Jury rules against Export couple seeking $30 million in lawsuit |

Jury rules against Export couple seeking $30 million in lawsuit


A Westmoreland County jury on Thursday ruled against an Export couple who claimed they were owed more than $30 million for lost scientific records and equipment they say were improperly removed from their home while they served time in federal prison for bank fraud.

After 12 days of testimony and one hour of deliberation, the jury issued a verdict in favor of Chase Home Financial and Safeguard Properties, which claimed during the trial they were not liable for the missing property.

Srikanth Raghunathan and his wife, Padmasheri Sampathkumar, contended the bank did not follow proper procedures when it foreclosed upon their Lorenzo Lane home in Hempfield after they were sentenced to prison in 2006. At that time, the couple owned a company that had contracts to provide nanotechnology to the U.S. military.

The house was sold at sheriff’s sale in 2008 while Raghunathan served a 52-month sentence and Sampathkumar served 40 months behind bars. The couple claimed Chase hired Safeguard to clean out the property after the sale. In doing so, they said sensitive business records and proprietary scientific information valued at more than $20 million was discarded. An additional $10 million in clothes, jewelry, appliances and other items were removed from the home, they claimed.

The jury verdict did not address the specific allegations with regard to the missing property. Jurors determined Raghunathan and Sampathkumar filed their complaint too late and beyond the two year statute of limitations required by law, a determination that did not require jurors to issue a finding on the merits of the lawsuit.

Still, lawyers spent more than two weeks presenting testimony about what occurred during the foreclosure process.

Attorney John Giselson, representing Chase, told jurors the couple’s friends and family members removed items from the home during their period of incarceration. He suggested no evidence was presented during the trial before Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court Judge Harry Smail Jr. that any specific items with value were taken.

The lawsuit was an effort for them to recoup money needed to repay a $10.7 million fine imposed upon them in the federal criminal case, he argued.

“It’s a scheme to try to gain something through litigation,” Giselson argued.

Dennis Kusturiss, the lawyer for Raghunathan and Sampathkumar, told jurors that his clients played no role in the removal of property from theirhome. The bank should be punished for its actions, he said.

“Their technology was on hold while they were in prison. It’s gone now,” Kusturiss said. “They acted with reckless indifference. They just didn’t care.”

Rich Cholodofsky is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Rich at 724-830-6293 or [email protected]

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.