Is Former Bikram Yoga Lawyer's Legal Battle Almost Over?
Bikram Choudhury, founder of Bikram Yoga, continues to contest a more than $7 million verdictthat was decided by a California jury last year. The…
August 21, 2017 at 08:09 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Bikram Choudhury, founder of Bikram Yoga, continues to contest a more than $7 million verdictthat was decided by a California jury last year. The amount is owed to his former legal adviser, Minakshi “Micki” Jafa-Bodden, who brought a wrongful termination suit against him, his wife and their yoga empire in 2013.
Jafa-Bodden sued her former employer for allegedly firing her in retaliation for investigating sexual harassment and discrimination claims when she worked as the in-house lawyer for the international chain of yoga studios. She also alleged sexual harassment and gender discrimination.
She won punitive and compensatory damages in Los Angeles Superior Court in January 2016 but according to Jafa-Bodden in an interview Thursday, Choudhury has yet to “put up the bond.”
Choudhury's lawyers are appealing the 2016 judgment, but Jafa-Bodden's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss that appeal, claiming Choudhury has violated court orders.
In oral arguments Wednesday, one of Jafa-Bodden's attorneys, Carla Minnard, argued that Choudhury cannot appeal the judgment due to the disentitlement doctrine, which provides that someone cannot seek relief from the judicial system after evading its authority. This week's arguments were limited to Jafa-Bodden's motion to dismiss, not the merits of Choudhury's appeal in the case.
According to Jafa-Bodden's attorneys, Choudhury has violated court orders. A bench warrant for Choudhury's arrest was issued in May, with bail set at $8 million—the approximate amount Jafa-Bodden is owed from trial, plus interest.
In court Wednesday, Choudhury's attorney, Nick Pujji, a partner at Dentons in Los Angeles, argued that the yoga chain founder is faced with legal problems when he is “not a very sophisticated business person,” Law360 reported. Pujji claimed that his client was “scared and confused” and had to flee the country because he doesn't trust the American legal system.
In an interview following the proceedings, Minnard said she is confident that Choudhury's appeal will not be allowed to move forward. “I don't think we will ever get to the substance of the appeal,” she said. “I think it will get dismissed upon disentitlement.”
Minnard said the law is in her client's favor. “Given the state of the law and given the numerous violations of the trial court's orders by the appellant, I think I would say we have a fair level of confidence, but anything can happen,” she said.
Jafa-Bodden noted that this motion is “obviously important for us procedurally.” She had previously been awarded ownership of Bikram Yoga's IP rights and franchises. However, she said she has not yet obtained control of those assets.
According to the Bikram Yoga website, a teacher training is scheduled in Acapulco starting in September. Jafa-Bodden claims this is a violation of the cease and desist letter sent to Choudhury's lawyers July 10, and obtained by Corporate Counsel, which ordered Choudhury to stop “selling franchise territory, opening new yoga studios, advertising Bikram teacher trainings, seminars, lectures, master classes and any other solicitation, licensing or marketing of the Bikram brand…”
Pujji, Choudhury's lawyer, did not respond to a request for comment on the case or on whether he believes the upcoming training violates the cease and desist order.
“That's really the essence of this whole case,” said Jafa-Bodden. Choudhury is “brazen, he's undeterred and he doesn't consider himself to be bound by any of the court orders.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInternal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute readInside Track: AI Is Sure to Fray Big Law's Devotion to Billable Hour
Trending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250