Legal Opinion
Shah v. Saxena
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided July 7, 2025No. Civil Action No. 2023-3127Published
1Opinion of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NASIR A. SHAH, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 23-3127 (TJK) VINAYAK SAXENA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Nasir Shah hired Vinayak Saxena to represent him in connection with a potential real-estate investment for Shah’s business. But Shah claims that the deal turned out to be fraudulent, and his business lost all the money it invested. So in July 2023, he sued Saxena for legal malpractice and breach of contract in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. A few months later, Saxena removed the case to this Court on the basis of…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. CunoSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.