Arbitrator denies temporary restraining order against AAPI

An arbitrator has denied a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Association of American Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI) in a case alleging irregularities in getting Bylaw amendments approved by the general body.

Arbitrator John Griiffin appointed by Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, (JAMS) on March 7 disallowed for a second time the request for a TRO filed by four former AAPI office bearers, according to AAPI President Anjana Samadder.

A court had on February 1 first denied the request by Drs Jonnalagadda, Gotimukula, Medavaram, Erramilli and Kakarala, she stated in a letter to Dr Navin Shah, the co-founder, former president and trustee of AAPI.

“This indicates that AAPI followed all protocols to get Bylaw amendments approved by the general body and these frivolous lawsuits and claims made by the above plaintiffs were baseless and inaccurate and therefore denied by two justice systems,” Samadder wrote.

In view of the arbitrator’s rejection of the plaintiff’s request, she urged and requested “all members to stand together and combat any adversities that may come against our beloved organization AAPI.”

READ: New AAPI leadership headed by Anjana Samadder takes charge (July 10, 2023)

In his order, Griiffin noted that the claimants had alleged that “since assuming office as president of AAPI, Dr. Samadder has engaged in several activities in violation of the bylaws of AAPI, including actions in relation to the amendment of said bylaws.”

The claimants’ complaints are largely based on procedural issues as opposed to substantive issues, he noted. The Claimants have the burden of establishing the elements of a temporary injunction by a preponderance of the evidence, Griffin wrote. However, they “do not meet its burden to establish a clearly ascertainable right that needs protection.”

“Probably the strongest reason for denying this emergency motion is that, at this point in the proceeding, claimants have not established that they will suffer irreparable harm without the entry of a temporary injunction,” he wrote.

They alleged that proceeding with the nomination process for the 2024 officer elections would constitute a further continuing and irreparable harm to AAPI by continuing to undermine the general membership’s confidence in the competence and integrity of AAPI’s corporate leadership, by undermining the general membership’s confidence in the nomination and election process.

“Finally, the claimants have not met their burden of proving that they will have a likelihood of success on the merits,” Griffin wrote. “A preliminary injunction is an extreme remedy that should be employed only where an emergency exists in serious harm would result if the injunction were not issued,” he added.

However, Griffin made clear that his order was limited to the Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief and “there were other issues raised that are not being addressed in this order.”