Nyalakonda Kishore vs. Ojas Patel & Others: Case Overview and Key Developments

A breach of contract lawsuit was filed by Kishore Nyalakonda against Ojas Patel, Kannian Murali, Manjula Govirdarajan, and multiple business entities in Middlesex County, NJ. The case, presided over by Judge Patrick Bradshaw, was ultimately dismissed without prejudice after payments were made by the involved parties—while Ojas Patel was nowhere to be found.

Key Case Details:

• Case Title: Nyalakonda Kishore vs. Govirdarajan Manjula, Ojas Patel, et al.
• Case Number: MIDL000028-16
• Jurisdiction: Middlesex County, NJ
• Filing Date: December 31, 2015
• Judge(s) Involved: Patrick Bradshaw, Phillip L. Paley, Vincent Le, Jamie Happas, Alberto Rivas
• Case Category: Contract/Commercial Transaction
• Matter Type: Breach of Contract
• Case Outcome: Dismissed By Court Without Prejudice
• Status: Dismissal

Parties Involved:

• Plaintiff: Kishore Nyalakonda
• Plaintiff’s Attorney: Cedric Ashley
• Defendants:
  • Ojas Patel
  • Kannian Murali
  • Manjula Govirdarajan
  • Prince Subs LLC
  • Princeton Junction Subs LLC
  • Princeton Sub LLC
• Defendants’ Attorney: Patrick Papalia

Timeline of Case Events:

1. December 31, 2015 – Complaint filed against the defendants.
2. March 11, 2016 – Request for Default Judgment filed by Kishore Nyalakonda.
3. May 13, 2016 – Case referred to mediation by Judge Jamie Happas.
4. August 02, 2016 – Mediation unsuccessful.
5. August 19, 2016 – Default Judgment granted against the defendants, including Ojas Patel.
6. September 02, 2016 – Motion hearing on Default Judgment before Judge Vincent Le Blon.
7. October 16, 2017 – Substitute attorney filed for the plaintiff.
8. April 13, 2018 – Motion to enter judgment denied by Judge Phillip L. Paley.
9. June 29, 2018 – Warrant of Satisfaction filed, indicating the case was resolved through payment, but not by Ojas Patel.
10. August 20, 2021 – Final case update as dismissed without prejudice.

Legal Significance of This Case

This lawsuit suggests serious financial or contractual disputes involving Ojas Patel and the affiliated businesses. The default judgment against Patel and other defendants indicates a failure to respond to the lawsuit at critical points. However, the Warrant of Satisfaction, submitted on behalf of the plaintiff, confirms that payments were made by others involved—while Ojas Patel was missing from the legal process.

For those tracking Ojas Patel’s legal history, this case adds to the growing pattern of financial disputes and legal actions associated with his business dealings.