Mandir Lawsuit – Pandit Brijesh Raval’s Attorney Milan Chatterjee Files a Response to the Lawsuit Filed by Board Trustee Radhika Janga
In an ongoing lawsuit filed by Board Trustee Radhika Janga against the Hindu Society of Nevada (HSON) and Pandit Ji Brijesh Raval, Raval has retained the services of respected Indian-American lawyer Milan Chatterjee. Chatterjee has filed a motion with a court requesting to dismiss the case. The court filings by Chatterjee argues that the claims asserted by plaintiff Radhika Janga should be dismissed because they seek judicial intervention in matters protected from civil-court interference by the First Amendment. Alternatively issue a summary judgement in Raval’s favor or staying this action and compel mediation and arbitration in accordance with Section 12.3 of the amended and restated bylaws of The Hindu Society of Nevada and NRS 38.221. In support, over 146 pages of documents are filed by Raval’s attorney, Chatterjee, to justify the above request. Further the filing argues that Plaintiff’s claims also fail because Janga lacks standing and capacity to assert claims belonging to the religious organization, Hindu Society of Nevada (HSON).
Per the court filings, Chatterjee argues the complaint fails for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. Plaintiff Janga does not sue in her own right. She sues “as Trustee on behalf of” The Hindu Society of Nevada (“HSON”)—an entity she names as a defendant, whose Board has never authorized this suit, and whose By-Laws vest all corporate authority in a Board that acts only by a seventy-five percent quorum and vote, forbid individual trustees from any involvement in “the activities of the Temple Priests,” and reserve the suspension or expulsion of employees to a ratified Board process whose decision is “final.”
Per the HSON’s bylaws, a single trustee—let alone the spouse of the trustee of record—has no power to commandeer the corporation’s claims. The “deadlock” Plaintiff describes is not futility; it is HSON’s chosen supermajority rule working as designed, and the Legislature has supplied a remedy for it—a court-appointed provisional director under NRS 82.311—that Plaintiff has not invoked.
Further, the Board holds “the final authority in matters of policy” and manages “all of the assets of the Society and the Temple.” Trustees “in their roles as Trustees shall not have any involvement in the daily activities of the Society and/or the activities of the Temple Priests,” and “shall not have the ability to make decisions in such daily operations as Trustees.” Day-to-day affairs are conducted by the Executive Committee, and under HSON’s Employee Handbook “each employee at the Hindu Temple is accountable to the Temple President. The bylaws clearly prescribe the only process by which an employee may be suspended or expelled: the Executive Committee or Board initiates it; the Board ratifies it by a seventy-five percent vote.
Per the bylaws, each Trustee, Executive Committee Member and General Board Member “agree to first attempt in good faith to resolve the Dispute through confidential mediation,” to be “initiated by written notice” and “completed within sixty (60) days of the notice to mediate”. In December 2024 the Board approved a one-year employment term for the priests for calendar year 2025; a letter reflecting that term was handed to the priests but never signed, and by the Chairman’s own account “there is currently no approved employment agreement in effect.” Later, in April 2026 the Chairman circulated, for the May 9 meeting, a proposed employment agreement and a proposed separation agreement for each priest; the Board never approved either. The gatherings that followed in 2026 lacked a quorum and took no action.
Trustees holding five of HSON’s thirteen Active Trustee positions have declared under oath that they do not support removing Mr. Raval and that the decision belongs to the Board, which has not made it.
Per the court records, Chatterjee arguing that each claim independently fails to state a claim.
The religion clauses bar the relief plaintiff Janga is seeking. Civil courts may not decide who will serve as a religious body’s minister. The First Amendment protects the right of religious institutions “to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.
Further, it is argued that plaintiff Janga lacks standing and capacity to sue “on Behalf of” HSON. The claims belong to HSON, which acts only through its Board. Because Janga lacks the requisite standing and capacity to assert claims belonging to HSON, those claims should be dismissed. Each individual cause of action also fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. At minimum, the Court should enforce the parties’ agreed dispute-resolution procedures and stay the action pending mediation and, if necessary, arbitration.
Related News
Celebrate Diwali with Mika Singh at Bellagio…Complimentary Concert
Las Vegas is set to come alive with the vibrant spirit of Diwali as Bellagio ResortRead More
I am glad they have filed a response to the lawsuit by Ms Janga as it clearly looked baseless and a personal attack on Brijesh panditji than anything else.
Trustees should focus on the wellbeing of the temple rather than doing lawsuits for their personal vendetta’s. Defaming a well respected and knowledgeable panditji, who would be hard to find anywhere in the US, let alone in Las Vegas, clearly highlights the ill intentions of Ms Janga with her lawsuit.
I do not know how the Trustees and the temple management works but I sincerely hope they come together to solve this mess and the correct action is taken against Ms Janga. Let there be a public hearing in the temple itself to get all the facts and truth out face to face.
The temple needs a priest like Brijesh panditji for the betterment of Las Vegas Hindu community, I don’t think Ms Janga’s presence makes any difference.
THE COMMUNITY SUPPORTS BRIJESH PANDITJI! SATYAMEVA JAYATE!
This litigation is mainly about the trustees being divided on the issue of Brijesh and how the temple should be managed. We can clearly see this difference in what both the plaintiff and defendant have written.
This is not about whether Brijesh is a good person or bad person. The main question is, is he following the temple bylaws and employment handbook or not?
Because many people support him and follow him, I feel he has started thinking that he is above everyone else. But nobody should be above the rules.
Before saying anything bad about the trustees, we should also remember that these are the same trustees who came together and worked hard to make this temple possible. If they were not there, maybe we would not have this temple today.
Regarding Ms. Janga, everyone has a right to raise their voice and protest if they feel something is not right. Brijesh is also not above the law or the rules.
We should not make one person untouchable. I believe this is the main reason there is so much fighting in the temple today.
Well Shyam my point is about Ms Janga specifically targeting Brijesh Panditji when there is no mention of Vishnu Panditji. The previous post clearly mentioned that both priests are on the same employment agreement (which has apparently expired but wasnt even signed in the first place), so why is there no mention of Vishnu panditji anywhere in the lawsuit?
By your logic, do you think Ms Janga is above the rules and bylaws? Per the HSON’s bylaws, a single trustee—let alone the spouse of the trustee of record—has no power to commandeer the corporation’s claims. What gives her the right to even start a lawsuit when she herself isnt following the ByLaws??
If the ByLaws clearly forbid individual Trustees to get involved in the activities of temple priests, why is she going above the laws and rules?
And what has Brijesh panditji actually done to make you think he is above everyone else? Could you name a few items? Cause otherwise its just a perspective.
Whereas Ms Janga not following the ByLaws herself while starting this lawsuit, not following the process outlined, does make me wonder who really thinks they are above everyone else.
And sure we should all be thankful to all the trustees to make this temple possible. But that does not mean they can do whatever they want as they please. They are ‘trustees’ of a temple, not owners of a business.
I have no problem if all the trustees are actually following the process to raise concerns and improve the processes. If she is truly thinking about the welfare of the temple, how does removing a good priest, that so many people in Vegas respect, actually help the temple? Shouldn’t she instead be focused on getting proper employment agreements done instead? Shouldn’t the lawsuit be about temple processes rather than an individual priest? Shouldn’t the lawsuit also be directed towards Vishnu panditji if she is so concerned about employment agreements?
This is where I draw the line and why i think her lawsuit is more about her personal vendetta rather than actually helping the temple!
Standing strong with Panditji! It is heartbreaking to see board friction dragging our mandir into legal disputes instead of serving devotees. Many of us are ready to mobilize immediately and start collecting signatures for a community petition to show our unified backing. Just let us know how many signatures are needed.
Trustees are appointed to serve the mandir, not escalate personal disagreements into legal battles or micromanage priest activities. IT IS TIME FOR LONG-TENURED TRUSTEES TO STEP DOWN AND ALLOW A FRESH, UNIFIED BOARD TO FOCUS ON SERVING OUR TEMPLE.
Are you okay with a Pandit hired to do deity deeds takes over the temple and claims it as HIS? Basically the concern has always been that the Panditji thinks he can do whatever he wants and because of his primary, longest stay in the temple, he thinks he owns it and steers everyone under him creating clashes and misuse of the funds. It has been pretty much that and the trustees like Ms. Janga have the right to raise their voice knowing where the money is going. I don’t think you are well aware of the situation where those who were the basic funders of this very temple’s construction are now not even stepping in this temple because of the so-called Panditji and how political and his mental power-play has turned the temple to this state. The trustees have EVERY right to FIRE the guy who doesn’t do his job and isn’t showing transparency in money while creating rifts for staying in power! Do you see its the temple against ONE man???
This is feel like Mr.Janga him self writing ,if Any priest not only Brijeshji doing wrong why dont you call community meeting and bring all points infront of community and Priest so they also have fair chance to speak and provide evidence on there side also then let community decide who is right or wrong. Last time also in community meeting all Trustees run away when people ask for all temple funds misused. They are just spreading only rumors through there friends and family.also about priest house he bought why dont you call him and invite priest so he can present his side of evidence where he get money from after 13-15 year everyone deserve to have own house and nothing bad about it..that does not prove he did anything wrong..even temple old priest also had 2-3 house when he left and even as I heard from public his first house he bought with some trustees help. As Devotee when ever I went to temple in past I used to see Mr. Janga was Bigest follower of priest Brijeshji. On temple website what ever documents are posted is it legit or ots published by some designated trustees.
While we respect the founding contributions of long-serving trustees, respecting history shouldn’t mean accepting poor administration—and misusing temple money by dragging our mandir into court to fulfill personal egos is a clear failure of trustees. In any professional environment, rules, contracts, and handbooks are reviewed and renewed annually through standard orientations, not brought up suddenly to target someone out of nowhere.
If board members are truly committed to good governance, they should apply equal and fair processes to all priests every year. Singling out Pandit Brijesh Ji while favoring South Indian trustees or priests creates clear regional bias and unnecessary division in our community.
When money is contributed to a temple, it is an irrevocable donation to the deity and the public—it is not private equity or personal capital. Donating funds to help build a mandir gives no trustee personal ownership over temple property or the right to dictate daily operations. Misusing trustee power to litigate personal disagreements completely undermines the purpose of charitable donations.
As someone who sat in those board meetings as previous executive committee member, I can very well say that Raval has been manipulating trustees over the years. This is not new or happened overnight. This rot has been there for about 8+ years. People writing here has no idea on what the reality is. I have seen the tensions, fights and deadlock in the board meetings. I have seen first hand how Raval has been firing the bullets on others by using his favorite trustees like Rao Gondy, Nutan Parikh and Jagdish Mehta. I have seen how Raval played politics to get rid of previous temple priest Gopal so that he can be the head priest and also how he bullies around Vishnu. It is good to see that finally he is on line on attack and not hiding behind Trustees fight.
Janga ,Ranjit jain and Latpate had no moral authority to write check $200 thousand to an attorney from Temple Funds. The same three guys promised to return the money and that too in general public meeting in front of GOD , held and organized by the same three musketeers. This should be the first priority to return the money $200,000!!!
The mandir belongs to the entire community, not to any family or faction. I support Priest Raval and strongly oppose the Jangas and any trustees using their positions to deepen division. Priest Raval has served our community for 15 years with dedication and deserves respect. I strongly oppose the Jangas’ effort and the trustees who are helping turn an internal disagreement into a damaging public fight. It is time for the community to step forward and take a stand.
On this news item also the editor has decided to close new comments, as there are already enough opinions & comments from readers reflecting their passionate views from both sides and their interest in ignoring the internal fights among the Trustees.
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the discussion and shared their views.