Case Activity (1020)

1. Order | Filed: August 25, 2026 | Entered: August 25, 2026 IYER v. NOUS INFOSYSTEMS, INC.

   Contract: Other | New Jersey

   Text Order

   TEXT ORDER-- The Court is in receipt of a letter from Plaintiff's former counsel, Attorney Venkatraman, submitted on his behalf by Plaintiff's current counsel (ECF No. 18 ), requesting that certain portions of the Court's Text Order at ECF No. 11 be redacted. The request is DENIED. The only sentence of the Court's Order that even arguably contains sensitive information pertains to a Texas Court of Appeals decision that is a matter of public record. Accordingly, there is nothing confidential about anything contained in the text order. The Court further notes that both Attorney Marguilies and Attorney Venkatraman have yet to comply with that portion of the Text Order at ECF No. 11 that required them to file their respective August 7, 2026 letters (both of which were improperly emailed to chambers) under seal pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. As both attorneys have since been terminated, Attorney Ohem is asked to immediately send both attorneys a copy of this Order with the direction that if they fail to file their respective letters on the docket as required, they may be subject to sanctions by the Court. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Stacey D. Adams on 8/25/2026. (JB)

2. Order | Filed: August 21, 2026 | Entered: August 21, 2026 IYER v. NOUS INFOSYSTEMS, INC.

   Contract: Other | New Jersey

   Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

   TEXT ORDER-- The Court is in receipt of a substitution of counsel form substituting Attorney Christian Oehm, Esq. as counsel for Plaintiff Venkatesh Iyer, replacing Attorney Venky Venkatraman, which the Court has now entered. (ECF No. 17 ). Given that a valid substitution of counsel form was filed, Attorney Venkatraman's subsequently filed Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 13 ) was unnecessary and is DENIED as moot. Attorney Oehm's certification filed at ECF No. 15 , wherein he consents to serve as local counsel for Attorney Venkatraman, is non-sensical given that he first filed a substitution of counsel wherein he REPLACED Attorney Venkatraman as counsel for Plaintiff. To be clear, Attorney Oehm is now the lead and only counsel for Plaintiff; he is not merely serving in the capacity of local counsel. Attorney Venkatraman is relieved as counsel for Plaintiff entirely by virtue of the substitution So Ordered by the Court. (ECF No. 17 ). In light of Attorney Venkatraman's complete withdrawal from the case, the August 25, 2026 conference is hereby CANCELLED. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Stacey D. Adams on 8/21/2026. (JB)

3. 1018 additional result(s)