Opinion
21-CV-3287 (JMF)
07-29-2021
ASHU SHUKLA, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
On July 27, 2021, Plaintiff Ashu Shukla filed a “Letter Motion to Reopen and Reconsider Plaintiff's Motion for Disqualification of Judge Aaron, ” ECF No. 32, which the Court construes as a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Aaron. See ECF No. 31 (denying motion to reconsider “as frivolous”); Shukla v. Apple Inc., No. 21-CV-3287 (JMF), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115216, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2021) (ECF No. 28) (denying motion to disqualify as “patently frivolous” because it was “based solely on Magistrate Judge Aaron's rulings in Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, No. 19-CV-10578 (AJN) (SDA) (‘Shukla I')” (citing Williams v. City Univ. of N.Y., 633 Fed.Appx. 541, 544 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order); Gallop v. Cheney, 645 F.3d 519, 521 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam)). Shukla's motion to reconsider is once again DENIED as frivolous.
To be clear, however, the Court does not and has not intimated any views one way or the other about the merits or lack thereof of the claims in this case. The Court's prior rulings and description of Shukla's filings as “frivolous” concerned only his motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Aaron and subsequent motion for reconsideration. (It is thus irrelevant for present purposes that “District Judge Nathan Alison [sic] has already approved eight (8) similar claims related to discrimination” as Shukla argues. ECF No. 32, at 3.)
Shukla is once again warned however, that if he continues to file frivolous submissions and abuse the litigation process - for example, by seeking reconsideration serially - that sanctions may be imposed, up to and including dismissal of his case.
SO ORDERED.