmed that the district court, in its
discretion, may grant leave to hear an interlocutory appeal from the bankruptcy court. Id. at 1176–77.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?