Mphasis Corporation v. Albert Rojas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------x MPHASIS CORPORATION, : Plaintiff, : : 25-CV-3175 (JMF)(OTW) -against- : : ORDER ALBERT ROJAS, : : Defendant. : -------------------------------------------------------------x ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge: I. INTRODUCTION It has come to the Court’s attention that Defendant has made 8 filings (ECF Nos. 474, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 483) between October 22 and November 5 in violation of this Court’s filing injunctions. (See ECF Nos. 442, 447, 455, 475). For the reasons that follow, those filings are STRICKEN, and the Court will impose monetary sanctions of $5 per violation for ECF Nos. 477 – 481 and ECF 483. II. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this case. As relevant here: on August 12, 2025, the Court directed Defendant to make no further filings except as directed by the Court (ECF 384); the Court subsequently issued a second Order restating that its prior Order was a filing injunction against Defendant. (ECF 404). That filing injunction was extended to, and expired on, September 9, 2025. On September 19, 2025, the Court entered a new filing injunction through October 6 and explicitly warned Defendant that any further violations of the Court’s Order would result in a monetary sanction of $5 per filing. (ECF 442 at 3). On October 3, that filing injunction was extended to October 20 (ECF 447). On October 22, the Court entered a third filing injunction which is currently in effect through November 101 (ECF 475). 0F III. DISCUSSION A. ECF Nos. 474 and 476 Defendant filed ECF Nos. 474 and 476 on October 22, 2025, the same day as the Court’s most recent filing injunction. (ECF 475). Because the second filing injunction (ECF 442), had lapsed, and ECF 475 was entered on the afternoon of October 22, the Court will not impose monetary sanctions for Defendant’s filings made on the same day. However, those filings are frivolous and duplicative2. Accordingly, they are STRICKEN. F B. ECF Nos. 477 – 481 and ECF 483 In contrast to the foregoing, Defendant filed ECF Nos. 477, 478, and 479 on October 23; and ECF Nos. 480 and 481 on October 30; and ECF 483 on November 5. By that time, Defendant should reasonably have known that the filing injunction had been extended. Additionally, it is clear from Defendant’s multiple violations of the Court’s filing injunction that another warning will not be sufficient to deter Defendant’s conduct. Therefore, the Court will impose sanctions for these and each other subsequent filing in violation of the filing injunction. See Chalfin v. Go Big Solar, LLC, No. 24-CV-4768 (KPF), 2025 WL 2022012 , at *23 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2025) (Sanctions imposed pursuant to … the Court's inherent sanctions power may also include a fine payable to the Clerk of the Court) (internal quotations omitted); 1 As discussed in IV infra, this Order will extend the current filing injunction through December 1. 2 Both filings concern ECF 12, Plaintiff’s memorandum of law submitted with a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Judge Furman entered the TRO on May 6; that TRO was later replaced by a preliminary injunction on June 9, which remains in effect. (See ECF Nos. 65; 206, 207). see also Cognex Corp. v. Microscan Sys., Inc., 990 F. Supp. 2d 408, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (imposing a fine payable to Clerk of the Court in order “to provide an adequate deterrent to such conduct in the future”). Accordingly, ECF Nos. 477 – 481 and ECF 483 are STRICKEN and Defendant is SANCTIONED $5 per filing for the 6 filings at ECF Nos. ECF Nos. 477 – 481 and ECF 483, totaling $30. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, ECF Nos. 474, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, and 483 are STRICKEN and Defendant is SANCTIONED in the amount of $5 for the 6 filings at ECF Nos. 477 – 481 and ECF 483, for a total of $30, payable to the Clerk of Court, by December 1, 2025. Additionally, the prior filing injunction (ECF 475) is EXTENDED to December 1, 2025. Defendant may make ONE filing to object to this Order, if he chooses. Any other filings or objections before December 1 will be stricken and will result in further monetary sanctions of $5 per filing and may result in a loss of ECF filing privileges. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to strike ECF Nos. 474, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, and 483. SO ORDERED. /s/ Ona T. Wang Dated: November 5, 2025 Ona T. Wang New York, New York United States Magistrate Judge