Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 70 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION

SRINIVASA RAO KAMBALA, SRINIVASA RAO §

GONNA, AMANDEEP SINGH KANG,

§

SARAVANAN ARUNACHALAM, CHANDRA §

SEKHAR DWADASI RAMA, ANTONY ANTONY §

VALIYAPARAMBIL, HARBANS SINGH,

§

ANNADURAI RUTHIRAPATHI, PONNIAH

§

MUTHU KUMAR, MAHENDRAN PERIYASAMY, §

MALKIAH PAUL, HARVINDER SINGH,

§

PRADEEP KUMAR, ABDULLAH KEEPURATH §

MAIDEEN, FRANCIS SEQUIRA, UNNIKRISHNA §

PILLAI BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,

§

Plaintiffs

§

v.

§

§

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, SIGNAL

§

INTERNATIONAL, INC., SIGNAL

§

INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, G.P., SIGNAL

§

INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, L.P., MALVERN C. §

BURNETT, LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C.

§

BURNETT, A.P.C., GULF COAST IMMIGRATION §

LAW CENTER, L.L.C., GLOBAL RESOURCES §

INC., MICHAEL POL, DEWAN CONSULTANTS §

PVT. LTD. (a/k/a MEDTECH CONSULTANTS), §

SACHIN DEWAN, INDO-AMERI SOFT L.L.C., §

KURELLA RAO, J & M ASSOCIATES OF

§

MISSISSIPPI, INC., BILLY R. WILKS, and J & M §

MARINE & INDUSTRIAL, LLC,

§

§

Defendants.

§

________________________________________

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-cv-00498

COMPLAINT 1. Using our nation’s guestworker program as a conduit, the Defendants trafficked approximately 590 Indian men, including the Plaintiffs (as defined below) into the United States with the aim of securing inexpensive and exploitable skilled workers to perform welding, pipefitting, and other marine fabrication work at plants in Orange, Texas and Pascagoula,

Complaint

1

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 2 of 70 PageID #: 2
Mississippi. Having crossed that line, the Defendants then more deliberately deceived, defrauded, and intimated the workers in an attempt to continue to benefit from their illegal scheme. As a result, Plaintiffs, towards whom the Defendants held a strong and pervasive racial animus, suffered and continue to suffer some combination of financial ruin, desperate poverty, extreme emotional distress, loss of reputation, physical sickness and disease, loss of religious and ethnic identity, suffering based on race and national origin, and forced separation from family and home. INTRODUCTION
2. Plaintiffs, Srinivasa Rao Kambala, Srinivasa Rao Gonna, Amandeep Singh Kang, Saravanan Arunachalam, Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rama, Antony Antony Valiyaparambil, Harbans Singh, Annadurai Ruthiripathi, Ponniah Muthu Kumar, Mahendran Periyasamy, Malkiah Paul, Harvinder Singh, Pradeep Kumar, Abdullah Keepurath Maideen, Francis Sequira, and Unnikrishna Pillai Balakrishna Pillai bring this action to recover for the unlawful and fraudulent behavior by Defendants Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P. (collectively referred to as “Signal”) and Signal’s agents, including Defendants Malvern C. Burnett, the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC (collectively referred to as the “Legal Facilitator Defendants”), as well as Defendants Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Sachin Dewan (collectively referred to as “the Recruiter Defendants”), as well as Defendants Indo-Amerisoft, L.L.C., Kurella Rao, J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc., Billy R. Wilks, and J & M Marine & Industrial LLC (collectively referred to as the “Labor Broker Defendants”).

Complaint

2

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 3 of 70 PageID #: 3
3. Signal is a Gulf Coast based marine and fabrication company. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Signal set out to recruit several hundred foreign workers to work as welders and pipefitters in Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi and Orange, Texas facilities.
4. To assist in that process, Signal retained the Recruiter Defendants, Michael Pol and his company Global Resources, Inc. (“Global”), a labor recruitment firm with operations in Mississippi; Malvern C. Burnett, an attorney based in Mississippi and Louisiana; and Sachin Dewan, a labor recruiter in India, to recruit workers on Signal’s behalf. Signal also executed a power of attorney authorizing Dewan’s company, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., to recruit for Signal abroad.
5. In addition, workers were recruited for Signal by the Labor Broker Defendants, Kurella Rao and his company Indo-Ameri Soft, L.L.C.; and Billy R. Wilks and his company J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc, which was later succeeded by J & M Marine & Industrial LLC.
6. The cornerstone of the Defendants’ scheme was the tantalizing prospect that Signal would be able to hire a skilled workforce at effectively no cost by forcing the Plaintiffs and their coworkers to foot the bill for their own recruitment, immigration processing, and travel. Indeed, an April 18, 2006 “Skilled Worker Recruitment Agreement” between Signal and Global expressly stated that the workers would be delivered at no cost to Signal and that all other charges, expenses, and fees would be paid by the workers themselves or by Global, who in turn would be reimbursed through deductions from the Plaintiffs’ wages. In short, Defendants paid nothing; the future employees paid everything.
7. Defendants told Plaintiffs that because the permanent residency process could take up to two years to complete and Signal’s need for workers was immediate, Defendants would first

Complaint

3

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 4 of 70 PageID #: 4

assist Plaintiffs in obtaining temporary work visas, known as H-2B visas, while simultaneously applying for green cards.
8. Lured by, and in reliance upon, Defendants’ fraudulent promises of legal and permanent work-based immigration to the United States for themselves and their families, Plaintiffs plunged themselves and their families into debt to take advantage of these seemingly promising opportunities. Plaintiffs incurred significant debts to pay mandatory recruitment, immigration processing, and travel fees charged by Defendants totaling as much as $10,000 to $24,000 per worker, equivalent to two to three years of an Indian welder’s salary working in India. Trusting the veracity of the immigration and work benefits promised by Defendants, Plaintiffs further relinquished stable employment opportunities in India and as guest workers in Africa, the Persian Gulf and Singapore.
9. Defendants’ main recruiting agents in India and the United Arab Emirates held Plaintiffs’ passports and visas, and threatened, coerced, and defrauded Plaintiffs into paying extraordinary fees for recruitment, immigration processing, and travel. Several Defendants further caused Plaintiffs to believe that if they did not work for Signal under the auspices of temporary, Signal-restricted, H-2B guest worker visas, they would suffer abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process, physical restraint, or other serious harm.
10. The false promises, collection of exorbitant recruiting fees, and strong-arm tactics of Signal and its agents were, upon information and belief, authorized by Defendant Signal. Defendant Signal knew of the exorbitant fees charged and the Plaintiffs’ green card expectations before the Plaintiffs arrived at Signal’s facility. (See Order and Reasons Denying Class Certification, at 33, Kurian David, et al. v. Signal International, LLC, et al., 2:08-cv-01220-SMDEK, (E.D. La. Jan. 4, 2012), ECF No. 1117.) Far from taking any corrective measures,

Complaint

4

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 5 of 70 PageID #: 5

Defendant Signal ratified and perpetuated the scheme by continuing to facilitate the transportation of additional waves of Indian H-2B workers, including Plaintiffs, through April 2007.
11. Upon Plaintiffs’ arrival in the United States, Defendant Signal required that Plaintiffs live in one of two guarded, overcrowded, and isolated labor camps located in Orange, Texas (the “Texas Labor Camp”) and Pascagoula, Mississippi (the “Mississippi Labor Camp”). Defendants further deceived Plaintiffs regarding their visa status, threatened Plaintiffs with arrest, loss of immigration status and deportation, and generally perpetrated a campaign of psychological abuse, coercion, and fraud designed to render Plaintiffs afraid, intimidated, and unable to leave Signal’s employ.
12. Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs to discriminatory and offensive mandatory room and board arrangements at the Texas Labor Camp and the Mississippi Labor Camp to which non-Indian and United States citizen employees were not subjected. Moreover, Defendant Signal imposed upon Plaintiffs discriminatory job-related requirements and adverse terms and conditions of employment on Plaintiffs to which non-Indian and United States citizen employees were not subjected. Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs to an objectively hostile and abusive work environment on account of Plaintiffs’ race and alienage.
13. Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants arising from violations of their rights under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (“TVPA”) (18 U.S.C. § 1581, et al.; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”); the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981); the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1985); the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §2201); and claims for damages arising from fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.

Complaint

5

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 6 of 70 PageID #: 6

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) (civil trafficking), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (RICO), and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights). 15. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the causes of action based on state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as the state law claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts which support the federal claim. 16. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas under 18 U.S.C. § 1965 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in that various Defendants and/or agents of Defendants, resided or have been found in Orange, Texas during the relevant time periods and a substantial portion of the communications, transactions, events or omissions underlying Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this judicial district. 17. Declaratory relief is sought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq.
PARTIES Plaintiffs 18. Plaintiffs are former H-2B guestworkers who were recruited from India and the Middle East by Defendants at various times between 2003 and 2007. 19. As Indian nationals of South Asian Indian descent, Plaintiffs are members of a racial minority, as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 20. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were “persons” within the meaning of that term as defined by RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3). 21. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were recruited and/or employed by Defendant Signal.

Complaint

6

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 7 of 70 PageID #: 7
22. At all relevant times, Defendants were engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for sale in interstate commerce.
23. Plaintiff Srinivasa Rao Kambala (“Plaintiff Kambala”) is a resident of India and a pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Kambala was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about December 17, 2006 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
24. Plaintiff Srinivasa Rao Gonna (“Plaintiff Gonna”) is a resident of India and a welder by trade. Plaintiff Gonna was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about November 17, 2006 to work for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi.
25. Plaintiff Amandeep Singh Kang (“Plaintiff Kang”) is a resident of Texas and a pipefitter and welder by trade. Plaintiff Kang was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about February 2, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
26. Plaintiff Saravanan Arunachalam (“Plaintiff Arunachalam”) is a resident of Mississippi and a pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Arunachalam was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on or about March 29, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
27. Plaintiff Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rami (“Plaintiff Rami”) is a resident of India and a pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Rami was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about December 17, 2006 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
28. Plaintiff Antony Antony Valiyaparambil (“Plaintiff Valiyaparambil”) is a resident of India and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Valiyaparambil was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about February 1, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.

Complaint

7

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 8 of 70 PageID #: 8

29. Plaintiff Harbans Singh (“Plaintiff Hb. Singh”) is a resident of Texas and welder by trade. Plaintiff Hb. Singh was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on or about January 24, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
30. Plaintiff Annadurai Ruthirapathi (“Plaintiff Ruthirapathi”) is a resident of Texas and pipefitter and mechanic by trade. Plaintiff Ruthirapathi was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about March 28, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
31. Plaintiff Ponniah Muthu Kumar (“Plaintiff Po. Kumar”) is a resident of Texas and pipefitter and welder by trade. Plaintiff Po. Kumar was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about January 24, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
32. Plaintiff Mahendran Periyasamy (“Plaintiff Periyasamy”) is a resident of Mississippi and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Periyasamy was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about January 25, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
33. Plaintiff Malkiah Paul (“Plaintiff Paul”) is a resident of India and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Paul was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about February 14, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
34. Plaintiff Harvinder Singh (“Plaintiff Hv. Singh”) is a resident of Texas and welder by trade. Plaintiff Hv. Singh was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about March 21, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
35. Plaintiff Pradeep Kumar (“Plaintiff Pr. Kumar”) is a resident of South Carolina and fitter by pipetrade. Plaintiff Pr. Kumar was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about December 13, 2006 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.

Complaint

8

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 9 of 70 PageID #: 9

36. Plaintiff Abdullah Keepurath Maideen (“Plaintiff Maideen”) is a resident of Texas and welder and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Ruthirapathi was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about March 31, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
37. Plaintiff Francis Sequira (“Plaintiff Sequira”) is a resident of Louisiana and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Sequira was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about April 2, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
38. Plaintiff Unnikrishna Pillai Blakrishna Pillai (“Plaintiff Pillai”) is a resident of Louisiana and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Pillai was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about April 26, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.

Defendants Defendant Signal 39. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and a provider of marine and fabrication services in the Gulf Coast region, with operations in Orange, Texas; Pascagoula, Mississippi; and Mobile, Alabama. 40. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International Texas, G.P. is a general partnership organized under the laws of Texas and employed the labor for Signal International LLC and Signal International, Inc. at the Texas Labor Camp. 41. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International Texas, L.P. is a limited partnership of Signal International, L.L.C. and Signal International Texas, G.P. and is organized under the laws of Texas.

Complaint

9

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 10 of 70 PageID #: 10
42. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and a provider of marine and fabrication services in the Gulf Coast region, with operations in Orange, Texas; Pascagoula, Mississippi; and Mobile, Alabama.
43. Upon information and belief, all policies, money for payroll, corporate governance and legal advice for Defendant Signal International, G.P. was provided by Signal International, L.L.C.
44. Upon information and belief, all policies, money for payroll, corporate governance and legal advice for Defendant Signal International, L.P. was provided by Signal International, L.L.C.
45. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal does distinguish the roles of the Signal entities including, but not limited to, which entity paid Plaintiffs.
46. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International, L.L.C. executed contracts relevant to this Complaint in the name of Signal International, Inc.
47. Upon information and belief, Signal did not document which entity employed Plaintiffs. 48. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International, Inc. is the sole member of Defendant Signal International, L.L.C. 49. Upon information and belief, Defendants Signal International, L.L.C. and Signal International, Inc. are and function as, the alter egos of Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal International Texas, L.P. 50. Defendants Signal International L.L.C., Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P. will be referred to collectively as “Signal”.

Complaint

10

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 11 of 70 PageID #: 11
51. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal paid the Indian H-2B Workers at the Texas Labor Camp through a Texas bank account and Texas payroll account, and the Indian H2B Workers at the Mississippi Labor Camp through a Mississippi bank account and Mississippi payroll account.
Recruiter Defendants 52. Defendant Global Resources, Inc. (“Global”) is, or at all relevant times, was, a corporation organized under the laws of Mississippi and engaged in the business of recruiting workers from India, including Plaintiffs, for employment in Texas and Mississippi. Global entered into contracts with Defendant Signal, Burnett Defendants (defined below), Dewan Defendants (defined below), and Plaintiffs for labor to be provided in Signal’s Texas and Mississippi Labor Camp. Upon information and belief, Global recruited Plaintiffs for employment within Texas and Texas. Upon information and belief, Global committed tortious conduct in Texas and Mississippi. 53. Defendant Michael Pol (“Pol”) is or was the President of Global, and resides in Mississippi. Defendant Pol entered into contracts with Defendant Signal, Burnett Defendants, Dewan Defendants, and Plaintiffs for labor to be provided in Signal’s Texas and Mississippi Labor Camp. Upon information and belief, Pol recruited Plaintiffs for employment within Texas and Mississippi. Upon information and belief, Pol committed tortious conduct in Texas and Mississippi. 54. Defendant Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k/a Medtech Consultants) (“Dewan Consultants”) is a private limited liability company organized under the laws of India, which maintains offices in Mumbai (Bombay), India, and Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Defendant

Complaint

11

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 12 of 70 PageID #: 12

Dewan Consultants entered into contracts with Defendant Signal, Burnett Defendants, Pol Defendants, and Plaintiffs for labor to be provided in Signal’s Texas and Mississippi Labor Camps. Dewan Consultants recruited Plaintiffs for employment within Texas and Mississippi. Upon information and belief, Defendant Dewan Consultants committed tortious conduct in Texas and Mississippi.
55. Defendant Sachin Dewan (“Dewan”) is the Director of Dewan Consultants. Dewan resides in India. Dewan entered into contracts with Defendant Signal, Burnett Defendants, Pol Defendants, and Plaintiffs for labor to be provided in Signal’s Texas and Mississippi Labor Camps. Dewan recruited Plaintiffs for employment within Texas and Mississippi. Upon information and belief, Dewan committed tortious conduct in Texas and Mississippi.
56. Upon information and belief, Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants (“Dewan Defendants”) authorized and utilized Defendants Pol and Global, and Burnett Defendants to act a their United States-based operations and/or agents.
57. Upon information and belief, Defendants Pol and Global, Burnett Defendants and Defendant Signal authorized and utilized Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants to act as their India and United Arab Emirates based operations and/or agents.
58. Upon information and belief, Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, Pol, and Global, and Burnett Defendants, acted as a joint venture with respect to the recruitment, contracting, and retention of Plaintiffs for the provision of labor or services.
59. Defendants Pol and Global, and Burnett Defendants, utilized Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants to conduct and carry out their shared business interests and activities in India and the United Arab Emirates. Among other things, Defendants Pol and Global shared offices with Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants in India and the United Arab Emirates.

Complaint

12

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 13 of 70 PageID #: 13

60. Upon information and belief, Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants utilized Defendants Pol and Global, and Burnett Defendants, to conduct and effectuate their shared business interests and activities in the United States.
61. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, Pol, and Global collectively as “Recruiter Defendants.”
Legal Facilitator Defendants 62. Defendant Malvern C. Burnett (“Burnett”) is an attorney who resides and maintains offices in New Orleans, Louisiana. 63. Defendant Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center L.L.C. (“GCILC”) is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana and located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Upon information and belief, Defendant Burnett serves as GCILC’s sole registered agent, member, and/or corporate officer. 64. Defendant Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (“Burnett Law Offices”) is a professional law corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana and located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Upon information and belief, Defendant Burnett serves as its sole registered agent, member, and/or corporate officer. 65. Upon information and belief, Defendants Burnett, GCILC, and Burnett Law Offices are engaged in a joint venture or are alter egos in that all entities have the same corporate mailing address, intermingle business assets, do not operate at arms’ length, and Defendant Burnett serves as the registered agent and sole member or corporate officer for GCILC and Burnett Law Offices. 66. Upon information and belief, Defendant Burnett, GCILC, and the Burnett Law Offices have the same business objectives, and Defendant Burnett uses GCILC and the Burnett Law

Complaint

13

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 14 of 70 PageID #: 14

Offices to conduct and effectuate shared business objectives. 67. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Defendants Burnett, GCILC, and Burnett
Law Offices collectively as “Legal Facilitator Defendants”. 68. The Legal Facilitator Defendants engaged in a joint venture with Kurella Rao and Indo-
Ameri Soft, L.L.C., described below, to conduct and carry out their shared business interests and activities in India and the United Arab Emirates. This joint venture is in addition to the joint venture described above between the Legal Facilitator Defendants and the Recruiter Defendants.
Labor Broker Defendants 69. Defendant Indo-Ameri Soft, L.L.C., (“Indo-Ameri Soft”) a corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana and headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana, with substantial business contacts in Texas, is engaged in the business of recruiting and providing Indian laborers to United States companies and selling opportunities for United States immigration and employment to such laborers. 70. Defendant Kurella Rao (“Rao”) is the Chairman and Director of Indo-Ameri Soft, L.L.C., and maintains offices in the New Orleans, Louisiana metropolitan area. Rao has substantial business contacts in Texas. 71. Defendant J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc. (“J & M”), a corporation organized under the laws of Mississippi with substantial business contacts in Texas, was at all relevant times engaged in the business of recruiting and providing Indian laborers to United States companies and selling opportunities for United States immigration and employment to such laborers. 72. Defendant Billy R. Wilks (“Wilks”) was the founder and general manager of J & M and currently acts as a consultant for the company. Wilks has substantial business contacts in Texas.

Complaint

14

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 15 of 70 PageID #: 15

Wilks is personally liable for the conduct of J & M. Discovery in the case of David, et al. v. Signal, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Civ. No. 08-1220 SM/DEK) (the “David Litigation”) has established that Wilks had full control and decisionmaking authority over J & M such that J & M and Wilks were alter egos of one another.
73. Wilks is the founder of J & M. He incorporated it in 1996. The main corporate office of J & M is Wilks’s home. J & M, during the time relevant to this litigation, was entirely beholden to Wilks for its business activity. Further, Wilks has testified that during the time relevant to this litigation all of J & M’s decisions and policy changes would have to be approved by him. He was the main decision-maker with regard to all of the company’s relevant business activity. Both Wilks and his former lawyer describe Wilks as the only person who knows anything about the company and that it is indeed his company, although in fact Wilks’ sons participated in the conduct of the company.
74. At some point prior to 2007, J & M was sued in unrelated litigation. In response to that lawsuit, Wilks set up a new corporation – J & M Marine & Industrial LLC (“J & M Marine”) – primarily to avoid the litigation then pending against J & M, but also to continue the work that was underway with J & M.
75. Wilks used the contractual arrangements and relationships he had set up between J & M and the Recruiter Defendants to create profitable opportunities for his new J & M Marine entity. In other words, Wilks harvested the value that remained in J & M and transferred it to J & M Marine with no regard to the independent corporate identity of J & M. Such a transition is not reflective of the action of a corporate entity; rather, it indicates an action done for the convenience and singular strategy of the principal, Wilks.
76. In 2007, Wilks put J & M into dormancy. This purported change of corporate status was,

Complaint

15

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 16 of 70 PageID #: 16

upon information and belief, done without any formal shareholder vote or board member meeting. Further, J & M is undercapitalized; it has, according to Wilks, approximately $300,000 in debt. Further, Wilks, in yet another indication of the absence of corporate formalities between him and J & M, has represented to the Court in the David Litigation that he intends to borrow money so that he is able to personally fund J & M’s legal defense.
77. J & M filed a “Notice to Dissolve/Revoke” with the Mississippi Secretary of State on September 12, 2010, although it remained in good standing through December 2012 according to the Mississippi Secretary of State’s Business Services website.
78. In short, there is no independence between Defendant Wilks and J & M. J & M was simply used as the corporate entity to facilitate Wilks’s personal business and that of his family. He testified during his deposition in the David Litigation that he did everything for the company. Indeed, prior to incorporating J & M in 1996, Wilks was doing the exact same work, as the 100% owner, under a “doing/business/as” rubric. Once Wilks incorporated J & M in 1996, there was no change to the company activity or purpose, and J & M certainly did not obtain an identity independent from its founder.
79. Once Wilks created J & M Marine, he simply shifted his employee, Nicole HomelTellier, from J & M over to J & M Marine. As he had done with J & M, he listed himself as the registered agent and his home address as the company’s principal address with the Mississippi Secretary of State.
80. Both J & M and J & M Marine clearly share the same initials, which reference the same individuals: John and Michael Wilks.
81. Both corporations perform the same work: recruit laborers to then subcontract them out to other companies for a profit. Given both entities were in the same business and both operated

Complaint

16

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 17 of 70 PageID #: 17

out of the same address, it is likely that whatever assets were held by J & M (e.g., computers, printers, etc.) were at the disposal of J & M Marine both during the time that both companies existed and also once J & M was put into dormancy.
82. More importantly, with respect to the “asset” crossover between the two companies, Defendant Wilks moved the laborers – plaintiffs and other similarly situated – from J&M, with which they contracted, over to J & M Marine. In other words, the very revenue source of J & M became the revenue for J & M Marine.
83. In bringing the candidates over to J & M Marine, after they had signed contracts with J & M, Defendant Wilks was unequivocally holding J & M Marine out as the successor company of J & M. Further, this transition of recruits, in conjunction with avoiding the litigation then pending against J & M, exemplifies the taking of the benefits of the predecessor company while leaving its liabilities behind. Wilks acknowledges that J & M has a $100,000 judgment against it, an obvious liability that has not tracked across to J & M Marine.
84. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Defendants Indo-Ameri Soft, Rao, J & M, Wilks and J & M Marine collectively as the “Labor Broker Defendants.”
All Defendants 85. At all relevant times, Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, Pol, Global Resources, Burnett, Burnett Law Offices and GCILC acted as agents of Defendants Signal, J & M, IndoAmeri Soft and/or Rao for the purposes of recruiting, obtaining, contracting, transportation and/or providing Plaintiffs for labor or services. 86. All Defendants acted together in a joint venture in committing the wrongful actions described herein. 87. The actions of the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants described

Complaint

17

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 18 of 70 PageID #: 18

herein were performed within the scope of their agency to Signal. 88. Individually and through their agents, associates, attorneys, and/or employees, all
Defendants have significant contacts in or around Orange, Texas. 89. At all relevant times, Defendants were “persons” within that term as defined by RICO, 18
U.S.C. § 1961(3). 90. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been engaged in contacts with Plaintiffs,
including recruiting, obtaining, labor contracting, providing immigration related services to, transporting, harboring, providing and/or employing Plaintiffs.
91. At all relevant times, Defendants operated enterprises engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce.
STATEMENT OF FACTS The Recruitment Process Recruitment of the Plaintiffs and Other Workers 92. Beginning in 2003 and continuing through 2006, Recruiter Defendants (Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, Pol, and Global Resources) placed ads in various newspapers across India and the United Arab Emirates, seeking welders, fitters, and other marine fabrication workers on behalf of various U.S.-based companies and individuals, including Labor Broker Defendants (Defendants Indo-Ameri Soft, Rao, and J & M). 93. Upon information and belief, Recruiter Defendants placed such ads in coordination and agreement with Legal Facilitator Defendants (Defendants Burnett, GCILC, and Burnett Law Offices), and Labor Broker Defendants. 94. Upon information and belief, since at least December 2003 through at least mid-2004, Legal Facilitator Defendants and Labor Broker Defendants frequently communicated and

Complaint

18

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 19 of 70 PageID #: 19

consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail and/or telephone communications to coordinate and direct Recruiter Defendants’ activities, including advertising efforts on behalf of Labor Broker Defendants.
95. The advertisements placed by Recruiter Defendants promised that qualified candidates could obtain legal permanent residence (green cards) and thereby legally and permanently immigrate to the United States with their families.
96. In response to these advertisements, Plaintiffs contacted Recruiter Defendants by telephone, and/or attended meetings and testing sessions organized by Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives at several locations throughout India and the United Arab Emirates.
97. Specific facts relevant to the experiences of Plaintiffs are set forth in the “RICO Fraud Chart” attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1, which is incorporated herein by reference.
98. Upon information and belief, prior to attending these meetings and testing sessions, Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants conferred in late 2003 and early 2004 by phone, mail, fax and or e-mail to organize, plan, and coordinate the logistics and substantive content of these meetings and testing sessions.
99. In telephone communications, in-person meetings, faxes, contracts, and other written documents transmitted by mail and/or wire in the first half of 2004, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants personally and through employees, agents and/or associates, told Plaintiffs that if Plaintiffs successfully passed skills tests administered in the United Arab Emirates or India and paid fees totaling approximately 4 Indian lakh rupees or 40,000 United Arab Emirates dirhams to 10 Indian lakh rupees (approximately $10,000 to $24,000), then Plaintiffs would be able to apply for permanent resident (green card)

Complaint

19

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 20 of 70 PageID #: 20

status in the United States with Labor Broker Defendants.

100.

In these communications occurring during the first half of 2004, Recruiter

Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants further explained to many of the Plaintiffs, as

reflected in the attached Exhibit 1, that the installment payments would be divided among

Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants.

101.

In these communications occurring during the first half of 2004, Recruiter

Defendants, Labor Broker Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants further explained to

Plaintiffs that the installment payments would be divided among Recruiter Defendants, and one

of the two Labor Broker Defendants.

102.

In telephone communications, in-person meetings, faxes, written contracts, and/or

other written communications, transmitted, upon information and belief, by mail and/or wire in

the first half of 2004, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker

Defendants instructed Plaintiffs that the total fees would be paid in a series of approximately

three installments.

103.

In these conversations in the first half of 2004, Plaintiffs were informed on several

occasions by Recruiter Defendants and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants that in exchange for an

additional fee of approximately $1,500 per family member, Plaintiffs would be able to obtain

legal permanent residence for their spouses and children.

104.

At informational meetings and in telephone conversations, faxes, contracts, and

other written documents transmitted in late 2003 through approximately mid-2004, Recruiter

Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants, personally and/or

through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, represented to Plaintiffs that Labor

Broker Defendants were stable and reputable U.S. companies offering lawful and ample

Complaint

20

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 21 of 70 PageID #: 21

employment opportunities, and that Labor Broker Defendants would obtain for Plaintiffs green

cards enabling Plaintiffs to permanently and legally immigrate to the United States with their

family members.

105.

At informational meetings and in telephone conversations, faxes, contracts, and

other written documents transmitted in late 2003 through approximately mid-2004, the Recruiter

Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants, personally and/or

through their agents, employees and/or representatives, told Plaintiffs that the green card process,

once commenced, would be completed within18 to 24 months.

106.

In such communications with Plaintiffs, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator

Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants further promised to act diligently and do everything

necessary to obtain green cards for Plaintiffs in the timelines stipulated.

107.

Based on these and other contractually-binding promises made to them regarding

green cards and work opportunities in the United States, Plaintiffs signed contracts (hereinafter

“the green card contracts”) at various times in early to mid-2004 with Recruiter Defendants,

Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants.

108.

Contracts signed by Plaintiffs and other documents provided to the Plaintiffs by

Legal Facilitator Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants through the

use of mail and/or wire transmissions in and around early to mid- 2004, further promised that

Plaintiffs would promptly receive a refund of all or nearly all of their payments if these

Defendants did not succeed in securing green cards for Plaintiffs as promised.

109.

Legal Facilitator Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants

knew or should have known that they would not refund Plaintiffs’ money as promised in the

contracts and other documents.

Complaint

21

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 22 of 70 PageID #: 22

110.

Legal Facilitator Defendants, Recruiter Defendants and Labor Broker Defendants

induced the Plaintiffs to enter into the green card contracts: (a) without intent to diligently pursue

Plaintiffs’ green card applications; and (b) knowingly without any basis whatsoever for

representing, inter alia: (i) that the companies and/or entities purportedly sponsoring Plaintiffs’

applications were financially solvent and had reliable and stable employment opportunities to

provide Plaintiffs; (ii) that green card applications sponsored by such companies would be valid

and bona fide under U.S. immigration law; (iii) and that such applications were likely to be

successfully completed and approved within the promised timelines.

111.

In reasonable reliance on Legal Facilitator Defendants, Recruiter Defendants and

Labor Broker Defendants’ explicit and repeated promises regarding green cards, family

members’ ability to immigrate to the United States, and lawful and legitimate employment

opportunities in the United States, Plaintiffs undertook considerable economic, social, familial

and personal sacrifices, including payment of high fees, assumption of significant interest

bearing debt, loss of real and personal property, lost work opportunities, lost or unpaid wages

and additional legal fees.

112.

Plaintiffs signed contracts with Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator

Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants and made the first round of installment payments

required by these contracts.

113.

After Plaintiffs signed contracts with Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator

Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants and paid the first installment payments required by

the contracts, these Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with updates regarding the progress of

their green card applications for extended periods of time.

114.

When Plaintiffs contacted Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants,

Complaint

22

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 23 of 70 PageID #: 23

and/or Labor Broker Defendants by phone, mail, and/or e-mail at various times between the last

half of 2004 and mid-2006 to check on the progress of their green card applications, these

Defendants assured them that the green card process was going forward.

115.

While awaiting the processing of their green cards, many of these Plaintiffs

continued to incur substantial interest on the money they had borrowed for the purpose of

making the first installment payment to these Defendants.

116.

In or around January 2006, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants

and Labor Broker Defendants, personally and/or through their agents, employees and/or

representatives notified Plaintiffs via telephone, e-mail, and/or mail communications that the

labor certification required for their green card applications had been approved by the U.S.

government.

117.

After this notification, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants and

Labor Broker Defendants used wire and/or mail communications to collect the second and/or

third installment payments from the Plaintiffs.

118.

By spring 2006, after the 18 to 24 month processing period promised by Recruiter

Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants had elapsed, the

Plaintiffs had still not received their green cards.

119.

By spring of 2006, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor

Broker Defendants had yet to refund Plaintiffs’ payments as promised by Plaintiffs’ green card

contracts.

120.

In late May and early June of 2006, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, on behalf of

Defendant Signal filed with the Mississippi Department of Employment Security, the Texas

Workforce Commission, and the United States Department of Labor by mail, electronic

Complaint

23

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 24 of 70 PageID #: 24

transmission, and/or fax the completed forms ETA 750 and attachments seeking permission to

import and hire 590 foreign guestworkers under the auspices of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b),

attendant regulations 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(6) and 20 C.F.R. § 655.3, and associated administrative

letters and/or guidance (commonly known as “the H-2B guestworker program”).

121.

Knowing that Signal’s labor need was projected to be at least two to three years,

the Legal Facilitator Defendants and Defendant Signal stated in these applications to the state

workforce commissions and forms ETA 750 that Signal would employ workers from October 1,

2006 to July 31, 2007. These applications were furnished with signatures by Signal executives

swearing, under penalty of perjury, to the veracity of the information in these applications.

122.

Defendant Signal sought these workers to perform various jobs essential to its

marine fabrication services business, including welding and fitting, in Orange, Texas and

Pascagoula, Mississippi.

123.

On information and belief, Defendant Signal recruited these workers, including

the Plaintiffs, and offered terms of employment to these workers from its operations in Orange,

Texas and Pascagoula, Mississippi.

124.

The H-2B guestworker program permits U.S. employers to import foreign

workers on short-term temporary visas to meet labor needs when employers attest that they

cannot find U.S. workers to perform the available jobs in the local area where the employer seeks

to employ the guestworker.

125.

H-2B visas are non-immigrant visas, are only valid for work with the specific

employer listed on the visa, and do not provide portable and/or transferable employment

authorization for the visa bearer.

126.

H-2B visas require employers to pay H-2B guestworkers a minimum wage, which

Complaint

24

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 25 of 70 PageID #: 25

is determined by, among other things, the location where the guestworker will work, the type of

work done by the guestworker, and the experience or skill level of the guestworker.

127.

Defendant Signal stated in the ETA 750 forms that its need for H-2B

guestworkers was “peak load and a one-time occurrence” and that “the temporary workers will

work for the length of the prescribed dates of need, will be paid in accordance with the prevailing

wage, and will return to their home country at the end of employment.”

128.

In the ETA 750 forms, Defendant Signal named Legal Facilitator Defendants as

its agents for the purposes of preparing and submitting these applications to import H-2B

guestworkers. Legal Facilitator Defendants prepared and submitted these applications on behalf

of Signal.

129.

At the time of filing the ETA 750 forms and attachments with the Mississippi

Department of Employment Security, the Texas Workforce Commission, and the United States

Department of Labor, Defendant Signal and the Legal Facilitator Defendants knew that Signal

projected the labor need that it sought to fill with foreign workers to be at least two to three

years.

130.

Defendant Signal and Legal Facilitator Defendants, at or around the time they

filed the ETA 750 forms in May and June 2006, repeatedly communicated by telephone, mail, e-

mail, and/or fax to direct and coordinate recruitment of Indian workers to fill the anticipated H-

2B guestworker jobs. Upon information and belief, Signal and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants

repeatedly communicated with Recruiter Defendants and Labor Broker Defendants by telephone,

mail, e-mail, and/or fax to direct and coordinate recruitment of Indian workers to fill the

anticipated H-2B guestworker jobs.

131.

Upon information and belief, in the course of telephone, fax, e-mail and/or mail

Complaint

25

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 26 of 70 PageID #: 26

communications occurring in or around May or June 2006, Defendant Signal authorized

Recruiter Defendants to act as their agents in India and the United Arab Emirates for the

purposes of recruiting Indian welders and fitters to fill the anticipated H- 2B guestworker jobs at

Signal operations.

132.

Upon information and belief, in the course of these communications, Defendant

Signal further authorized Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants to represent that

Signal would assume sponsorship of the pending and as-yet-unsuccessful green card applications

on behalf of, among others, Plaintiffs.

133.

Upon information and belief, in the course of these communications, Defendant

Signal further authorized Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants to represent that

Signal would apply for at least two to three H-2B visa extensions on behalf of all the Indian H-

2B workers, including Plaintiffs, to allow them to remain in the United States working for Signal

while Plaintiffs’ green card applications were being processed.

134.

Defendant Signal authorized its agents to make these representations even though

it knew or had reason to know that such visa extensions and green card applications would not be

bona fide and valid under United States immigration law. Moreover, Defendant Signal

authorized its agents to make these misrepresentations even though it did not have the intention

at that time to apply for such visa extensions and/or green cards on behalf of all of the Indian H-

2B workers, including Plaintiffs.

135.

In July and August of 2006, with specific dates and assertions as set out in Ex. 1,

the Legal Facilitator Defendants on behalf of Defendant Signal filed with the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Service by mail, electronic transmission, and/or fax the completed

I-129 forms and attachments seeking 590 H-2B visas.

Complaint

26

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 27 of 70 PageID #: 27

136.

Knowing that Signal’s labor need was projected to be at least two to three years,

in these H-2B visa applications Defendant Signal attested to a 10-month labor need running from

October 1, 2006 – July 31, 2007. Signal falsely represented to the government that at the end of

this 10 month period, it intended to return all H-2B workers back to India. The Legal Facilitator

Defendants declared that the applications were based on all information of which Defendant

Burnett had any knowledge despite the fact that the Legal Facilitator Defendants believed that

Signal’s intentions for these workers exceeded ten months.

137.

In spring and summer of 2006, Plaintiffs who had already initiated the green card

process spoke with Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker

Defendants over the phone and in person regarding their long-pending green card applications.

138.

In these communications, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants,

and/or Labor Broker Defendants offered Plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue their green cards

under the sponsorship of Defendant Signal. Plaintiffs were told that for an additional sum of

approximately 35,000 to 45,000 rupees ($800 to $1,100), they could quickly obtain H-2B visas

to go to the United States for work at Defendant Signal’s operations.

139.

In these communications, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants,

and/or Labor Broker Defendants falsely assured Plaintiffs that Defendant Signal would seek at

least two extensions of the temporary H-2B visas with which Plaintiffs would gain admittance to

the United States, and that Plaintiffs’ H-2B visas would thereafter be converted to permanent

green cards.

140.

Upon information and belief, prior to these communications with Plaintiffs,

Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal communicated and

consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail and/or telephone communications regarding the issues

Complaint

27

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 28 of 70 PageID #: 28

to be discussed and representations to be made to Plaintiffs.

141.

In their communications with Plaintiffs, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator

Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants further failed to disclose material facts regarding

the H-2B visa, including the fact that H-2B visas confer only a temporary non-immigrant status

which does not allow the bearer to adjust to permanent residency status and the fact that applying

for H-2B visa status is fundamentally incompatible with simultaneously applying for a green

card.

142.

Plaintiffs, unaware of U.S. immigration law and the temporary, nonimmigrant

character of H-2B visas and desperate not to forfeit the substantial fees that they had already

paid, agreed, in reliance on the representations of Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator

Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants, to transfer their green card applications to

Defendant Signal’s sponsorship and further agreed to work for Defendant Signal under H-2B

visas pursuant to the terms explained by Recruiter Defendants.

143.

In reliance on the representations of Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator

Defendants, Labor Broker Defendants and Defendant Signal, Plaintiffs and others similarly

situated entered the United States on H-2B guestworker visas in late 2006 and early 2007 for the

purposes of working for Defendant Signal at its Orange, Texas facility or Pascagoula,

Mississippi facility.

144.

Plaintiffs would not have paid the extraordinary fees charged by Recruiter

Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants for travel, green

cards, visas, and work opportunities had they known that these Defendants’ promises and

representations were false.

145.

Plaintiffs would not have paid the extraordinary fees charged by the Recruiter

Complaint

28

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 29 of 70 PageID #: 29

Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Brokers Defendants for travel, green

cards, visas, and employment opportunities had they known that these Defendants had failed to

disclose material facts concerning the nature and terms and conditions of the immigration and

work opportunities offered.

Preparations and Departure for Signal Operations in the United States

146.

At various times from the spring of 2006 to early 2007, employees of Defendant

Signal traveled to various locations in India and the United Arab Emirates and tested Plaintiffs’

welding and pipefitting skills in anticipation of employing them in the United States.

147.

Plaintiffs paid costs necessary to travel to the cities where these tests were held.

148.

Plaintiffs paid admission fees charged to take these tests.

149.

Plaintiffs attended and passed these tests, which were overseen and graded by

Defendant Signal’s and/or Defendant Dewan’s agents, employees, and/or representatives.

150.

Upon information and belief, prior to attending these meetings and testing

sessions, Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants conferred in

spring, summer, and fall 2006 by phone, mail, fax and or e-mail to organize, plan, and coordinate

the logistics and substantive content of these testing sessions.

151.

On or about July 20, 2006 and August 17, 2006, the United States Department of

Labor approved Signal’s labor certification applications for 590 H-2B workers for the period of

October 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007.

152.

In approving these labor certification applications, the United States Department

of Labor relied on the accuracy of the applications’ stated 10-month period of labor need.

153.

On information and belief, the Department of Labor is prohibited by its internal

guidelines to grant labor certification applications without relying on the application’s statement

Complaint

29

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 30 of 70 PageID #: 30

of temporary labor need.

154.

In late August and early September 2006, the United States Citizenship and

Immigration Service approved Signal’s H-2B visa petitions for 590 H-2B workers for the period

of October 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007.

155.

In approving these visa petitions, the United States Citizenship and Immigration

Service relied on the accuracy of the petitions’ stated 10-month period of labor need and the

representation that Defendant Signal’s need was based on a one time peak-load temporary

demand.

156.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service must, according to

regulation, rely on the stated period of the petitioner’s labor need, see 8 C.F.R.214.2(h)(6)(ii)(B)

(2006).

157.

Defendant Signal, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Recruiter Defendants knew

that the stated period of need in Signal’s applications for labor certifications and for H-2B visas

were inconsistent with Signal’s projected actual labor need and therefore Defendants knew these

statements to the government were false.

158.

The Recruiter Defendants and the Legal Facilitator Defendants used the H-2B

visas, obtained from the U.S. Government on the basis of false statements by Defendant Signal

and the Legal Facilitator Defendants, to elicit multiple installment payments Plaintiffs.

159.

Plaintiffs entered the United States on H-2B guestworker visas, issued by the U.S.

Government on the basis of false statements by Defendant Signal and the Legal Facilitator

Defendants, in late 2006 and early 2007 for the purposes of working for Defendant Signal at its

Orange, Texas or Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.

160.

Around the time of USCIS’s visa approval, Plaintiffs made necessary preparations

Complaint

30

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 31 of 70 PageID #: 31

in order to travel to the United States on H-2B visas to work for Signal, including: paying to

obtain necessary travel and legal documents; making payments to the United States consulate,

Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants for mandatory H-2B visa and consular

processing fees; attending H-2B visa interviews; and paying Recruiter Defendants for travel

arrangements.

161.

In order to secure H-2B visas to work for Signal, Plaintiffs were required to be

interviewed by United States Consular offices in Indian cities.

162.

These consular interviews necessitated that Plaintiffs pay the costs of travel from

their homes and/or current places of employment to various large Indian cities including Chennai

(Madras), Delhi and Mumbai (Bombay).

163.

Recruiter Defendants and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants, acting as Defendant

Signal’s agents, required that Plaintiffs meet with Recruiter Defendants and/or the Legal

Facilitator Defendants in these Indian cities prior to attending their consular interviews.

164.

Upon information and belief, prior to these meetings Recruiter Defendants and

Legal Facilitator Defendants discussed amongst themselves and with Defendant Signal by e-

mail, telephone, or in-person communications the topics to be discussed and instructions to be

given to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated at these meetings.

165.

At these pre-interview meetings, Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator

Defendants ensured that Plaintiffs were up-to-date on paying the fee installments required by

their green card contracts.

166.

Defendants further required that Plaintiffs pay an additional 35,000 to 45,000

rupees ($800 to $1,100) fee for H-2B visa processing.

167.

On information and belief, Recruiter Defendants and/or Legal Facilitator

Complaint

31

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 32 of 70 PageID #: 32

Defendants required Plaintiffs to sign documents permitting Defendant Sachin Dewan to receive

their visa stamped passports from the Consulate on Plaintiffs’ behalves.

168.

Recruiter Defendants and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants also coached the

Plaintiffs on what to say and what not to say during consular interviews. Those Defendants, inter

alia, told Plaintiffs not to say anything about the substantial fees Plaintiffs had been required to

pay, not to say anything about expected green cards, and, if asked, to say that Plaintiffs expected

to be in the United States for only several months and then would return to India.

169.

Recruiter Defendants and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants told Plaintiffs that if

they did not follow these instructions regarding the interviews, Plaintiffs would not receive their

visas and would forfeit the all moneys they had previously paid to Defendants, in addition to

losing their opportunity to permanently immigrate to the United States.

170.

During Plaintiffs’ consular interviews, the consular officials took Plaintiffs’

passports from them.

171.

Once Plaintiffs’ visas were approved, consular officials sent their passports, with

H-2B visas affixed, directly to Defendant Dewan.

172.

After receiving word that Plaintiffs’ visas were approved, Recruiter Defendants

made travel arrangements for Plaintiffs’ departures to the United States.

173.

Before Plaintiffs could leave for the United States, however, Plaintiffs were

required to attend final meetings in Recruiter Defendants’ Mumbai (Bombay) office.

174.

Such meetings typically took place mere hours before Plaintiffs’ scheduled

departures to the United States, when Recruiter Defendants’ office was teeming with anxious

fellow Indian workers awaiting departure to the United States.

175.

At these meetings, Recruiter Defendants collected final installment payments

Complaint

32

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 33 of 70 PageID #: 33

required by Plaintiffs’ green card contracts.

176.

Recruiter Defendants also required that Plaintiffs, most of whom do not

proficiently read or speak English, sign English language documents with little or no time for

review.

177.

Recruiter Defendants refused to return Plaintiffs’ passports -- which had been in

Defendant Sachin Dewan’s possession since after Plaintiffs’ H-2B visas were approved by

Consular Officials -- until after Plaintiffs had paid the final installments and signed the

mandatory paperwork.

178.

In forceful tones, Recruiter Defendants or their staff demanded that Plaintiffs

quickly sign the mandatory documents, lest they miss the flights to the United States which

Recruiter Defendants had scheduled for them.

179.

Without possession of their passports and within this rushed and hostile

atmosphere, Plaintiffs had no reasonable opportunity to review, negotiate, and/or make any

changes to the documents presented them.

180.

On occasions when workers who appeared at the Mumbai office failed to present

sufficient funds to pay the final installment required by the green card contracts, Defendant

Dewan and his associates threatened to destroy and/or deface these workers’ passports.

181.

Such threats were uttered in the presence of other workers, causing these workers

to reasonably believe that they had no choice but to pay the final installments in full.

182.

Based on the Recruiter Defendants’ threatening and coercive behavior during

these pre-departure meetings in Mumbai and the extraordinary and increasing levels of debt they

had incurred to pay the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants for green card and

H-2B visa arrangements, Plaintiffs reasonably believed that they had no choice but to make the

Complaint

33

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 34 of 70 PageID #: 34

payments required by the Recruiter Defendants and to travel to the United States to work for

Defendant Signal.

183.

Plaintiffs and approximately 560 other Indian H-2B workers traveled from

Mumbai to Defendant Signal’s operations in the U.S. at various times from late October 2006 to

July 2007 on tickets arranged by the Recruiter Defendants.

184.

Pursuant to Defendant Signal’s instructions and arrangements, approximately 300

workers, including one of these Plaintiffs, were sent to Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility,

and approximately 290 workers, including these Plaintiffs, were sent to Signal’s Orange, Texas

facility upon arrival in the United States, although Signal’s Orange, Texas facility began turning

away workers in or around February 2007.

185.

The Plaintiffs had no choice but to use the Recruiter Defendants and the Legal

Facilitator Defendants to secure employment at Defendant Signal’s operations.

186.

The Plaintiffs had no choice but to pay the fees the Recruiter Defendants and the

Legal Facilitator Defendants charged to secure employment at Defendant Signal’s operations.

187.

Management personnel at Defendant Signal made the conscious and deliberate

decision to prohibit the Plaintiffs from securing employment at Signal’s operations either

through another recruiter or by bypassing recruiters’ altogether and applying directly with

Defendant Signal.

Conditions at Signal Facilities in Orange and Pascagoula

188.

Upon arrival at Defendant Signal’s facilities in Orange and Pascagoula, Plaintiffs

were shocked to discover that they were expected to live in isolated, overcrowded labor camps

comprised of trailer-like bunkhouses.

189.

Defendant Signal’s labor camps were located in isolated, industrial areas miles

Complaint

34

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 35 of 70 PageID #: 35

removed from shopping areas, places of worship, and residential communities. The camps were

enclosed by fences and accessible only by a single guarded entrance.

190.

The Signal labor camp gates at the Texas and Mississippi facilities were

constantly monitored by security guards retained by Defendant Signal.

191.

Signal’s security guards monitored Plaintiffs’ comings and goings by requiring

them to show their employee identification badges and recording when Plaintiffs entered and

exited the camps. Signal’s security guards also searched Plaintiffs’ packages and bags when they

entered the camp.

192.

Except on rare occasions, Plaintiffs were not permitted to receive visitors in the

Signal labor camps.

193.

Up to twenty-four Indian men were housed in each bunkhouse and made to sleep

in two-tiered bunk beds. The bunk beds were so tightly packed in the bunkhouses that it was

difficult for workers to move about in the narrow passageways between bunks. These housing

conditions, inter alia, violated the applicable health and safety standards under the federal

Occupational Health and Safety Act.

194.

The Signal labor camp bunkhouses had insufficient toileting and bathing facilities

for twenty-four men, resulting in long lines for the bathrooms before and after work shifts.

195.

Privacy was non-existent, and Plaintiffs often experienced extreme difficulty

sleeping due to the constant noise resulting from the close quarters and the comings and goings

of workers who worked on different shifts.

196.

Defendant Signal’s personnel and/or security guards conducted surprise searches

of the dormitory areas of the bunkhouses, including searches of workers’ personal belongings.

197.

Plaintiffs took their meals in Defendant Signal’s mess halls, which were only

Complaint

35

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 36 of 70 PageID #: 36

open during limited hours. Due to filthy and unhygienic kitchen conditions, Plaintiffs frequently

became ill, sometimes requiring hospitalization.

198.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal did not obtain the required

permit(s) to furnish the board at its Texas Labor Camp, and the condition and sanitation of the

board further violated federal, state, and/or local law including, inter alia, the U.S. Food and

Drug Administration Code, as adopted and modified by Texas Food Establishment Rules. In

addition, the Mississippi Labor Camp violated Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(“OSHA”) guidelines on habitability.

199.

Defendant Signal deducted labor camp fees of approximately $35 per day ($245

per week, or approximately $1,050 per month) from Plaintiffs’ paychecks for these substandard

accommodations and meals.

200.

When Plaintiffs complained and asked to live outside the labor camps, Defendant

Signal initially refused and subsequently told workers that if they tried to live outside the camps

Signal would still deduct the labor camp fees from Plaintiffs’ wages. As a result, Plaintiffs

reasonably felt that they had no choice but to continue living in the Signal camps.

201.

Defendant Signal only housed Indian H-2B workers such as Plaintiffs in its labor

camps, which employees and management at Signal referred to as the “reservation(s),” in a

derogatory play on the common name (“Indian”) for Plaintiffs’ ethnicity and Native Americans.

Upon information and belief, workers of non-Indian descent and United States citizen employees

were neither required nor allowed to live in and/or pay for accommodations in Defendant

Signal’s labor camps.

202.

Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs to skills testing and re-testing, on the- job

discipline, layoffs, periods without work, lack of safety precautions, unfavorable job

Complaint

36

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 37 of 70 PageID #: 37

assignments, evaluation processes, and other adverse employment actions to which non-Indian

and U.S. citizen workers were not similarly subjected.

203.

In addition, Signal camp personnel and supervisors frequently subject Plaintiffs to

an objectively hostile and abusive environment. They often used offensive language in speaking

with and/or referring to Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B workers and regularly insulted Plaintiffs

and other Indian H-2B workers on the basis of their race, national origin, and/or alienage.

204.

During the first week of employing Plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the

United States, Defendant Signal did not reimburse Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for any

of the expenses that Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were required to incur as a pre-

condition of seeking employment with Signal.

205.

During the first two weeks of employing Plaintiffs and others similarly situated in

the United States, Defendant Signal deducted approximately $100 to $200 each week from

Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated workers’ checks for job-related tool kits which they were

required to purchase from Defendant Signal.

206.

Prior to and during the course of their employment at Defendant Signal, Plaintiffs

and others similarly situated were not informed of the wage which they were legally required to

be paid as H-2B guestworkers, nor were they informed of their job classification.

207.

During the course of their employment at Defendant Signal, Plaintiffs were not

paid the wages required by the H-2B visa program.

208.

Over the course of their employment at Defendant Signal, Plaintiffs and others

similarly situated were routinely awarded a fifty cent per hour “safety bonus” for workweeks

when they were not written up for violations of Defendant Signal’s safety rules.

209.

The safety bonus Defendant Signal paid the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated

Complaint

37

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 38 of 70 PageID #: 38

was in addition to their regular hourly wage.

210.

Upon information and belief, the safety bonus was non-discretionary with respect

both to the decision to pay the bonus and to the amount of the bonus.

211.

Defendant Signal paid the safety bonus to the Plaintiffs and others similarly

situated pursuant to a prior agreement or promise causing the Plaintiffs and others similarly

situated to expect the bonus payments regularly if they met the required safety criteria.

212.

During workweeks when the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated worked more

than 40 hours, Defendant Signal did not pay one and one-half times the amount of the safety

bonus for all overtime hours worked.

213.

Signal personnel and management regularly threatened Plaintiffs and other H-2B

workers that if they did not continue working for Signal, or did not work according to Signal’s

specifications, Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B workers would be deported back to India.

214.

In the isolated and guarded atmosphere of the labor camp and grappling with the

crushing debts they had incurred to come to the United States, Plaintiffs reasonably felt that

Signal’s statements were threatening and felt forced to continue working for Signal despite

terrible working and living conditions.

215.

At regular meetings and in one-on-one or small group conversations with Signal

camp personnel and management, some workers, including some of the Plaintiffs, voiced

complaints regarding the discriminatory treatment to which Indian H-2B workers were subject.

Other similarly situated workers also voiced complaints, in both the Orange and Pascagoula

camps.

216.

Workers Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, two of the plaintiffs in the David

Litigation, took leading roles in gathering and voicing others’ complaints to Defendant Signal’s

Complaint

38

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 39 of 70 PageID #: 39

personnel in camp meetings in Pascagoula.

217.

When Indian workers, including Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, voiced grievances

regarding housing, food, and wages, Defendant Signal’s personnel warned them to stop

complaining.

218.

When Signal took no action in response to workers’ complaints, numerous Indian

H-2B workers living at the Pascagoula labor camp, including Vijayan and Kadakkarappally,

began meeting collectively to discuss how to persuade Signal to improve conditions in its labor

camps, and also began meeting with third parties to discuss how best to address their concerns.

219.

Defendant Signal became aware of these meetings, including meetings between

workers, including Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, and third parties whom Signal believed to be

attorneys.

220.

Defendant Signal, through its employees and/or agents, contacted the Recruiter

Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants to express its concerns about worker organizing

efforts and the specific involvement of Vijayan and Kadakkarappally.

221.

Upon information and belief, during these conversations Recruiter Defendants,

Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Signal reached an agreement regarding steps that they would

take to discourage further worker organizing efforts and to ensure that the majority of the Indian

H-2B workforce continued to work at Signal without complaint, as well as to prevent the Indian

H-2B workforce from exercising their legal rights.

222.

Upon information and belief, Signal management and camp personnel conferred

and planned internally and with the private Swetman security firm in Mississippi to respond to

workers’ organizing activities and to take actions to ensure that the majority of the Indian H-2B

workforce continued to work at Signal without complaint, as well as to prevent the Indian H-2B

Complaint

39

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 40 of 70 PageID #: 40

workforce from exercising their legal rights.

223.

On or about March 7, 2007, Defendant Sachin Dewan called Vijayan’s wife at her

home in India and warned her that Vijayan must stop making trouble at Signal.

224.

Vijayan’s wife informed Vijayan of this call, and Vijayan called Defendant

Dewan on or about March 8, 2007. During that conversation, Defendant Dewan told Vijayan that

Dewan had learned from Defendant Signal that Vijayan was organizing the workers and making

trouble. Defendant Dewan told Vijayan that if the organizing continued, all the workers would be

sent back to India.

225.

Vijayan informed other Indian workers about the calls he and his wife had

received from Defendant Dewan, and word spread quickly through the Pascagoula and Orange

camps and to these Plaintiffs, regarding the threats against Vijayan.

226.

News about the calls between Defendant Dewan, Vijayan and Vijayan’s wife

substantially heightened the reasonable fears of Plaintiffs in the Orange camp that if they

complained about or tried to leave the discriminatory and substandard working and living

conditions at Signal, the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Signal would

retaliate against Plaintiffs or their families with acts of violence or by arranging for Plaintiffs’

deportation to India.

227.

Defendant Signal called a workforce-wide meeting on or about March 8, 2007 in

the Pascagoula camp, attended by Signal management and Defendant Burnett.

228.

At this meeting, Signal management told the Pascagoula workers that Signal

would fight back against organizing efforts by the workers.

229.

Signal management further threatened that Signal would not extend Plaintiffs’ and

all other Indian H-2B workers’ visas if any of the workers took legal action against Signal. At

Complaint

40

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 41 of 70 PageID #: 41

that same meeting Defendant Burnett told the workers that they were ineligible for other kinds of

immigration relief and could depend only on Signal to maintain their H-2B immigration status

and pursue their green card applications. These threats were promptly reported to the workers in

Orange, including Plaintiffs.

230.

At or about the same time as this camp-wide meeting in Pascagoula, Mississippi,

Signal management made the decision to terminate and forcibly deport Vijayan and

Kadakkarappally, along with Kuldeep Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan, three Pascagoula workers

who are also plaintiffs in the David Litigation, and to do so by means that would make an

example of them for the other Indian workers in Pascagoula and in Orange, in order to keep

those workers in line.

231.

Early on the morning of March 9, 2007, Signal locked the gate to its Pascagoula

labor camp, thereby obstructing the sole means of direct entry to and exit from the camp.

232.

Around this same time, Signal camp coordinator Darrell Snyder, and

approximately five security guards, some or all of whom were obtained through the private

Swetman Security firm, swept through the bunkhouses carrying pictures of Vijayan,

Kadakkarappally, K. Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan.

233.

Security guards began accosting workers to determine whether they were the

individuals shown in the pictures.

234.

Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B workers at both camps became increasingly

frightened and confused by these activities, particularly when word spread that Signal had locked

the gate that served as the sole exit from the Pascagoula labor camp.

235.

Around 5:15 AM that morning, Vijayan was walking towards the dining area. A

security guard and Darrell Snyder, a Signal employee, aggressively confronted Vijayan and

Complaint

41

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 42 of 70 PageID #: 42

instructed him that he was in their custody.

236.

Based on the threats made at the meeting on March 8, 2007 and Vijayan’s recent

phone call with Sachin Dewan, Vijayan feared what Defendant Signal might do to him.

237.

Vijayan began to panic, thinking of the enormous quantity of money he had spent

to come to the United States and the massive debts he owed in India. Vijayan knew that he

would not be able to repay such debts if he were deported and no longer employed by Signal.

238.

These feelings, combined with Vijayan’s reasonable fear that Snyder and the

security guards might physically hurt him, drove Vijayan to attempt suicide. Vijayan had to be

transported from the labor camp to a local hospital for immediate medical attention.

239.

While attempting to assist Vijayan in obtaining medical attention,

Kadakkarappally was grabbed by Darrell Snyder and/or one or more of the security guards.

240.

Kadakkarappally was taken forcefully by the arm and marched into a communal

room in the labor camp referred to by workers as “the TV room.”

241.

Upon arriving in the TV room, Kadakkarappally found two workers already held

inside. Earlier that morning, Darrell Snyder and the security guards had grabbed Chellappan in

the communal eating area and Kumar in his bunkhouse and forced both of them into the TV

room, where they were kept under guard and prevented from leaving.

242.

In the TV room, Darrell Snyder informed Kadakkarappally that he and Kumar

and Chellappan were fired and would be taken to the airport to be deported to India. Snyder

demanded that Kadakkarappally stay inside the TV room, and Kadakkarappally was prevented

from leaving the TV room by security guards.

243.

Kuldeep Singh, upon realizing Snyder and the security guards were looking for

him and intended to apprehend and detain him, hid himself and later fled the camp via an

Complaint

42

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 43 of 70 PageID #: 43

adjacent work area.

244.

Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan were detained in the TV room, under

guard, from approximately 6 a.m. for several hours.

245.

Several security guards watched over Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan

while they were detained. Over the course of several hours, security guards denied

Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan’s repeated requests to be let out of the TV room, to get

something to drink, or to use the bathroom.

246.

When Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan’s co-workers attempted to come

into the TV room to talk to the three workers kept inside, the security guards pushed them back.

247.

Confused and frightened, workers assembled outside the TV room to protest the

treatment of Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan.

248.

At around 10 AM, Signal camp personnel finally permitted Kadakkarappally,

Kumar, and Chellappan to use the bathroom accompanied by security guards, one at a time.

249.

Around noon, Darrell Snyder and a Pascagoula police officer entered the TV

room and the officer questioned why Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan were there.

Snyder said that these workers had been fired and would be sent back to India.

250.

By early afternoon on March 9, 2007, local media, religious advocates, and other

individuals had gathered outside the camp gate to express their concern over the attempted

suicide of Vijayan and the forced detention of Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan.

251.

Faced with growing protests by community members and Signal employees,

Defendant Signal decided not to forcibly transport Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan to

the airport for deportation to India, and instead escorted them from the Pascagoula labor camp.

252.

Other Indian H-2B workers, including these Plaintiffs, working at Signal’s

Complaint

43

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 44 of 70 PageID #: 44

Orange facilities rapidly learned of the events at the Pascagoula labor camp on March 9, 2007. In

response and out of fear for their continued well-being, some workers surreptitiously fled both

camps.

253.

Within a few days of Plaintiffs’ and other Indian H-2B workers’ arrival at its

labor camps in late 2006 and early 2007, Signal personnel had conducted meetings at the labor

camps between Plaintiffs and representatives from specific banks. In Orange, these meetings

were with representatives from Capital One Bank. In Pascagoula, these meetings were with

representatives from M&M Bank.

254.

At the instruction of Defendant Signal, Plaintiffs opened accounts with the

designated bank and agreed to directly deposit their wages in these accounts. Defendant Signal’s

establishment of Plaintiffs’ accounts with these banks gave it unique access to and control over

Plaintiffs’ funds.

255.

At some point before April 10, 2007, on information and belief, after some Indian

H-2B workers had fled Signal’s Mississippi camp, the bank with which those workers had

established similar accounts denied those departed workers access to their bank accounts and

invalidated their ATM cards.

256.

Upon information and belief, that Mississippi bank refused the departed workers

access to their own bank accounts at Defendant Signal’s behest.

257.

Indian H-2B workers still working at Signal labor camps, including the Plaintiffs,

heard about the difficulty departed Signal workers had in accessing their funds through Signal-

established bank accounts and reasonably believed that similar action might be taken against

them should they try to leave Defendant Signal’s employ.

258.

The information about workers’ inability to access their money, combined with

Complaint

44

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 45 of 70 PageID #: 45

other factors described herein, contributed to the reasonable beliefs of Plaintiffs and the other

remaining Indian H-2B workers that if they tried to leave the employ of Defendant Signal they

would face serious harm and/or threatened or actual abuse of the legal process.

259.

Defendant Signal’s actions on and after March 9, 2007 significantly intensified

the reasonable fears of the remaining Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B workers in the Pascagoula

and Orange camps that if they tried to leave Signal’s employ or oppose unlawful and coercive

employment conditions at Signal, including by consulting with counsel, they faced the threat of

physical restraint, detention, forced deportation, or other serious harms and/or abuses of the legal

process.

260.

Throughout the spring and summer of 2007, Signal personnel in the Mississippi

and Texas camps held various meetings with the remaining Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B

workers to discuss the status of Plaintiffs’ and other Indian H-2B workers’ visas and green card

applications.

261.

Upon information and belief, during spring and summer 2007 Signal personnel

conferred amongst themselves and with the Recruiter Defendants and the Legal Facilitator

Defendants via phone and/or e-mail to reach agreement on what should be said to workers

attending the meetings.

262.

Soon after March 9, 2007, Defendant Signal held a camp-wide meeting in

Pascagoula. Signal personnel told the Indian H-2B workers that Signal would sponsor their green

cards if they stayed at Signal and obeyed Signal’s rules, and warned that if workers held any

meetings against Signal’s interests, they would be terminated. As Signal understood would

happen, workers at the Orange camp, including Plaintiffs, promptly learned what Signal

personnel had said at this meeting, and understood it would apply to workers at Orange, as well.

Complaint

45

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 46 of 70 PageID #: 46

263.

In that same time period, Defendants Dewan and Burnett came to the Signal camp

in Orange, Texas and again promised, in the presence of Signal personnel, that Signal, through

its attorney Defendant Burnett, would make bona fide applications for green cards and obtain

several H-2B visa extensions for the workers who had not been terminated by Signal (plaintiffs

in the David Litigation, including David, Sulekha, Thangamani, Kandhasamy, Khuttan, Andrews

and Dhananjaya), and the other Indian H- 2B workers. Plaintiffs reasonably believed these

promises.

264.

In meetings and conversations in spring and summer 2007, Defendant Signal,

through its agents and employees at the Pascagoula and Orange facilities, continued to promise

that Signal would arrange for the H-2B visa extensions and green cards originally promised

Plaintiffs when they were recruited in India and the United Arab Emirates.

265.

At the same time as Defendant Signal was promising to arrange for H-2B visa

extensions and green cards for the Plaintiffs as well as other Indian H-2B workers, Signal in fact

was secretly evaluating all of the Indian workers with the intent not even to apply for visa

extensions for certain of the Indian H-2B workers.

266.

Plaintiffs’ continuing dependence on Defendant Signal for their present and future

immigration status, their continuing high levels of indebtedness, as well as other factors

reasonably led Plaintiffs to fear serious harm and/or abuse of the legal process if they left

Signal’s employ.

267.

Under such circumstances, these Plaintiffs reasonably felt like they had no choice

but to continue working for Signal.

268.

At various times relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendant Signal refused to

confirm whether valid H-2B visa extensions had in fact been obtained for Plaintiffs, coercing

Complaint

46

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 47 of 70 PageID #: 47

Plaintiffs to continue working for Signal in the hope that Signal would finally resolve their

uncertain immigration status.

269.

In addition, during the spring of 2007, Signal continued to recruit workers,

including some of the Plaintiffs, to fill positions under the H-2B visas which Signal had been

granted by the federal government. As a result, the workers continued to pay recruitment fees

with the understanding they would have job opportunities at Signal. The workers were told by

Recruiter Defendants that Signal representatives would pick them up from the airport in

Houston, Texas to work at Signal’s facility. When the workers, including some of the Plaintiffs,

arrived at the Houston, Texas airport, no one from Signal was there to pick them up, and

consequentially no work opportunity was provided to them, as they had contracted for.

270.

The workers, including some of the Plaintiffs, who had not been picked up at the

airport, contacted Signal’s Orange, Texas facility to ask about their work opportunities and were

either not responded to or told that there was no work opportunity for them at Signal.

271.

The workers who were not picked up at the airport, including some of the

Plaintiffs, and who were stranded in a country foreign to them, overcame obstacles and received

help from third-parties to travel to Signal’s Orange, Texas facility. After they arrived there,

Signal management told them that they needed to spend the night in the camp while Signal

management figured out what to do with the workers. The next day, Signal management told

them that they had to take a test, which was the same test that they had taken previously. After

taking the test, Signal management told the workers that they had failed the test. Signal used the

test as a pretext for not employing the workers when Signal, at that point, had no intention of

employing the workers who Signal had recruited to the United States.

272.

Signal knew it had no intention of fulfilling its contractual promises and

Complaint

47

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 48 of 70 PageID #: 48

employing the workers before the workers left India and made payments to Signal’s agents.

Nevertheless, Signal did not inform the workers, including the Plaintiffs, of its intention to

breach the contract nor did Signal ensure that its agents informed the Plaintiffs that Signal would

not fulfill its contractual obligations. Once the workers, including the Plaintiffs, arrived in

Texas, Signal continued to defraud and lie about its intention to not fulfill its obligation to

employ the workers, including the Plaintiffs.

273.

Since first contracting with Defendants in India and the United Arab Emirates,

none of Plaintiffs have yet to receive from Defendants the green cards Defendants promised

them. Despite clear contractual provisions requiring them to do so, the Recruiter Defendants, the

Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants have refused to refund any of the

moneys Plaintiffs paid to them for unsuccessful green card and visa processing

274.

The fact that the Plaintiffs gave up opportunities for work and financial gain by

leaving India, Singapore, and the Persian Gulf to come work in the United States at Signal was

known or foreseeable to Defendants.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2003

Forced Labor (18 U.S.C. § 1590 (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor)
Defendants Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc., the Recruiter Defendants (Michael Pol, Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast
Immigration Law Center)

275.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

276.

Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and

Complaint

48

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 49 of 70 PageID #: 49

Legal Facilitator Defendants.

277.

Plaintiffs are authorized to bring these civil claims against Defendants pursuant to

the civil remedies provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003

(TVPA), 18 U.S.C. § 1595.

278.

Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants

attempted to and did subject Plaintiffs to forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589.

279.

Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants

knowingly attempted to and did physically restrain and/or threaten Plaintiffs with serious harm in

order to obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1589(1).

280.

Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants

knowingly attempted to and did obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs using a scheme, plan,

or pattern which, in the totality of the circumstances, was intended to coerce and did coerce

Plaintiffs to believe that they would suffer serious harm if they were to leave the employ of

Defendant Signal in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(2).

281.

Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants’

scheme to isolate Plaintiffs, to coerce them to live in conditions causing psychological harm, and

to limit their outside contacts, including unlawful discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §

1981, was designed to convince Plaintiffs that they would suffer serious harm if they were to

leave the employ of Defendant Signal.

282.

Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants

retaliated against Plaintiffs for attempts to exercise their legal rights, and threatened Plaintiffs

with deportation and deceived Plaintiffs about the terms of their immigration status in a manner

that constitutes an abuse of the legal process under 18 U.S.C. § 1589(3).

Complaint

49

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 50 of 70 PageID #: 50

283.

Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants

knowingly recruited, transported, harbored, provided, and/or obtained the Plaintiffs so as to

obtain their labor and services in violation of laws prohibiting peonage, slavery, involuntary

servitude, and forced labor within the meaning of the provisions of the Trafficking Victims

Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (TVPA).

284.

In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590, and in addition to the violations of 18 U.S.C. §

1589 set forth above, Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants

knowingly recruited, transported, harbored and/or obtained the Plaintiffs for labor or services in

furtherance of these Defendants’ violations of the following provisions of Title 18, Chapter 77 of

the U.S. Code:

a. enticing, persuading, or inducing the Plaintiffs to go on board an airliner and to go

to various locations throughout the United Arab Emirates, India, and the United

States, with the intent that they may be made or held in modern day slavery,

violating 18 U.S.C. § 1583;

b. knowingly and willfully holding Plaintiffs to involuntary servitude, as defined by

the TVPA, 22 U.S.C. § 7102(5)(a) and (b), violating 18 U.S.C. § 1584;

c. removing, confiscating, or possessing Plaintiffs’ passports and other immigration

documents in the course of, or with the intent to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1583, 1584,

1589, and 1590, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1592(a); and

d. attempting to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1583, 1584, 1589, and 1590, violating 18

U.S.C. § 1594(a).

285.

As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants,

and Legal Facilitator Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries to their persons, businesses,

Complaint

50

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 51 of 70 PageID #: 51

and property, and other damages.

286.

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in an amount

to be proven at trial, including attorneys’ fees.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)

All Defendants

287.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

288.

Plaintiffs’ RICO Case Statement, filed concurrently with Plaintiffs’ original

Complaint, is incorporated herein by reference.

289.

Plaintiffs’ claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,

18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (“RICO”), are brought against all Defendants.

290.

Plaintiffs are “persons” with standing to sue within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §

1964(c).

291.

Each of the Defendants is a “RICO person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §

1963(1).

292.

All Defendants and the United States Consular officers in India constitute an

association-in-fact, and therefore an enterprise (the “RICO Enterprise I”), within the meaning of

18 U.S.C. § 1964(4).

293.

Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal are an

association-in-fact, and therefore an enterprise (the “RICO Enterprise II”), within the meaning of

18 U.S.C. § 1964(4).

294.

Recruiter Defendants, Defendant Signal, Legal Facilitator Defendants, Swetman

Complaint

51

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 52 of 70 PageID #: 52

Security, and Capital One Bank are an association-in-fact, and therefore an enterprise (the

“RICO Enterprise III”) within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(4).

The RICO Enterprises

RICO Enterprise I

295.

RICO Enterprise I at all relevant times was an ongoing business relationship

between all Defendants, and the United States Consular officers in India, with the common

purpose of recruiting, transporting, providing, processing, and obtaining foreign workers to work

on shipyards in the United States, including on Signal’s operations in Texas and Mississippi.

296.

RICO Enterprise I was engaged in interstate commerce in that its activities and

transactions relating to the international and interstate movement of workers affect interstate

commerce and frequently require travel and communications across state and international lines.

297.

The members of RICO Enterprise I functioned as a continuing unit.

298.

Defendants conducted or participated in, and/or conspired to conduct or

participate in the affairs of RICO Enterprise I through a pattern of numerous acts of racketeering

activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), related by their common

goal to recruit, obtain, transport, process, and provide workers through the use of fraudulent

promises, exorbitant fees, forced labor, and/or trafficking.

299.

Specifically, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant

Signal conducted or participated in and/or conspired to conduct the affairs of RICO Enterprise I

by engaging in the following predicate acts of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1):

a. Enticement into modern day slavery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1583.

b. Involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584.

c. Forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589;

Complaint

52

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 53 of 70 PageID #: 53

d. Trafficking persons with respect to modern day slavery, involuntary servitude,

and forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590; and

e. Unlawful document-related practices in furtherance of trafficking in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1592(a);

300.

Specifically, all Defendants conducted or participated in and/or conspired to

conduct the affairs of RICO Enterprise I by engaging in the following predicate acts of

racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1):

a. Mail fraud to further their unlawful scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341;

b. Wire fraud to further their unlawful scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and

c. Immigration document fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546.

RICO Enterprise II

301.

RICO Enterprise II was at all relevant times an ongoing business relationship

between Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal with the

common purpose of selling United States green cards, visas, and work opportunities to Indian

workers to convince such workers to pay fees and to travel to the United States to work for

companies, including Signal.

302.

The members of RICO Enterprise II operated as a continuing unit.

303.

RICO Enterprise II was engaged in interstate commerce in that its activities and

transactions relating to the sale of United States green cards, visas, and job opportunities affect

interstate commerce.

304.

Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal

conducted or participated in and/or conspired to conduct or participate in, the affairs of RICO

Enterprise II through a pattern of numerous acts of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C.

Complaint

53

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 54 of 70 PageID #: 54

§ 1962(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), related by their common goal to sell United States green

cards and work opportunities to Indian workers for the purposes of furnishing such workers for

employment at Signal’s operations.

305.

Specifically, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and

Defendant Signal conducted or participated in the affairs of RICO Enterprise II by engaging in

the following predicate acts of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1):

a. Enticement into modern day slavery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1583.

b. Involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584.

c. Forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589;

d. Trafficking persons with respect to modern day slavery, involuntary servitude,

and forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590;

e. Unlawful document-related practices in furtherance of trafficking in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1592(a);

f. Mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341;

g. Wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and

h. Immigration document fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546.

RICO Enterprise III

306.

RICO Enterprise III was at all relevant times an ongoing business relationship

between the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, Defendant Signal, and

Capital One Bank with the common purpose of providing and maintaining a consistent and

acquiescent labor force at Signal operations.

307.

RICO Enterprise III was engaged in interstate commerce in that its activities and

transactions relating to maintaining and providing a consistent labor force at Signal occurred

Complaint

54

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 55 of 70 PageID #: 55

across state and international lines, and involve wages and working conditions at an employer

engaged in interstate commerce (Signal).

308.

The members of RICO Enterprise III functioned as a continuing unit.

309.

Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal

conducted, or participated in, and/or conspired to conduct or participate in, the affairs of RICO

Enterprise III through a pattern of numerous acts of racketeering activity in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1962(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), related by their common goal to maintain a consistent

and acquiescent H-2B Indian labor force at Signal through the use of fraudulent promises, forced

labor, and trafficking.

310.

Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal

conducted, or participated in, and/or conspired to conduct or participate in, the affairs of RICO

Enterprise III by engaging in the following predicate acts of racketeering activity under 18

U.S.C. § 1961(1):

a. Enticement into modern day slavery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1583.

b. Involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584.

c. Forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589;

d. Trafficking persons with respect to modern day slavery, involuntary servitude,

and forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590;

e. Unlawful document-related practices in furtherance of trafficking in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1592(a);

f. Mail fraud to further their unlawful scheme in violation of 18U.S.C. § 1341;\

g. Wire fraud to further their unlawful scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and

h. Immigration document fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546.

Complaint

55

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 56 of 70 PageID #: 56

Predicate Acts

Enticement to Slavery: 18 U.S.C. § 1583

311.

Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal,

through RICO Enterprises I, II, and III willfully, knowingly, and intentionally committed and/or

conspired to commit multiple predicate acts of enticement into modern-day slavery in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1583, and as set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief.

Involuntary Servitude: 18 U.S.C. § 1584

312.

Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal,

through Enterprises I, II, and III willfully, knowingly, and intentionally committed and/or

conspired to commit multiple predicate acts of involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§1584, and as set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief.

Forced Labor: 18 U.S.C. § 1589

313.

Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal through

RICO Enterprises I, II, and III willfully, knowingly, and intentionally committed and/or

conspired to commit multiple predicate acts of forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589, and

as set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief.

Trafficking for the Purposes of Forced Labor and/or

Involuntary Servitude: 18 U.S.C. § 1590

314.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator

Defendants, and Defendant Signal through RICO Enterprises I, III, and III willfully, knowingly,

and intentionally committed and/or conspired to commit multiple predicate acts of trafficking for

the purposes of forced labor and/or involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590, and as

set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief..

Complaint

56

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 57 of 70 PageID #: 57

Document Servitude: 18 U.S.C. § 1592

315.

Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal,

through Enterprises I, II, and III willfully, knowingly, and intentionally committed and/or

conspired to commit multiple predicate acts of document servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1592, and as set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief.

Mail and Wire Fraud: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343

316.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants, through

RICO Enterprise I, made and/or conspired to make false promises regarding green cards and

other benefits in a scheme calculated to defraud Plaintiffs out of large sums of money.

317.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Recruiter Defendants,

Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal, through RICO Enterprises I, II, and III,

made and/or conspired to make false statements related to applications submitted to the U.S.

Government for H-2B visas and false promises to Plaintiffs regarding green cards and other

benefits in a scheme calculated to defraud Plaintiffs out of large sums of money.

318.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants, through

RICO Enterprise I, used the mails and wire communications, including communications via

telephone, fax, internet and/or e-mail, on numerous occasions to further these fraudulent

schemes.

319.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Recruiter Defendants,

Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal, through RICO Enterprises I, II, and III, used

the mails and wire communications, including communications via telephone, fax, internet

and/or e-mail on numerous occasions to further this fraudulent scheme.

320.

These willful, knowing, and intentional acts constitute mail and wire fraud in

Complaint

57

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 58 of 70 PageID #: 58

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343.

Immigration Document Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a)

321.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants, through

RICO Enterprise I, fraudulently sold and/or conspired to sell H-2B visa extensions and green

cards to Plaintiffs despite these Defendants’ awareness that applications for these green cards

and visa extensions were not bona fide or lawful under United States immigration law.

322.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Recruiter Defendants,

Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal, through RICO Enterprises I, II, and III,

obtained, accepted, and/or received H-2B visas despite knowing these visas to have been

procured through false statements and/or fraud on the U.S. Government.

323.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Recruiter Defendants,

Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal, through RICO Enterprises I, II, and III,

fraudulently sold and/or conspired to sell H-2B visa extensions and green cards to Plaintiffs

despite these Defendants’ awareness that applications for these green cards and visa extensions

were not bona fide or lawful under United States immigration law.

324.

These willful, knowing, and intentional acts constitute immigration document

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).

Pattern of Related Racketeering Acts

325.

Defendants engaged in the racketeering activity described in this Claim repeatedly

starting in 2003 and continuing at least through January 2009 with respect to approximately 590

Indian workers.

326.

Upon information and belief, Signal sought new Indian H-2B workers for

employment at Signal who may be subject to similar racketeering activities, stopping this

Complaint

58

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 59 of 70 PageID #: 59

recruitment only upon the filing of the David Litigation.

327.

Defendants, though the RICO Enterprises, rely on the racketeering acts described

in this Complaint to conduct their regular business activities.

328.

Defendants’ racketeering acts have or had similar purposes: to profit from the

fraudulent recruitment and forced labor of Plaintiffs and other Indian workers , and to recruit,

obtain, provide and maintain a consistent, submissive, and compliant Indian H-2B guestworker

labor force at Signal’s operations.

329.

Defendants’ acts yielded similar results and caused similar injuries to Plaintiffs,

including payment of high fees, assumption of significant interest bearing debt, loss of real and

personal property, lost work opportunities, lost or unpaid wages and additional legal fees.

330.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, the racketeering acts

have or had similar participants: the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, the

Labor Broker Defendants, and Signal.

331.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in the attached Exhibit 1,

Defendants, though the RICO Enterprises, directed their racketeering activities at similar

victims: Indian workers who contacted the Recruiter Defendants in search of green cards,

economic opportunity, and stable employment in the United States.

332.

Defendants’ acts have or had similar methods of commission, such as common

recruitment tactics, relatively consistent practices with respect to collecting payments from

Plaintiffs and other Indian workers, and use of similar employment practices and policies with

respect to Plaintiffs and other Indian workers.

Injury

333.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional

Complaint

59

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 60 of 70 PageID #: 60

acts discussed in this section, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries to their property and/or business,

including but not limited to: exorbitant fees paid by Plaintiffs for green cards, visas and other

immigration and recruitment-related services; interest on debts assumed by Plaintiffs to pay such

fees; losses of personal and real property incurred in reliance on Defendants’ fraudulent acts; lost

and unpaid wages, excessive charges from room and board, and other pecuniary and/or losses to

real or personal property.

334.

Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of damages in an amount to be determined at

trial, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATIONS FO THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

42 U.S.C. 1981

Defendant Signal (Signal International LLC, Signal International Inc., Signal International

Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P.)

335.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

336.

Plaintiffs assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for declaratory relief, and

damages against Defendant Signal.

337.

The actions of Defendant Signal, as set forth herein, violated Plaintiffs’ rights to

receive full and equal benefit of all laws as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. § 1981, including Plaintiffs’

rights to enjoy and benefit from non-discriminatory employment relationships with Defendant

Signal.

338.

Specifically, Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs to discriminatory and offensive

mandatory room and board arrangements at the Signal labor camp in Orange.

Complaint

60

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 61 of 70 PageID #: 61

339.

Defendant Signal did not subject its non-Indian and/or U.S. citizen employees to

the same or similar room and board arrangements.

340.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendant Signal also imposed

discriminatory job-related requirements and adverse terms and conditions of employment to

which non-Indian and/or U.S. citizen employees were not similarly subject.

341.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, through the actions and statements of its

personnel referring to and/or directed at Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B workers, Defendant

Signal maintained an objectively hostile and abusive work environment on account of Plaintiffs’

race, national origin, and/or alienage.

342.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendant Signal’s discriminatory and

offensive treatment of Plaintiffs was sufficiently severe that it created a hostile work

environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

343.

Plaintiffs reasonably perceived their work environment to be hostile, abusive, and

discriminatory on the basis of their race, national origin, and/or alienage.

344.

Defendant Signal’s hostile, abusive, and discriminatory treatment of Plaintiffs and

others similarly situated was unwelcome.

345.

Defendant Signal knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and without

justification acted to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.

346.

As a result of Defendant Signal’s unlawful acts, Plaintiffs have suffered injury to

their property and/or persons.

347.

Plaintiffs seek all appropriate relief, including declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees,

costs of this action, and damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount

to be determined at trial.

Complaint

61

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 62 of 70 PageID #: 62

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATIONS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT OF 1871

42 U.S.C. § 1985 and the Thirteenth Amendment

Defendant Signal (Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P.), the Recruiter Defendants (Michael Pol, Global Resources, Inc., Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants), and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration
Law Center)

348.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

349.

Plaintiffs assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for declaratory relief,

and damages against Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants.

350.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief,

Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants, along with non-

defendants, acting at the discretion of those defendants (including a private security firm and

Capital One Bank) conspired, agreed, planned and coordinated for the purpose of depriving

Plaintiffs of equal protection of their rights under the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution and its implementing and enforcing statutes (inter alia, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1590) to

be free from forced labor, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons.

351.

Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants were

motivated by racial, anti-Indian, and/or anti-immigrant animus when they conspired to deprive

Plaintiffs of their rights and/or acted in furtherance of a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their

rights.

352.

Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants

knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and without justification planned and acted to

Complaint

62

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 63 of 70 PageID #: 63

deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.

353.

As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and

Legal Facilitator Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.

354.

Plaintiffs seek all appropriate relief, including declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees,

costs of this action, and damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount

to be determined at trial.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION UNDER TEXAS LAW

All Defendants

355.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs.

356.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in the attached Exhibit 1,

Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees, and/or representatives, knowingly

and/or negligently made materially false and untrue statements and representations to Plaintiffs

regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration

status and employment in the United States.

357.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in the attached Exhibit 1, Defendants

knowingly or negligently failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs regarding the nature and

terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in

the United States.

358.

Defendants intended that the false statements made by Defendants and/or their

agents, employees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to pay the exorbitant fees

requested by the Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator

Complaint

63

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 64 of 70 PageID #: 64

Defendants.

359.

Defendants intended that the false statements made by Defendants and/or their

agents, employees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to pay exorbitant fees to the

Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants, and to

leave their homes and jobs in India and the United Arab Emirates and travel to the United States

to work for the Labor Broker Defendants and/or Defendant Signal.

360.

Plaintiffs were entitled to rely on Defendants’ representations.

361.

In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent

representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs paid large sums

of money to Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator

Defendants.

362.

In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent

representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs incurred

substantial interest-bearing debts in order to pay recruitment, immigration-related, and travel fees

charged by Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives.

363.

In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent

representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs sold personal and

real property and surrendered employment opportunities in India, the Middle East, Singapore,

and Africa.

364.

In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent

representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs left their homes

and jobs and India and other countries and traveled to the United States to work for Defendant

Signal.

Complaint

64

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 65 of 70 PageID #: 65

365.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ knowing, willing, intentional,

and/or negligent actions, Plaintiffs have been injured.

366.

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in an amount

to be proven at trial.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

BREACH OF CONTRACT UNDER TEXAS LAW

All Defendants

367.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

368.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants, individually and through

their agents, employees and/or representatives, offered to obtain permanent residence and

immigration status for Plaintiffs in the United States within 18 to 24 months as well as steady

work opportunities in the United States with Defendant Signal and/or Labor Broker Defendants

in exchange for Plaintiffs’ payment of exorbitant fees to Defendants and their employees, agents

and/or representatives and agreement to work for Defendant Signal and/or Labor Broker

Defendants.

369.

Plaintiffs accepted Defendants’ offers, paid the agreed upon fees, travelled to the

United States, and performed the agreed-upon work.

370.

Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with their

binding promises regarding employment, permanent residence and immigration status.

371.

In reliance on these agreements, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money and entered

into substantial debts, surrendered other employment opportunities, and incurred other financial

losses.

Complaint

65

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 66 of 70 PageID #: 66

372.

As a direct result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.

373.

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover actual compensatory damages in an amount to be

proven at trial.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION UNDER MISSISSIPPI LAW

All Defendants

374.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs.

375.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in the attached Exhibit 1,

Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees, and/or representatives, knowingly

and/or negligently made materially false and untrue statements and representations to Plaintiffs

regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration

status and employment in the United States.

376.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in the attached Exhibit 1, Defendants

knowingly or negligently failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs regarding the nature and

terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in

the United States.

377.

Defendants intended that the false statements made by Defendants and/or their

agents, employees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to pay the exorbitant fees

requested by the Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator

Defendants.

378.

Defendants intended that the false statements made by Defendants and/or their

agents, employees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to pay exorbitant fees to the

Complaint

66

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 67 of 70 PageID #: 67

Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants, and to

leave their homes and jobs in India and the United Arab Emirates and travel to the United States

to work for the Labor Broker Defendants and/or Defendant Signal.

379.

Plaintiffs were entitled to rely on Defendants’ representations.

380.

In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent

representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs paid large sums

of money to Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator

Defendants.

381.

In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent

representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs incurred

substantial interest-bearing debts in order to pay recruitment, immigration-related, and travel fees

charged by Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives.

382.

In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent

representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs sold personal and

real property and surrendered employment opportunities in India, the Middle East, Singapore,

and Africa.

383.

In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent

representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs left their homes

and jobs and India and other countries and traveled to the United States to work for Defendant

Signal.

384.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ knowing, willing, intentional,

and/or negligent actions, Plaintiffs have been injured.

385.

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in an amount

Complaint

67

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 68 of 70 PageID #: 68

to be proven at trial.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

BREACH OF CONTRACT UNDER MISSISSIPPI LAW

All Defendants

386.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

387.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants, individually and through

their agents, employees and/or representatives, offered to obtain permanent residence and

immigration status for Plaintiffs in the United States within 18 to 24 months as well as steady

work opportunities in the United States with Defendant Signal and/or Labor Broker Defendants

in exchange for Plaintiffs’ payment of exorbitant fees to Defendants and their employees, agents

and/or representatives and agreement to work for Defendant Signal and/or Labor Broker

Defendants.

388.

Plaintiffs accepted Defendants’ offers, paid the agreed upon fees, travelled to the

United States, and performed the agreed-upon work.

389.

Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with their

binding promises regarding employment, permanent residence and immigration status.

390.

In reliance on these agreements, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money and entered

into substantial debts, surrendered other employment opportunities, and incurred other financial

losses.

391.

As a direct result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.

392.

Defendants’ actions evince actual malice and/or reckless indifference towards the

Plaintiffs.

Complaint

68

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 69 of 70 PageID #: 69

393.

As a direct result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have suffered direct and

consequential damages, and are entitled to recover actual compensatory damages, including

opportunity costs, and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief:

a. Declaratory relief;

b. Compensatory damages;

c. Punitive damages;

d. Treble damages as authorized by RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c);

e. An award of prevailing party costs, including attorney fees;

f. A finding of alter ego between Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal International

Texas, L.P., thus piercing the corporate veil;

g. A finding of alter ego between Signal International Texas, L.P. and Signal International

LLC, thus piercing the corporate veil;

h. A finding that Signal International, Inc. is the successor in interest to Signal International

LLC, or in the alternative, a finding of alter ego between Signal International LLC and

Signal International, Inc., thus piercing the corporate veil;

i. A finding of alter ego among Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center,

L.L.C., and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., thus piercing the corporate veil;

j. A finding of alter ego between Global Resources, Inc. and Michael Pol, thus piercing the

corporate veil;

k. A finding of alter ego between Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants Pvt., thus piercing

the corporate veil;

Complaint

69

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 70 of 70 PageID #: 70
l. A finding of alter ego between Billy R. Wilks and J & M, thus piercing J & M’s
corporate veil;
m. A finding that J & M Marine is the successor of J & M; and
n. Such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Christopher J. Willett Christopher J. Willett Texas Bar No. 24061895 Kayvon Sabourian Texas Bar No. 24076824 (pro hac vice application to be filed) William H. Beardall, Jr. Texas Bar No. 01980600 (pro hac vice application to be filed)
EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER and TRANSNATIONAL WORKER RIGHTS CLINIC 510 S. Congress Ave., Suite 206 Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (512) 474-0007 Facsimile: (512) 474-0008

Complaint

70

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 1 of 72 PageID #: 3498

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION

SRINIVASA RAO KAMBALA, SRINIVASA RAO §

GONNA, AMANDEEP SINGH KANG,

§

SARAVANAN ARUNACHALAM, CHANDRA §

SEKHAR DWADASI RAMA, ANTONY ANTONY §

VALIYAPARAMBIL, HARBANS SINGH,

§

ANNADURAI RUTHIRAPATHI, PONNIAH

§

MUTHU KUMAR, MAHENDRAN PERIYASAMY, §

MALKIAH PAUL, HARVINDER SINGH,

§

PRADEEP KUMAR, ABDULLA KEEPURATH §

MAIDEEN, FRANCIS SEQUIRA,

§

UNNIKRISHNAPILLAI BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, §

SRINIVASA REDDY DALLI, BIJU

§

KUNJUPANICKAN, RAMANA PALIKA,

§

NESAMONY WILSON ROBI, and

§

RAGUKUMAR CHINNIAN

§

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

v.

§

§

§

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, SIGNAL

§

INTERNATIONAL, INC., SIGNAL

§

INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, G.P., SIGNAL

§

INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, L.P., MALVERN C. §

BURNETT, LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C.

§

BURNETT, A.P.C., GULF COAST IMMIGRATION §

LAW CENTER, L.L.C., GLOBAL RESOURCES §

INC., DEWAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.

§

(a/k/a MEDTECH CONSULTANTS),

§

SACHIN DEWAN, INDO-AMERI SOFT L.L.C., §

KURELLA RAO, J & M ASSOCIATES OF

§

MISSISSIPPI, INC., BILLY R. WILKS, and J & M §

MARINE & INDUSTRIAL, LLC,

§

§

Defendants.

§

_____________________________________________

Civ. No. 1:13-cv-498-RC-ZJH
Amended Complaint and Jury Demand

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Third Amended Complaint

1

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 2 of 72 PageID #: 3499

1. Using our nation’s guestworker program as a conduit, the Defendants trafficked approximately 590 Indian men, including the Plaintiffs (as defined below) into the United States with the aim of securing inexpensive and exploitable skilled workers to perform welding, pipefitting, and other marine fabrication work at plants in Orange, Texas and Pascagoula, Mississippi. Having crossed that line, the Defendants then more deliberately deceived, defrauded, and intimidated the workers in an attempt to continue to benefit from their illegal scheme. As a result, Plaintiffs, towards whom the Defendants held a strong and pervasive racial animus, suffered and continue to suffer some combination of financial ruin, desperate poverty, extreme emotional distress, loss of reputation, physical sickness and disease, loss of religious and ethnic identity, suffering based on race and national origin, and forced separation from family and home.
INTRODUCTION 2. Plaintiffs, Srinivasa Rao Kambala, Srinivasa Rao Gonna, Amandeep Singh Kang, Saravanan Arunachalam, Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rama, Antony Antony Valiyaparambil, Harbans Singh, Annadurai Ruthiripathi, Ponniah Muthu Kumar, Mahendran Periyasamy, Malkiah Paul, Harvinder Singh, Pradeep Kumar, Abdulla Keepurath Maideen, Francis Sequira, Unnikrishna Pillai Balakrishna Pillai, Srinivasa Reddy Dalli, Biju Kunjupanickan, Ramana Palika, Nesamony Wilson Robi, and Ragukumar Chinnian bring this action to recover for the unlawful and fraudulent behavior by Defendants Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P. (collectively referred to as “Signal”) and Signal’s agents, including Defendants Malvern C. Burnett, the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC (collectively referred to as the “Legal Facilitator Defendants”), as well as Defendants Global Resources, Inc., Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Sachin Dewan (collectively referred to as “the Recruiter Defendants”), as well as

Third Amended Complaint

2

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 3 of 72 PageID #: 3500

Defendants Indo-Ameri Soft, L.L.C., Kurella Rao, J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc., Billy R. Wilks, and J & M Marine & Industrial LLC (collectively referred to as the “Labor Broker Defendants”).
3. Signal is a Gulf Coast-based marine and fabrication company. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Signal set out to recruit several hundred foreign workers to work as welders and pipefitters in Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi and Orange, Texas facilities.
4. To assist in that process, Signal retained the Recruiter Defendants, Michael Pol and his company Global Resources, Inc. (“Global”), a labor recruitment firm with operations in Mississippi; Malvern C. Burnett, an attorney based in Mississippi and Louisiana; and Sachin Dewan, a labor recruiter in India, to recruit workers on Signal’s behalf. Signal also executed a power of attorney authorizing Dewan’s company, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., to recruit for Signal abroad.
5. In addition, workers were recruited for Signal by the Labor Broker Defendants, Kurella Rao and his company Indo-Ameri Soft, L.L.C.; and Billy R. Wilks and his company J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc., which was later succeeded by J & M Marine & Industrial LLC.
6. The cornerstone of the Defendants’ scheme was the tantalizing prospect that Signal would be able to hire a skilled workforce at effectively no cost by forcing the Plaintiffs and their coworkers to foot the bill for their own recruitment, immigration processing, and travel. Indeed, an April 18, 2006 “Skilled Worker Recruitment Agreement” between Signal and Global expressly stated that the workers would be delivered at no cost to Signal and that all other charges, expenses, and fees would be paid by the workers themselves or by Global, who in turn would be reimbursed through deductions from the Plaintiffs’ wages. In short, Defendants paid nothing; the future employees paid everything.

Third Amended Complaint

3

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 4 of 72 PageID #: 3501

7. Defendants told Plaintiffs that because the permanent residency process could take up to two years to complete and Signal’s need for workers was immediate, Defendants would first assist Plaintiffs in obtaining temporary work visas, known as H-2B visas, while simultaneously applying for green cards.
8. Lured by, and in reliance upon, Defendants’ fraudulent promises of legal and permanent work-based immigration to the United States for themselves and their families, Plaintiffs plunged themselves and their families into debt to take advantage of these seemingly promising opportunities. Plaintiffs incurred significant debts to pay mandatory recruitment, immigration processing, and travel fees charged by Defendants totaling as much as $10,000 to $24,000 per worker, equivalent to two to three years of an Indian welder’s salary working in India. Trusting the veracity of the immigration and work benefits promised by Defendants, Plaintiffs further relinquished stable employment opportunities in India and as guest workers in Africa, Canada, the Persian Gulf and Singapore.
9. Defendants’ main recruiting agents in India and the United Arab Emirates held Plaintiffs’ passports and visas, and threatened, coerced, and defrauded Plaintiffs into paying extraordinary fees for recruitment, immigration processing, and travel. Several Defendants further caused Plaintiffs to believe that if they did not work for Signal under the auspices of temporary, Signalrestricted, H-2B guest worker visas, they would suffer abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process, physical restraint, or other serious harm.
10. The false promises, collection of exorbitant recruiting fees, and strong-arm tactics of Signal and its agents were, upon information and belief, authorized by Defendant Signal. Defendant Signal knew of the exorbitant fees charged and the Plaintiffs’ green card expectations before the Plaintiffs arrived at Signal’s facility. (See Order and Reasons Denying Class Certification, at 33,

Third Amended Complaint

4

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 5 of 72 PageID #: 3502

Kurian David, et al. v. Signal International, LLC, et al., 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK, (E.D. La. Jan. 4, 2012), ECF No. 1117.) Far from taking any corrective measures, Defendant Signal ratified and perpetuated the scheme by continuing to facilitate the transportation of additional waves of Indian H-2B workers, including Plaintiffs, through April 2007.
11. Upon Plaintiffs’ arrival in the United States, Defendant Signal fulfilled its promise to employ only some of the workers which it had recruited. For those Plaintiffs which were employed by Signal, Signal required that Plaintiffs live in one of two guarded, overcrowded, and isolated labor camps located in Orange, Texas (the “Texas Labor Camp”) and Pascagoula, Mississippi (the “Mississippi Labor Camp”). Defendants further deceived Plaintiffs regarding their visa status, threatened Plaintiffs with arrest, loss of immigration status and deportation, and generally perpetrated a campaign of psychological abuse, coercion, and fraud designed to render Plaintiffs afraid, intimidated, and unable to leave Signal’s employ.
12. Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs to discriminatory and offensive mandatory room and board arrangements at the Texas Labor Camp and the Mississippi Labor Camp to which nonIndian and United States citizen employees were not subjected. Moreover, Defendant Signal imposed upon Plaintiffs discriminatory job-related requirements and adverse terms and conditions of employment on Plaintiffs to which non-Indian and United States citizen employees were not subjected. Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs to an objectively hostile and abusive work environment on account of Plaintiffs’ race and alienage.
13. Furthermore, Defendant Signal recruited some Plaintiffs and did not fulfill its promise to employ them. Signal continued to recruit these Plaintiffs knowing that it did not intend to employ these Plaintiffs. Signal knew the Plaintiffs had incurred substantial debt, given up stable jobs, and travelled half-way across the world. Signal knew or should have known that the Plaintiffs arrived

Third Amended Complaint

5

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 6 of 72 PageID #: 3503
at airports in the United States expecting to be picked up by Signal representatives and Signal did not pick them up or notify them that no one was coming to pick them up. Signal’s refusal to employ Plaintiffs was in direct contrast to promises Signal made to the United States government in its petition for H-2B visas, and to promises Signal made to the Plaintiffs themselves during the recruitment process, and, furthermore, was done because Plaintiffs were Indian nationals.
14. Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants arising from violations of their rights under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (“TVPA”) (18 U.S.C. § 1581, et al.); the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”); the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981); the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1985); the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §2201); and claims for damages arising from fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) (civil trafficking), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (RICO), and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights). 16. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the causes of action based on state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as the state law claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts which support the federal claim. 17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Signal entities pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k) and Texas Code §17.042, because they are registered to do business in Texas, maintain a continuing business presence in the state, operated the Orange, Texas facility and labor camp where the Plaintiffs worked and resided, and where Signal engaged in wrongful conduct, and a

Third Amended Complaint

6

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 7 of 72 PageID #: 3504

substantial portion of the communications, transactions, events, or omissions underlying Plaintiffs’ claims occurred either in Texas or to secure labor for Signal’s facility in Orange, Texas.
18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the other Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) and Texas Code §17.042, because they recruited Plaintiffs for employment at Signal’s facility in Orange, Texas, had substantial business contacts with Texas, and a substantial portion of the communications, transactions, events or omissions underlying Plaintiffs’ claims either occurred in Texas or occurred to secure labor for Signal’s facility in Orange, Texas. Further, this Court has personal jurisdiction over the other Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k), because it is authorized by 18 U.S.C. §1965(b).
19. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas under 18 U.S.C. § 1965 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in that various Defendants and/or agents of Defendants, resided or have been found in Orange, Texas during the relevant time periods and a substantial portion of the communications, transactions, events or omissions underlying Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this judicial district.
20. Declaratory relief is sought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq. PARTIES Plaintiffs
21. Plaintiffs are former H-2B guestworkers who were recruited from India and the Middle East by Defendants at various times between 2003 and 2007.
22. As Indian nationals of South Asian Indian descent, Plaintiffs are members of a racial minority, as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
23. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were “persons” within the meaning of that term as defined by RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3).
24. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were recruited and/or employed by Defendant Signal.

Third Amended Complaint

7

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 8 of 72 PageID #: 3505
25. At all relevant times, Defendants were engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for sale in interstate commerce.
26. Plaintiff Srinivasa Rao Kambala (“Plaintiff Kambala”) is a resident of India and a pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Kambala was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about December 17, 2006 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
27. Plaintiff Srinivasa Rao Gonna (“Plaintiff Gonna”) is a resident of India and a welder by trade. Plaintiff Gonna was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about November 17, 2006 to work for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi.
28. Plaintiff Amandeep Singh Kang (“Plaintiff Kang”) is a resident of Texas and a pipefitter and welder by trade. Plaintiff Kang was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about February 2, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas. Upon arrival in the United States, Defendant Signal refused to employ Plaintiff Kang.
29. Plaintiff Saravanan Arunachalam (“Plaintiff Arunachalam”) is a resident of Mississippi and a pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Arunachalam was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on or about March 29, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas. Upon arrival in the United States, Defendant Signal refused to employ Plaintiff Arunachalam.
30. Plaintiff Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rama (“Plaintiff Rama”) is a resident of India and a pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Rama was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about December 17, 2006 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
31. Plaintiff Antony Antony Valiyaparambil (“Plaintiff Valiyaparambil”) is a resident of India and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Valiyaparambil was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about February 1, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.

Third Amended Complaint

8

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 9 of 72 PageID #: 3506

32. Plaintiff Harbans Singh (“Plaintiff Hb. Singh”) is a resident of Texas and welder by trade. Plaintiff Hb. Singh was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on or about January 24, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
33. Plaintiff Annadurai Ruthirapathi (“Plaintiff Ruthirapathi”) is a resident of Texas and pipefitter and mechanic by trade. Plaintiff Ruthirapathi was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about March 28, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas. Upon arrival in the United States, Defendant Signal refused to employ Plaintiff Ruthirapathi.
34. Plaintiff Ponniah Muthu Kumar (“Plaintiff Po. Kumar”) is a resident of Texas and pipefitter and welder by trade. Plaintiff Po. Kumar was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about January 24, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
35. Plaintiff Mahendran Periyasamy (“Plaintiff Periyasamy”) is a resident of Mississippi and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Periyasamy was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about January 25, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
36. Plaintiff Malkiah Paul (“Plaintiff Paul”) is a resident of India and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Paul was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about February 14, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
37. Plaintiff Harvinder Singh (“Plaintiff Hv. Singh”) is a resident of Texas and welder by trade. Plaintiff Hv. Singh was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about March 21, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
38. Plaintiff Pradeep Kumar (“Plaintiff Pr. Kumar”) is a resident of South Carolina and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Pr. Kumar was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about December 13, 2006 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.

Third Amended Complaint

9

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 10 of 72 PageID #: 3507
39. Plaintiff Abdulla Keepurath Maideen (“Plaintiff Maideen”) is a resident of Texas and welder and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Maideen was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about March 31, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas. Upon arrival in the United States, Defendant Signal refused to employ Plaintiff Maideen.
40. Plaintiff Francis Sequira (“Plaintiff Sequira”) is a resident of Louisiana and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Sequira was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about April 2, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas. Upon arrival in the United States, Defendant Signal refused to employ Plaintiff Sequira.
41. Plaintiff Unnikrishna Pillai Balakrishna Pillai (“Plaintiff Pillai”) is a resident of Louisiana and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Pillai was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about April 26, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas. Upon arrival in the United States, Defendant Signal refused to employ Plaintiff Pillai.
42. Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli (“Plaintiff Dalli”) is a resident of Texas and pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Dalli was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about February 1, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.
43. Plaintiff Biju Kunjupanickan (“Plaintiff Kunjupanickan”) is a resident of Louisiana and welder by trade. Plaintiff Kunjupanickan was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on an airplane on or about April 3, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas. Upon arrival in the United States, Defendant Signal refused to employ Plaintiff Kunjupanickan.
44. Plaintiff Ramana Palika (“Plaintiff Palika”) is a resident of Texas and a welder by trade. Plaintiff Palika was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on or about February 15, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas.

Third Amended Complaint

10

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 11 of 72 PageID #: 3508
45. Plaintiff Nesamony Wilson Robi (“Plaintiff Robi”) is a resident of Texas and a pipefitter by trade. Plaintiff Robi was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on or about May 6, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Orange, Texas. Upon arrival in the United States, Defendant Signal refused to employ Plaintiff Robi.
46. Plaintiff Ragukumar Chinnian (“Plaintiff Chinnian”) is a resident of South Carolina and a welder by trade. Plaintiff Chinnian was induced by Defendants to leave Mumbai, India on or about June 23, 2007 to work for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Upon arrival in the United States, Defendant Signal refused to employ Plaintiff Chinnian.
Defendants Defendant Signal 47. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and a provider of marine and fabrication services in the Gulf Coast region, with operations in Orange, Texas; Pascagoula, Mississippi; and Mobile, Alabama. 48. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International Texas, G.P. is a general partnership organized under the laws of Texas and employed the labor for Signal International LLC and Signal International, Inc. at the Texas Labor Camp. 49. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International Texas, L.P. is a limited partnership of Signal International, L.L.C. and Signal International Texas, G.P. and is organized under the laws of Texas. 50. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and a provider of marine and fabrication services in the Gulf Coast region, with operations in Orange, Texas; Pascagoula, Mississippi; and Mobile, Alabama.

Third Amended Complaint

11

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 12 of 72 PageID #: 3509

51. Defendants Signal International L.L.C., Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P. will be referred to collectively as “Signal”.
52. Upon information and belief, all policies, money for payroll, corporate governance and legal advice for Defendant Signal International Texas, G.P. was provided by Signal International L.L.C.
53. Upon information and belief, all policies, money for payroll, corporate governance and legal advice for Defendant Signal International Texas, L.P. was provided by Signal International L.L.C.
54. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal does distinguish the roles of the Signal entities including, but not limited to, which entity paid Plaintiffs.
55. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International L.L.C. executed contracts relevant to this Complaint in the name of Signal International, Inc.
56. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal did not document which entity employed Plaintiffs.
57. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International, Inc. is the sole member of Defendant Signal International L.L.C.
58. Upon information and belief, Defendants Signal International L.L.C. and Signal International, Inc. are and function as the alter egos of Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal International Texas, L.P.
59. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal paid the Indian H-2B Workers at the Texas Labor Camp through a Texas bank account and Texas payroll account, and the Indian H-2B Workers at the Mississippi Labor Camp through a Mississippi bank account and Mississippi payroll account.

Third Amended Complaint

12

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 13 of 72 PageID #: 3510

Recruiter Defendants 60. Defendant Global Resources, Inc. (“Global”) is, or at all relevant times, was, a corporation organized under the laws of Mississippi and engaged in the business of recruiting workers from India, including Plaintiffs, for employment in Texas and Mississippi. Global entered into contracts with Defendant Signal, Burnett Defendants (defined below), Dewan Defendants (defined below), and Plaintiffs for labor to be provided in Signal’s Texas and Mississippi Labor Camp. Upon information and belief, Global recruited Plaintiffs for employment within Texas and Mississippi. Upon information and belief, Global committed tortious conduct in Texas and Mississippi. Michael Pol was the President of Global throughout the relevant period and acted on behalf of the corporation in its dealings with Defendants and Plaintiffs. 61. Defendant Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k/a Medtech Consultants) (“Dewan Consultants”) is a private limited liability company organized under the laws of India, which maintains offices in Mumbai (Bombay), India, and Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Defendant Dewan Consultants entered into contracts with Defendant Signal, Burnett Defendants, Michael Pol and Defendant Global, and Plaintiffs for labor to be provided in Signal’s Texas and Mississippi Labor Camps. Dewan Consultants recruited Plaintiffs for employment within Texas and Mississippi. Upon information and belief, Defendant Dewan Consultants committed tortious conduct in Texas and Mississippi. 62. Defendant Sachin Dewan (“Dewan”) is the Director of Dewan Consultants. Dewan resides in India. Dewan entered into contracts with Defendant Signal, Burnett Defendants, Michael Pol and Defendant Global, and Plaintiffs for labor to be provided in Signal’s Texas and Mississippi Labor Camps. Dewan recruited Plaintiffs for employment within Texas and Mississippi. Upon information and belief, Dewan committed tortious conduct in Texas and Mississippi.

Third Amended Complaint

13

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 14 of 72 PageID #: 3511

63. Upon information and belief, Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants (“Dewan Defendants”) authorized and utilized Defendant Global, and Burnett Defendants to act a their United States-based operations and/or agents.
64. Upon information and belief, Defendant Global, Burnett Defendants and Defendant Signal authorized and utilized Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants to act as their India and United Arab Emirates based operations and/or agents.
65. Upon information and belief, Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, Michael Pol and Defendant Global, and Burnett Defendants, acted as a joint venture with respect to the recruitment, contracting, and retention of Plaintiffs for the provision of labor or services.
66. Defendants Global, and Burnett Defendants, utilized Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants to conduct and carry out their shared business interests and activities in India and the United Arab Emirates. Among other things, Defendant Global shared offices with Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants in India and the United Arab Emirates.
67. Upon information and belief, Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants utilized Defendant Global, and Burnett Defendants, to conduct and effectuate their shared business interests and activities in the United States.
68. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, and Defendant Global, collectively as “Recruiter Defendants.”
Legal Facilitator Defendants 69. Defendant Malvern C. Burnett (“Burnett”) is an attorney who resides and maintains offices in New Orleans, Louisiana and Ocean Springs, Mississippi. 70. Defendant Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center L.L.C. (“GCILC”) is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana and located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Upon

Third Amended Complaint

14

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 15 of 72 PageID #: 3512

information and belief, Defendant Burnett serves as GCILC’s sole registered agent, member, and/or corporate officer.
71. Defendant Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (“Burnett Law Offices”) is a professional law corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana and located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Upon information and belief, Defendant Burnett serves as its sole registered agent, member, and/or corporate officer.
72. Upon information and belief, Defendants Burnett, GCILC, and Burnett Law Offices are engaged in a joint venture or are alter egos in that all entities have the same corporate mailing address, intermingle business assets, do not operate at arms’ length, and Defendant Burnett serves as the registered agent and sole member or corporate officer for GCILC and Burnett Law Offices.
73. Upon information and belief, Defendant Burnett, GCILC, and the Burnett Law Offices have the same business objectives, and Defendant Burnett uses GCILC and the Burnett Law Offices to conduct and effectuate shared business objectives.
74. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Defendants Burnett, GCILC, and Burnett Law Offices collectively as “Legal Facilitator Defendants”.
75. The Legal Facilitator Defendants engaged in a joint venture with Kurella Rao and IndoAmeri Soft, L.L.C., described below, to conduct and carry out their shared business interests and activities in India and the United Arab Emirates. This joint venture is in addition to the joint venture described above between the Legal Facilitator Defendants and the Recruiter Defendants.
Labor Broker Defendants 76. Defendant Indo-Ameri Soft, L.L.C., (“Indo-Ameri Soft”) a corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana and headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana, with substantial business contacts in Texas, is engaged in the business of recruiting and providing Indian laborers to United

Third Amended Complaint

15

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 16 of 72 PageID #: 3513

States companies and selling opportunities for United States immigration and employment to such laborers.
77. Defendant Kurella Rao (“Rao”) is the Chairman and Director of Indo-Ameri Soft, L.L.C., and maintains offices in the New Orleans, Louisiana metropolitan area. Rao has substantial business contacts in Texas.
78. Defendant J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc. (“J & M”), a corporation organized under the laws of Mississippi with substantial business contacts in Texas, was at all relevant times engaged in the business of recruiting and providing Indian laborers to United States companies and selling opportunities for United States immigration and employment to such laborers.
79. Defendant Billy R. Wilks (“Wilks”) was the founder and general manager of J & M and currently acts as a consultant for the company. Wilks has substantial business contacts in Texas. Wilks is personally liable for the conduct of J & M. Discovery in the case of David, et al. v. Signal, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Civ. No. 08-1220 SM/DEK) (the “David Litigation”) has established that Wilks had full control and decision-making authority over J & M such that J & M and Wilks were alter egos of one another.
80. Wilks is the founder of J & M. He incorporated it in 1996. The main corporate office of J & M is Wilks’ home. J & M, during the time relevant to this litigation, was entirely beholden to Wilks for its business activity. Further, Wilks has testified that during the time relevant to this litigation all of J & M’s decisions and policy changes would have to be approved by him. He was the main decision-maker with regard to all of the company’s relevant business activity. Both Wilks and his former lawyer describe Wilks as the only person who knows anything about the company and that it is indeed his company, although in fact Wilks’ sons participated in the conduct of the company.

Third Amended Complaint

16

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 17 of 72 PageID #: 3514

81. At some point prior to 2007, J & M was sued in unrelated litigation. In response to that lawsuit, Wilks set up a new corporation – J & M Marine & Industrial, LLC (“J & M Marine”) – primarily to avoid the litigation then pending against J & M, but also to continue the work that was underway with J & M.
82. Wilks used the contractual arrangements and relationships he had set up between J & M and the Recruiter Defendants to create profitable opportunities for his new J & M Marine entity. In other words, Wilks harvested the value that remained in J & M and transferred it to J & M Marine with no regard to the independent corporate identity of J & M. Such a transition is not reflective of the action of a corporate entity; rather, it indicates an action done for the convenience and singular strategy of the principal, Wilks.
83. In 2007, Wilks put J & M into dormancy. This purported change of corporate status was, upon information and belief, done without any formal shareholder vote or board member meeting. Further, J & M is undercapitalized; it has, according to Wilks, approximately $300,000 in debt. Further, Wilks, in yet another indication of the absence of corporate formalities between him and J & M, has represented to the Court in the David Litigation that he intends to borrow money so that he is able to personally fund J & M’s legal defense.
84. J & M filed a “Notice to Dissolve/Revoke” with the Mississippi Secretary of State on September 12, 2010, although it remained in good standing through December 2012 according to the Mississippi Secretary of State’s Business Services website.
85. In short, there is no independence between Defendant Wilks and J & M. J & M was simply used as the corporate entity to facilitate Wilks’ personal business and that of his family. He testified during his deposition in the David Litigation that he did everything for the company. Indeed, prior to incorporating J & M in 1996, Wilks was doing the exact same work, as the 100% owner, under

Third Amended Complaint

17

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 18 of 72 PageID #: 3515

a “doing/business/as” rubric. Once Wilks incorporated J & M in 1996, there was no change to the company activity or purpose, and J & M certainly did not obtain an identity independent from its founder.
86. Once Wilks created J & M Marine, he simply shifted his employee, Nicole Homel-Tellier, from J & M over to J & M Marine. As he had done with J & M, he listed himself as the registered agent and his home address as the company’s principal address with the Mississippi Secretary of State.
87. Both J & M and J & M Marine clearly share the same initials, which reference the same individuals: John and Michael Wilks.
88. Both corporations perform the same work: recruit laborers to then subcontract them out to other companies for a profit. Given both entities were in the same business and both operated out of the same address, it is likely that whatever assets were held by J & M (e.g., computers, printers, etc.) were at the disposal of J & M Marine both during the time that both companies existed and also once J & M was put into dormancy.
89. More importantly, with respect to the “asset” crossover between the two companies, Defendant Wilks moved the laborers – plaintiffs and other similarly situated – from J&M, with which they contracted, over to J & M Marine. In other words, the very revenue source of J & M became the revenue for J & M Marine.
90. In bringing the candidates over to J & M Marine, after they had signed contracts with J & M, Defendant Wilks was unequivocally holding J & M Marine out as the successor company of J & M. Further, this transition of recruits, in conjunction with avoiding the litigation then pending against J & M, exemplifies the taking of the benefits of the predecessor company while leaving its liabilities behind. Wilks acknowledges that J & M has a $100,000 judgment against it, an obvious

Third Amended Complaint

18

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 19 of 72 PageID #: 3516
liability that has not tracked across to J & M Marine. 91. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Defendants Indo-Ameri Soft, Rao, J & M,
Wilks and J & M Marine collectively as the “Labor Broker Defendants.” All Defendants
92. At all relevant times, Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, Global Resources, Burnett, Burnett Law Offices and GCILC acted as agents of Defendants Signal, J & M, Indo-Ameri Soft and/or Rao for the purposes of recruiting, obtaining, contracting, transportation and/or providing Plaintiffs for labor or services.
93. All Defendants acted together in a joint venture in committing the wrongful actions described herein.
94. The actions of the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants described herein were performed within the scope of their agency to Signal.
95. Individually and through their agents, associates, attorneys, and/or employees, all Defendants have significant contacts in or around Orange, Texas.
96. At all relevant times, Defendants were “persons” within that term as defined by RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3).
97. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been engaged in contacts with Plaintiffs, including recruiting, obtaining, labor contracting, providing immigration related services to, transporting, harboring, providing and/or employing Plaintiffs.
98. At all relevant times, Defendants operated enterprises engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce.

Third Amended Complaint

19

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 20 of 72 PageID #: 3517

STATEMENT OF FACTS The Recruitment Process Recruitment of the Plaintiffs and Other Workers 99. Beginning in 2003 and continuing through 2006, Recruiter Defendants (Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, and Global Resources) placed ads in various newspapers across India and the United Arab Emirates, seeking welders, fitters, and other marine fabrication workers on behalf of U.S.-based companies and individuals, including Labor Broker Defendants (Defendants Indo-Ameri Soft, Rao, and J & M), and Signal Defendants. 100. Upon information and belief, Recruiter Defendants placed such ads in coordination and agreement with Legal Facilitator Defendants (Defendants Burnett, GCILC, and Burnett Law Offices), and Labor Broker Defendants. 101. Upon information and belief, since at least December 2003 through at least mid-2004, Legal Facilitator Defendants and Labor Broker Defendants frequently communicated and consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail and/or telephone communications to coordinate and direct Recruiter Defendants’ activities, including a first-round of advertising efforts on behalf of Labor Broker Defendants. 102. The advertisements placed by Recruiter Defendants promised that qualified candidates could obtain legal permanent residence (green cards) and thereby legally and permanently immigrate to the United States with their families. 103. In response to these advertisements, Plaintiffs contacted Recruiter Defendants by telephone, and/or attended meetings and testing sessions organized by Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives at several locations throughout India and the United Arab Emirates.

Third Amended Complaint

20

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 21 of 72 PageID #: 3518

104. Specific facts relevant to the experiences of Plaintiffs are set forth in the “RICO Fraud Chart” attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1, which is incorporated herein by reference.
105. Upon information and belief, prior to attending these meetings and testing sessions, Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants conferred in late 2003 and early 2004 by phone, mail, fax and or e-mail to organize, plan, and coordinate the logistics and substantive content of these meetings and testing sessions.
106. In telephone communications, in-person meetings, faxes, contracts, and other written documents transmitted by mail and/or wire in 2004, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants personally and through employees, agents and/or associates, told Plaintiffs that if Plaintiffs successfully passed skills tests administered in the United Arab Emirates or India and paid fees totaling approximately 5 Indian lakh rupees then Plaintiffs would be able to apply for permanent resident (green card) status in the United States with Labor Broker Defendants.
107. In these communications occurring during 2004, Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants further explained to many of the Plaintiffs, as reflected in the attached Exhibit 1, that the installment payments would be divided among Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants.
108. In these communications occurring during 2004, Recruiter Defendants, Labor Broker Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants further explained to Plaintiffs that the installment payments would be divided among Recruiter Defendants, and one of the two Labor Broker Defendant entities.
109. In telephone communications, in-person meetings, faxes, written contracts, and/or other written communications, transmitted, upon information and belief, by mail and/or wire in 2004,

Third Amended Complaint

21

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 22 of 72 PageID #: 3519

Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants instructed Plaintiffs that the total fees would be paid in a series of approximately three installments.
110. In these conversations in 2004, Recruiter Defendants and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants communicated to Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs would be able to obtain legal permanent residence for their spouses and children for an additional fee.
111. At informational meetings and in telephone conversations, faxes, contracts, and other written documents transmitted in late 2003 through 2004, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants, personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, represented to Plaintiffs that Labor Broker Defendants were stable and reputable U.S. companies offering lawful and ample employment opportunities, and that Labor Broker Defendants would obtain for Plaintiffs green cards enabling Plaintiffs to permanently and legally immigrate to the United States with their family members.
112. At informational meetings and in telephone conversations, faxes, contracts, and other written documents transmitted in late 2003 through 2004, the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants, personally and/or through their agents, employees and/or representatives, told Plaintiffs that the green card process, once commenced, would be completed within18 to 24 months.
113. In such communications with Plaintiffs, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants further promised to act diligently and do everything necessary to obtain green cards for Plaintiffs in the timelines stipulated.
114. Based on these and other contractually-binding promises made to them regarding green cards and work opportunities in the United States, Plaintiffs entered into contracts (hereinafter “the green card contracts”) at various times in 2004 with Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator

Third Amended Complaint

22

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 23 of 72 PageID #: 3520

Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants. 115. Upon information and belief, contracts signed by Plaintiffs and other documents provided
to the Plaintiffs by Legal Facilitator Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants through the use of mail and/or wire transmissions in 2004, further promised that Plaintiffs would promptly receive a refund of all or nearly all of their payments if these Defendants did not succeed in securing green cards for Plaintiffs as promised.
116. Legal Facilitator Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants knew or should have known that they would not refund Plaintiffs’ money as promised in the contracts and other documents.
117. Legal Facilitator Defendants, Recruiter Defendants and Labor Broker Defendants induced the Plaintiffs to enter into the green card contracts: (a) without intent to diligently pursue Plaintiffs’ green card applications; and (b) knowingly without any basis whatsoever for representing, inter alia: (i) that the companies and/or entities purportedly sponsoring Plaintiffs’ applications were financially solvent and had reliable and stable employment opportunities to provide Plaintiffs; (ii) that green card applications sponsored by such companies would be valid and bona fide under U.S. immigration law; (iii) and that such applications were likely to be successfully completed and approved within the promised timelines.
118. In reasonable reliance on Legal Facilitator Defendants, Recruiter Defendants and Labor Broker Defendants’ explicit and repeated promises regarding green cards, family members’ ability to immigrate to the United States, and lawful and legitimate employment opportunities in the United States, Plaintiffs undertook considerable economic, social, familial and personal sacrifices, including payment of high fees, assumption of significant interest bearing debt, loss of real and personal property, lost work opportunities, lost or unpaid wages and additional legal fees.

Third Amended Complaint

23

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 24 of 72 PageID #: 3521

119. Plaintiffs signed contracts with Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants and made the first round of installment payments required by these contracts.
120. After Plaintiffs signed contracts with Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants and paid the first installment payments required by the contracts, these Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with updates regarding the progress of their green card applications for extended periods of time.
121. When Plaintiffs contacted Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants by phone, mail, and/or e-mail at various times between the last half of 2004 and mid-2006 to check on the progress of their green card applications, these Defendants assured them that the green card process was going forward.
122. While awaiting the processing of their green cards, many of these Plaintiffs continued to incur substantial interest on the money they had borrowed for the purpose of making the first installment payment to these Defendants.
123. In or around January 2006, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants and Labor Broker Defendants, personally and/or through their agents, employees and/or representatives notified Plaintiffs via telephone, e-mail, and/or mail communications that the labor certification required for their green card applications had been approved by the U.S. government.
124. After this notification, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants and Labor Broker Defendants used wire and/or mail communications to collect the second and/or third installment payments from the Plaintiffs.
125. By spring 2006, after the 18 to 24 month processing period promised by Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants had elapsed, the Plaintiffs

Third Amended Complaint

24

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 25 of 72 PageID #: 3522

had still not received their green cards. 126. By spring of 2006, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker
Defendants had yet to refund Plaintiffs’ payments as promised by Plaintiffs’ green card contracts. 127. Upon information and belief, in the course of telephone, fax, e-mail and/or mail
communications occurring in or around April or May 2006, Defendant Signal authorized Recruiter Defendants to act as their agents in India and the United Arab Emirates for the purposes of recruiting Indian welders and fitters to fill the anticipated H- 2B guestworker jobs at Signal operations.
128. Upon information and belief, in the course of these communications, Defendant Signal further authorized Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants to represent that Signal would assume sponsorship of the pending and as-yet-unsuccessful green card applications on behalf of, among others, Plaintiffs.
129. In addition, beginning in 2006, Recruiter Defendants (Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, and Global Resources) placed ads in various newspapers across India and the United Arab Emirates, seeking welders, fitters, and other marine fabrication workers on behalf of Signal.
130. Recruiter Defendants’ advertisements and other recruiting efforts were undertaken on behalf of, at the direction of, and/or in coordination and consultation with Defendant Signal and the Legal Facilitator Defendants.
131. In response to the advertisements posted by Recruiter Defendants, Plaintiffs contacted Recruiter Defendants in spring, summer and fall 2006 via telephone and in-person meetings.
132. At the same time, Plaintiffs who had already initiated the green card process and made payments to the Labor Broker Defendants were told by Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants that Signal would sponsor their visas to the United

Third Amended Complaint

25

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 26 of 72 PageID #: 3523

States for an additional sum and they could quickly obtain H-2B visas to go to the United States for work at Defendant Signal’s operations and their green cards would be processed while they worked at Signal.
133. Plaintiffs, unaware of U.S. immigration law and the temporary, nonimmigrant character of H-2B visas and desperate not to forfeit the substantial fees that they had already paid, agreed, in reliance on the representations of Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants, to transfer their green card applications to Defendant Signal’s sponsorship and further agreed to work for Defendant Signal under H-2B visas pursuant to the terms explained by Recruiter Defendants.
134. In late May and early June of 2006, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, on behalf of Defendant Signal filed with the Mississippi Department of Employment Security, the Texas Workforce Commission, and the United States Department of Labor by mail, electronic transmission, and/or fax the completed forms ETA 750 and attachments seeking permission to import and hire 590 foreign guestworkers under the auspices of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), attendant regulations 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(6) and 20 C.F.R. § 655.3, and associated administrative letters and/or guidance (commonly known as “the H-2B guestworker program”).
135. Knowing that Signal’s labor need was projected to be at least two to three years, the Legal Facilitator Defendants and Defendant Signal stated in these applications to the state workforce commissions and in forms ETA 750 that Signal would employ workers from October 1, 2006 to July 31, 2007. These applications were furnished with signatures by Signal executives swearing, under penalty of perjury, to the veracity of the information in these applications.
136. Defendant Signal sought these workers to perform various jobs essential to its marine fabrication services business, including welding and fitting, in Orange, Texas and Pascagoula,

Third Amended Complaint

26

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 27 of 72 PageID #: 3524

Mississippi. 137. On information and belief, Defendant Signal, despite knowing the specific type of work
to be performed by the H-2B guestworkers, misclassified the jobs as production occupations where those jobs should be classified under the construction trades occupation based on the work actually to be performed by the H-2B guestworkers.
138. On information and belief, Defendant Signal recruited these workers, including the Plaintiffs, and offered terms of employment to these workers from its operations in Orange, Texas and Pascagoula, Mississippi.
139. The H-2B guestworker program permits U.S. employers to import foreign workers on short-term temporary visas to meet labor needs in specified job trades when employers attest that they cannot find U.S. workers to perform the available jobs in the local area where the employer seeks to employ the guestworker.
140. H-2B visas are non-immigrant visas, are only valid for work with the specific employer listed on the visa, and do not provide portable and/or transferable employment authorization for the visa bearer.
141. H-2B visas require employers to pay H-2B guestworkers a minimum wage, which is determined by, among other things, the location where the guestworker will work, the type of work done by the guestworker, and the experience or skill level of the guestworker.
142. Defendant Signal stated in the ETA 750 forms that its need for H-2B guestworkers was “peak load and a one-time occurrence” and that “the temporary workers will work for the length of the prescribed dates of need, will be paid in accordance with the prevailing wage, and will return to their home country at the end of employment.”
143. In the ETA 750 forms, Defendant Signal named Legal Facilitator Defendants as its agents

Third Amended Complaint

27

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 28 of 72 PageID #: 3525

for the purposes of preparing and submitting these applications to import H-2B guestworkers. Legal Facilitator Defendants prepared and submitted these applications on behalf of Signal.
144. At the time of filing the ETA 750 forms and attachments with the Mississippi Department of Employment Security, the Texas Workforce Commission, and the United States Department of Labor, Defendant Signal and the Legal Facilitator Defendants knew that Signal projected the labor need that it sought to fill with foreign workers to be at least two to three years.
145. Defendant Signal and Legal Facilitator Defendants, at or around the time they filed the ETA 750 forms in May and June 2006, repeatedly communicated by telephone, mail, e-mail, and/or fax to direct and coordinate recruitment of Indian workers to fill the anticipated H-2B guestworker jobs. Upon information and belief, Signal and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants repeatedly communicated with Recruiter Defendants and Labor Broker Defendants by telephone, mail, e-mail, and/or fax to direct and coordinate recruitment of Indian workers to fill the anticipated H-2B guestworker jobs.
146. Upon information and belief, in the course of these communications, Defendant Signal further authorized Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants to represent that Signal would apply for at least two to three H-2B visa extensions on behalf of all the Indian H-2B workers, including Plaintiffs, to allow them to remain in the United States working for Signal while Plaintiffs’ green card applications were being processed.
147. Defendant Signal authorized its agents to make these representations even though it knew or had reason to know that such visa extensions and green card applications would not be bona fide and valid under United States immigration law. Moreover, Defendant Signal authorized its agents to make these misrepresentations even though it did not have the intention at that time to apply for such visa extensions and/or green cards on behalf of all of the Indian H-2B workers,

Third Amended Complaint

28

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 29 of 72 PageID #: 3526

including Plaintiffs. 148. In July and August of 2006, with specific dates and assertions as set out in Ex. 1, the
Legal Facilitator Defendants on behalf of Defendant Signal filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service by mail, electronic transmission, and/or fax the completed I-129 forms and attachments seeking 590 H-2B visas.
149. Knowing that Signal’s labor need was projected to be at least two to three years, in these H-2B visa applications Defendant Signal attested to a 10-month labor need running from October 1, 2006 – July 31, 2007. Signal falsely represented to the government that at the end of this 10 month period, it intended to return all H-2B workers back to India. The Legal Facilitator Defendants declared that the applications were based on all information of which Defendant Burnett had any knowledge despite the fact that the Legal Facilitator Defendants believed that Signal’s intentions for these workers exceeded ten months.
150. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal authorized Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants to act as their agents for the purposes of recruiting and providing Indian welders and fitters to fill anticipated H-2B guestworker jobs at Signal operations.
151. Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants falsely assured Plaintiffs that Defendant Signal would seek at least two extensions of the temporary H-2B visas with which Plaintiffs would gain admittance to the United States, and that Plaintiffs’ H-2B visas would thereafter be converted to permanent green cards.
152. Upon information and belief, prior to these communications with Plaintiffs, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal communicated and consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail and/or telephone communications regarding the issues to be discussed and representations to be made to Plaintiffs.

Third Amended Complaint

29

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 30 of 72 PageID #: 3527

153. In their communications with Plaintiffs, Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants further failed to disclose material facts regarding the H-2B visa, including the fact that H-2B visas confer only a temporary non-immigrant status which does not allow the bearer to adjust to permanent residency status and the fact that applying for H-2B visa status is fundamentally incompatible with simultaneously applying for a green card.
154. In reliance on the representations of Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, Labor Broker Defendants and Defendant Signal, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated entered the United States on H-2B guestworker visas in late 2006 and early 2007 for the purposes of working for Defendant Signal at its Orange, Texas facility or Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.
155. On or about July 20, 2006 and August 17, 2006, the United States Department of Labor approved Signal’s labor certification applications for 590 H-2B workers for the period of October 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007.
156. In approving these labor certification applications, the United States Department of Labor relied on the accuracy of the applications’ stated 10-month period of labor need.
157. On information and belief, the Department of Labor is prohibited by its internal guidelines to grant labor certification applications without relying on the application’s statement of temporary labor need.
158. In late August and early September 2006, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service approved Signal’s H-2B visa petitions for 590 H-2B workers for the period of October 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007.
159. In approving these visa petitions, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service relied on the accuracy of the petitions’ stated 10-month period of labor need and the representation

Third Amended Complaint

30

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 31 of 72 PageID #: 3528

that Defendant Signal’s need was based on a one time peak-load temporary demand for the work listed in the applications.
160. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service must, according to regulation, rely on the stated period of the petitioner’s labor need, see 8 C.F.R.214.2(h)(6)(ii)(B) (2006).
161. Defendant Signal, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Recruiter Defendants knew that the stated period of need in Signal’s applications for labor certifications and for H-2B visas were inconsistent with Signal’s projected actual labor need and therefore Defendants knew these statements to the government were false.
162. The Recruiter Defendants and the Legal Facilitator Defendants used the H-2B visas, obtained from the U.S. Government on the basis of false statements by Defendant Signal and the Legal Facilitator Defendants, to elicit multiple installment payments Plaintiffs.
163. Plaintiffs would not have paid the extraordinary fees charged by Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants for travel, green cards, visas, and work opportunities had they known that these Defendants’ promises and representations were false.
164. Plaintiffs would not have paid the extraordinary fees charged by the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Brokers Defendants for travel, green cards, visas, and employment opportunities had they known that these Defendants had failed to disclose material facts concerning the nature and terms and conditions of the immigration and work opportunities offered.
165. Had Plaintiffs not paid the extraordinary fees, Defendant Signal would have had to pay the recruitment, travel, green card, visa and other costs necessary to recruit and employ the H-2B guestworkers or other workers to fill the positions.

Third Amended Complaint

31

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 32 of 72 PageID #: 3529

Preparations and Departure for Signal Operations in the United States 166. At various times from the spring of 2006 to early 2007, employees of Defendant Signal traveled to various locations in India and the United Arab Emirates and tested Plaintiffs’ welding and pipefitting skills in anticipation of employing them in the United States. 167. Plaintiffs paid costs necessary to travel to the cities where these tests were held. 168. Plaintiffs paid admission fees charged to take these tests. 169. Plaintiffs attended and passed these tests, which were overseen and graded by Defendant Signal’s and/or Defendant Dewan’s agents, employees, and/or representatives. 170. Upon information and belief, prior to attending these meetings and testing sessions, Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants conferred in spring, summer, and fall 2006 by phone, mail, fax and or e-mail to organize, plan, and coordinate the logistics and substantive content of these testing sessions. 171. Plaintiffs entered the United States on H-2B guestworker visas, issued by the U.S. Government on the basis of false statements by Defendant Signal and the Legal Facilitator Defendants, in late 2006 and early 2007 for the purposes of working for Defendant Signal at its Orange, Texas or Pascagoula, Mississippi facility. 172. Around the time of USCIS’s visa approval, Plaintiffs made necessary preparations in order to travel to the United States on H-2B visas to work for Signal, including: paying to obtain necessary travel and legal documents, making payments to the United States consulate, Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants for mandatory H-2B visa and consular processing fees, attending H-2B visa interviews, and paying Recruiter Defendants for travel arrangements. 173. In order to secure H-2B visas to work for Signal, Plaintiffs were required to be interviewed by United States Consular offices in Indian cities.

Third Amended Complaint

32

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 33 of 72 PageID #: 3530

174. These consular interviews necessitated that Plaintiffs pay the costs of travel from their homes and/or current places of employment to various large Indian cities including Chennai (Madras), Delhi and Mumbai (Bombay).
175. Recruiter Defendants and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants, acting as Defendant Signal’s agents, required that Plaintiffs meet with Recruiter Defendants and/or the Legal Facilitator Defendants in these Indian cities prior to attending their consular interviews.
176. Upon information and belief, prior to these meetings Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants discussed amongst themselves and with Defendant Signal by e-mail, telephone, or in-person communications the topics to be discussed and instructions to be given to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated at these meetings.
177. At these pre-interview meetings, Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants ensured that Plaintiffs were up-to-date on paying the fee installments required by their green card contracts.
178. Defendants further required that Plaintiffs pay an additional 35,000 to 45,000 rupees ($800 to $1,100) fee for H-2B visa processing.
179. On information and belief, Recruiter Defendants and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants required Plaintiffs to sign documents permitting Defendant Sachin Dewan to receive their visa stamped passports from the Consulate on Plaintiffs’ behalves.
180. Recruiter Defendants and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants also coached the Plaintiffs on what to say and what not to say during consular interviews. Those Defendants, inter alia, told Plaintiffs not to say anything about the substantial fees Plaintiffs had been required to pay, not to say anything about expected green cards, and, if asked, to say that Plaintiffs expected to be in the United States for only several months and then would return to India.

Third Amended Complaint

33

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 34 of 72 PageID #: 3531

181. Recruiter Defendants and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants told Plaintiffs that if they did not follow these instructions regarding the interviews, Plaintiffs would not receive their visas and would forfeit the all moneys they had previously paid to Defendants, in addition to losing their opportunity to permanently immigrate to the United States.
182. During Plaintiffs’ consular interviews, the consular officials took Plaintiffs’ passports from them.
183. Once Plaintiffs’ visas were approved, consular officials sent their passports, with H-2B visas affixed, directly to Defendant Dewan.
184. After receiving word that Plaintiffs’ visas were approved, Recruiter Defendants made travel arrangements for Plaintiffs’ departures to the United States.
185. Before Plaintiffs could leave for the United States, however, Plaintiffs were required to attend final meetings in Recruiter Defendants’ Mumbai (Bombay) office.
186. Such meetings typically took place mere hours before Plaintiffs’ scheduled departures to the United States, when Recruiter Defendants’ office with large numbers of fellow Indian workers awaiting departure to the United States.
187. At these meetings, Recruiter Defendants collected final installment payments required by Plaintiffs’ green card contracts.
188. Recruiter Defendants also required that Plaintiffs, most of whom do not proficiently read or speak English, sign English language documents with little or no time for review.
189. Recruiter Defendants refused to return Plaintiffs’ passports -- which had been in Defendant Sachin Dewan’s possession since after Plaintiffs’ H-2B visas were approved by Consular Officials -- until after Plaintiffs had paid the final installments and signed the mandatory paperwork.

Third Amended Complaint

34

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 35 of 72 PageID #: 3532

190. In forceful tones, Recruiter Defendants or their staff demanded that Plaintiffs quickly sign the mandatory documents, lest they miss the flights to the United States which Recruiter Defendants had scheduled for them.
191. Without possession of their passports and within this rushed and hostile atmosphere, Plaintiffs had no reasonable opportunity to review, negotiate, and/or make any changes to the documents presented them.
192. On occasions when workers who appeared at the Mumbai office failed to present sufficient funds to pay the final installment required by the green card contracts, Defendant Dewan and his associates threatened to destroy and/or deface these workers’ passports.
193. Such threats were uttered in the presence of other workers, causing these workers to reasonably believe that they had no choice but to pay the final installments in full.
194. Based on the Recruiter Defendants’ threatening and coercive behavior during these predeparture meetings in Mumbai and the extraordinary and increasing levels of debt they had incurred to pay the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants for green card and H2B visa arrangements, Plaintiffs reasonably believed that they had no choice but to make the payments required by the Recruiter Defendants and to travel to the United States to work for Defendant Signal.
195. Plaintiffs and approximately 590 other Indian H-2B workers traveled from Mumbai to Defendant Signal’s operations in the U.S. at various times from late October 2006 to July 2007 on tickets arranged by the Recruiter Defendants.
196. Pursuant to Defendant Signal’s instructions and arrangements, approximately 300 workers, including one of these Plaintiffs, were sent to Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility, and approximately 290 workers, including these Plaintiffs, were sent to Signal’s Orange, Texas

Third Amended Complaint

35

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 36 of 72 PageID #: 3533

facility upon arrival in the United States, although Signal’s Orange, Texas facility began turning away workers in or around February 2007.
197. The Plaintiffs had no choice but to use the Recruiter Defendants and the Legal Facilitator Defendants to secure employment at Defendant Signal’s operations.
198. The Plaintiffs had no choice but to pay the fees the Recruiter Defendants and the Legal Facilitator Defendants charged to secure employment at Defendant Signal’s operations.
199. Management personnel at Defendant Signal made the conscious and deliberate decision to prohibit the Plaintiffs from securing employment at Signal’s operations either through another recruiter or by bypassing recruiters’ altogether and applying directly with Defendant Signal.
200. Furthermore, Defendant Signal recruited Plaintiffs Kang, Arunachalam, Ruthirapathi, Maideen, Sequira, Pillai, Kunjupanickan, Robi, and Chinnian (collectively, “Abandoned Plaintiffs”) and did not fulfill its promise to employ them. On information and belief, Signal continued to recruit Abandoned Plaintiffs knowing that it did not intend to employ Abandoned Plaintiffs. On information and belief, Signal knew the Abandoned Plaintiffs had incurred substantial debt, given up stable jobs, and travelled half-way across the world. On information and belief, Signal knew or should have known that the Abandoned Plaintiffs arrived at airports in the United States expecting to be picked up by Signal representatives and Signal did not pick them or notify them that no one was coming to pick them up. Signal’s refusal to employ the Abandoned Plaintiffs was in direct contrast to promises Signal made to the US government in its petition for H-2B visas, and to promises Signal made to the Abandoned Plaintiffs themselves during the recruitment process, and, furthermore, was done because Plaintiffs were Indian nationals.
Conditions at Signal Facilities in Orange and Pascagoula 201. Upon arrival at Defendant Signal’s facilities in Orange and Pascagoula, Plaintiffs were

Third Amended Complaint

36

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 37 of 72 PageID #: 3534

shocked to discover that they were expected to live in isolated, overcrowded labor camps comprised of trailer-like bunkhouses.
202. Defendant Signal’s labor camps were located in isolated, industrial areas miles removed from shopping areas, places of worship, and residential communities. The camps were enclosed by fences and accessible only by a single guarded entrance.
203. The Signal labor camp gates at the Texas and Mississippi facilities were constantly monitored by security guards retained by Defendant Signal.
204. Signal’s security guards monitored Plaintiffs’ comings and goings by requiring them to show their employee identification badges and recording when Plaintiffs entered and exited the camps. Signal’s security guards also searched Plaintiffs’ packages and bags when they entered the camp.
205. Except on rare occasions, Plaintiffs were not permitted to receive visitors in the Signal labor camps.
206. Up to twenty-four Indian men were housed in each bunkhouse and made to sleep in twotiered bunk beds. The bunk beds were so tightly packed in the bunkhouses that it was difficult for workers to move about in the narrow passageways between bunks. These housing conditions, inter alia, violated the applicable health and safety standards under the federal Occupational Health and Safety Act.
207. The Signal labor camp bunkhouses had insufficient toileting and bathing facilities for twenty-four men, resulting in long lines for the bathrooms before and after work shifts.
208. Privacy was non-existent, and Plaintiffs often experienced extreme difficulty sleeping due to the constant noise resulting from the close quarters and the comings and goings of workers who worked on different shifts.

Third Amended Complaint

37

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 38 of 72 PageID #: 3535

209. Defendant Signal’s personnel and/or security guards conducted surprise searches of the dormitory areas of the bunkhouses, including searches of workers’ personal belongings.
210. Plaintiffs took their meals in Defendant Signal’s mess halls, which were only open during limited hours. Due to filthy and unhygienic kitchen conditions and food preparation methods, Plaintiffs frequently became ill.
211. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal did not obtain the required permit(s) to furnish the board at its Texas Labor Camp, and the condition and sanitation of the board further violated federal, state, and/or local law including, inter alia, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Code, as adopted and modified by Texas Food Establishment Rules. In addition, the Mississippi Labor Camp violated Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) guidelines on habitability.
212. Defendant Signal deducted labor camp fees of approximately $35 per day ($245 per week, or approximately $1,050 per month) from Plaintiffs’ paychecks for these substandard accommodations and meals.
213. When Plaintiffs complained and asked to live outside the labor camps, Defendant Signal initially refused and subsequently told workers that if they tried to live outside the camps Signal would still deduct the labor camp fees from Plaintiffs’ wages. As a result, Plaintiffs reasonably felt that they had no choice but to continue living in the Signal camps.
214. Defendant Signal only housed Indian H-2B workers such as Plaintiffs in its labor camps, which employees and management at Signal referred to as the “reservation(s),” in a derogatory play on the common name (“Indian”) for Plaintiffs’ ethnicity and Native Americans. Upon information and belief, workers of non-Indian descent and United States citizen employees were neither required nor allowed to live in and/or pay for accommodations in Defendant Signal’s labor

Third Amended Complaint

38

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 39 of 72 PageID #: 3536

camps. 215. Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs to skills testing and re-testing, on the- job discipline,
layoffs, periods without work, lack of safety precautions, unfavorable job assignments, evaluation processes, and other adverse employment actions to which non-Indian and U.S. citizen workers were not similarly subjected.
216. In addition, Signal camp personnel and supervisors frequently subject Plaintiffs to an objectively hostile and abusive environment. They often used offensive language in speaking with and/or referring to Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B workers and regularly insulted Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B workers on the basis of their race, national origin, and/or alienage.
217. During the first week of employing Plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the United States, Defendant Signal did not reimburse Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for any of the expenses that Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were required to incur as a pre-condition of seeking employment with Signal.
218. During the first two weeks of employing Plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the United States, Defendant Signal deducted approximately $100 to $200 each week from Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated workers’ checks for job-related tool kits which they were required to purchase from Defendant Signal.
219. Prior to and during the course of their employment at Defendant Signal, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were not informed of the wage which they were legally required to be paid as H-2B guestworkers, nor were they informed of their job classification.
220. During the course of their employment at Defendant Signal, Plaintiffs were not paid the wages required by the H-2B visa program.
221. Over the course of their employment at Defendant Signal, Plaintiffs and others similarly

Third Amended Complaint

39

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 40 of 72 PageID #: 3537

situated were routinely awarded a fifty cent per hour “safety bonus” for workweeks when they were not written up for violations of Defendant Signal’s safety rules.
222. The safety bonus Defendant Signal paid the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated was in addition to their regular hourly wage.
223. Upon information and belief, the safety bonus was non-discretionary with respect both to the decision to pay the bonus and to the amount of the bonus.
224. Defendant Signal paid the safety bonus to the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated pursuant to a prior agreement or promise causing the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to expect the bonus payments regularly if they met the required safety criteria.
225. During workweeks when the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated worked more than 40 hours, Defendant Signal did not pay one and one-half times the amount of the safety bonus for all overtime hours worked.
226. Signal personnel and management regularly threatened Plaintiffs and other H-2B workers that if they did not continue working for Signal, or did not work according to Signal’s specifications, Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B workers would be deported back to India.
227. In the isolated and guarded atmosphere of the labor camp and grappling with the crushing debts they had incurred to come to the United States, Plaintiffs reasonably felt that Signal’s statements were threatening and felt forced to continue working for Signal despite terrible working and living conditions.
228. At regular meetings and in one-on-one or small group conversations with Signal camp personnel and management, some workers, including some of the Plaintiffs, voiced complaints regarding the discriminatory treatment to which Indian H-2B workers were subject. Other similarly situated workers also voiced complaints, in both the Orange and Pascagoula camps.

Third Amended Complaint

40

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 41 of 72 PageID #: 3538

229. Workers Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, two of the plaintiffs in the David Litigation, took leading roles in gathering and voicing others’ complaints to Defendant Signal’s personnel in camp meetings in Pascagoula.
230. When Indian workers, including Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, voiced grievances regarding housing, food, and wages, Defendant Signal’s personnel warned them to stop complaining.
231. When Signal took no action in response to workers’ complaints, numerous Indian H-2B workers living at the Pascagoula labor camp, including Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, began meeting collectively to discuss how to persuade Signal to improve conditions in its labor camps, and also began meeting with third parties to discuss how best to address their concerns.
232. Defendant Signal became aware of these meetings, including meetings between workers, including Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, and third parties whom Signal believed to be attorneys.
233. Defendant Signal, through its employees and/or agents, contacted the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants to express its concerns about worker organizing efforts and the specific involvement of Vijayan and Kadakkarappally.
234. Upon information and belief, during these conversations Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Signal reached an agreement regarding steps that they would take to discourage further worker organizing efforts and to ensure that the majority of the Indian H-2B workforce continued to work at Signal without complaint, as well as to prevent the Indian H-2B workforce from exercising their legal rights.
235. Upon information and belief, Signal management and camp personnel conferred and planned internally and with the private Swetman security firm in Mississippi to respond to workers’ organizing activities and to take actions to ensure that the majority of the Indian H-2B

Third Amended Complaint

41

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 42 of 72 PageID #: 3539

workforce continued to work at Signal without complaint, as well as to prevent the Indian H-2B workforce from exercising their legal rights.
236. On or about March 7, 2007, Defendant Sachin Dewan called Vijayan’s wife at her home in India and warned her that Vijayan must stop making trouble at Signal.
237. Vijayan’s wife informed Vijayan of this call, and Vijayan called Defendant Dewan on or about March 8, 2007. During that conversation, Defendant Dewan told Vijayan that Dewan had learned from Defendant Signal that Vijayan was organizing the workers and making trouble. Defendant Dewan told Vijayan that if the organizing continued, all the workers would be sent back to India.
238. Vijayan informed other Indian workers about the calls he and his wife had received from Defendant Dewan, and word spread quickly through the Pascagoula and Orange camps and to these Plaintiffs, regarding the threats against Vijayan.
239. News about the calls between Defendant Dewan, Vijayan and Vijayan’s wife substantially heightened the reasonable fears of Plaintiffs in the Orange camp that if they complained about or tried to leave the discriminatory and substandard working and living conditions at Signal, the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Signal would retaliate against Plaintiffs or their families with acts of violence or by arranging for Plaintiffs’ deportation to India.
240. Defendant Signal called a workforce-wide meeting on or about March 8, 2007 in the Pascagoula camp, attended by Signal management and Defendant Burnett.
241. At this meeting, Signal management told the Pascagoula workers that Signal would fight back against organizing efforts by the workers.
242. Signal management further threatened that Signal would not extend Plaintiffs’ and all

Third Amended Complaint

42

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 43 of 72 PageID #: 3540

other Indian H-2B workers’ visas if any of the workers took legal action against Signal. At that same meeting Defendant Burnett told the workers that they were ineligible for other kinds of immigration relief and could depend only on Signal to maintain their H-2B immigration status and pursue their green card applications. These threats were promptly reported to the workers in Orange, including Plaintiffs.
243. At or about the same time as this camp-wide meeting in Pascagoula, Mississippi, Signal management made the decision to terminate and forcibly deport Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, along with Kuldeep Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan, three Pascagoula workers who are also plaintiffs in the David Litigation, and to do so by means that would make an example of them for the other Indian workers in Pascagoula and in Orange, in order to keep those workers in line.
244. Early on the morning of March 9, 2007, Signal locked the gate to its Pascagoula labor camp, thereby obstructing the sole means of direct entry to and exit from the camp.
245. Around this same time, Signal camp coordinator Darrell Snyder, and approximately five security guards, some or all of whom were obtained through the private Swetman Security firm, swept through the bunkhouses carrying pictures of Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, K. Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan.
246. Security guards began accosting workers to determine whether they were the individuals shown in the pictures.
247. Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B workers at both camps became increasingly frightened and confused by these activities, particularly when word spread that Signal had locked the gate that served as the sole exit from the Pascagoula labor camp.
248. Around 5:15 AM that morning, Vijayan was walking towards the dining area. A security guard and Darrell Snyder, a Signal employee, aggressively confronted Vijayan and instructed him

Third Amended Complaint

43

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 44 of 72 PageID #: 3541

that he was in their custody. 249. Based on the threats made at the meeting on March 8, 2007 and Vijayan’s recent phone
call with Sachin Dewan, Vijayan feared what Defendant Signal might do to him. 250. Vijayan began to panic, thinking of the enormous quantity of money he had spent to come
to the United States and the massive debts he owed in India. Vijayan knew that he would not be able to repay such debts if he were deported and no longer employed by Signal.
251. These feelings, combined with Vijayan’s reasonable fear that Snyder and the security guards might physically hurt him, drove Vijayan to attempt suicide. Vijayan had to be transported from the labor camp to a local hospital for immediate medical attention.
252. While attempting to assist Vijayan in obtaining medical attention, Kadakkarappally was grabbed by Darrell Snyder and/or one or more of the security guards.
253. Kadakkarappally was taken forcefully by the arm and marched into a communal room in the labor camp referred to by workers as “the TV room.”
254. Upon arriving in the TV room, Kadakkarappally found two workers already held inside. Earlier that morning, Darrell Snyder and the security guards had grabbed Chellappan in the communal eating area and Kumar in his bunkhouse and forced both of them into the TV room, where they were kept under guard and prevented from leaving.
255. In the TV room, Darrell Snyder informed Kadakkarappally that he and Kumar and Chellappan were fired and would be taken to the airport to be deported to India. Snyder demanded that Kadakkarappally stay inside the TV room, and Kadakkarappally was prevented from leaving the TV room by security guards.
256. Kuldeep Singh, upon realizing Snyder and the security guards were looking for him and intended to apprehend and detain him, hid himself and later fled the camp via an adjacent work

Third Amended Complaint

44

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 45 of 72 PageID #: 3542

area. 257. Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan were detained in the TV room, under guard,
from approximately 6 a.m. for several hours. 258. Several security guards watched over Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan while
they were detained. Over the course of several hours, security guards denied Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan’s repeated requests to be let out of the TV room, to get something to drink, or to use the bathroom.
259. When Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan’s co-workers attempted to come into the TV room to talk to the three workers kept inside, the security guards pushed them back.
260. Confused and frightened, workers assembled outside the TV room to protest the treatment of Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan.
261. At around 10 AM, Signal camp personnel finally permitted Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan to use the bathroom accompanied by security guards, one at a time.
262. Around noon, Darrell Snyder and a Pascagoula police officer entered the TV room and the officer questioned why Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan were there. Snyder said that these workers had been fired and would be sent back to India.
263. By early afternoon on March 9, 2007, local media, religious advocates, and other individuals had gathered outside the camp gate to express their concern over the attempted suicide of Vijayan and the forced detention of Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan.
264. Faced with growing protests by community members and Signal employees, Defendant Signal decided not to forcibly transport Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan to the airport for deportation to India, and instead escorted them from the Pascagoula labor camp.
265. Other Indian H-2B workers, including these Plaintiffs, working at Signal’s Orange

Third Amended Complaint

45

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 46 of 72 PageID #: 3543

facilities rapidly learned of the events at the Pascagoula labor camp on March 9, 2007. In response and out of fear for their continued well-being, some workers surreptitiously fled both camps.
266. Within a few days of Plaintiffs’ and other Indian H-2B workers’ arrival at its labor camps in late 2006 and early 2007, Signal personnel had conducted meetings at the labor camps between Plaintiffs and representatives from specific banks. In Orange, these meetings were with representatives from Capital One Bank. In Pascagoula, these meetings were with representatives from M&M Bank.
267. At the instruction of Defendant Signal, Plaintiffs opened accounts with the designated bank and agreed to directly deposit their wages in these accounts. Defendant Signal’s establishment of Plaintiffs’ accounts with these banks gave it unique access to and control over Plaintiffs’ funds.
268. At some point before April 10, 2007, on information and belief, after some Indian H-2B workers had fled Signal’s Mississippi camp, the bank with which those workers had established similar accounts denied those departed workers access to their bank accounts and invalidated their ATM cards.
269. Upon information and belief, that Mississippi bank refused the departed workers access to their own bank accounts at Defendant Signal’s behest.
270. Indian H-2B workers still working at Signal labor camps, including the Plaintiffs, heard about the difficulty departed Signal workers had in accessing their funds through Signalestablished bank accounts and reasonably believed that similar action might be taken against them should they try to leave Defendant Signal’s employ.
271. The information about workers’ inability to access their money, combined with other factors described herein, contributed to the reasonable beliefs of Plaintiffs and the other remaining

Third Amended Complaint

46

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 47 of 72 PageID #: 3544

Indian H-2B workers that if they tried to leave the employ of Defendant Signal they would face serious harm and/or threatened or actual abuse of the legal process.
272. Defendant Signal’s actions on and after March 9, 2007 significantly intensified the reasonable fears of the remaining Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B workers in the Pascagoula and Orange camps that if they tried to leave Signal’s employ or oppose unlawful and coercive employment conditions at Signal, including by consulting with counsel, they faced the threat of physical restraint, detention, forced deportation, or other serious harms and/or abuses of the legal process.
273. Throughout the spring and summer of 2007, Signal personnel in the Mississippi and Texas camps held various meetings with the remaining Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B workers to discuss the status of Plaintiffs’ and other Indian H-2B workers’ visas and green card applications.
274. Upon information and belief, during spring and summer 2007 Signal personnel conferred amongst themselves and with the Recruiter Defendants and the Legal Facilitator Defendants via phone and/or e-mail to reach agreement on what should be said to workers attending the meetings.
275. Soon after March 9, 2007, Defendant Signal held a camp-wide meeting in Pascagoula. Signal personnel told the Indian H-2B workers that Signal would sponsor their green cards if they stayed at Signal and obeyed Signal’s rules, and warned that if workers held any meetings against Signal’s interests, they would be terminated. As Signal understood would happen, workers at the Orange camp, including Plaintiffs, promptly learned what Signal personnel had said at this meeting, and understood it would apply to workers at Orange, as well.
276. In that same time period, Defendants Dewan and Burnett came to the Signal camp in Orange, Texas and again promised, in the presence of Signal personnel, that Signal, through its attorney Defendant Burnett, would make bona fide applications for green cards and obtain several

Third Amended Complaint

47

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 48 of 72 PageID #: 3545

H-2B visa extensions for the workers who had not been terminated by Signal (plaintiffs in the David Litigation, including David, Sulekha, Thangamani, Kandhasamy, Khuttan, Andrews and Dhananjaya), and the other Indian H- 2B workers. Plaintiffs reasonably believed these promises.
277. In meetings and conversations in spring and summer 2007, Defendant Signal, through its agents and employees at the Pascagoula and Orange facilities, continued to promise that Signal would arrange for the H-2B visa extensions and green cards originally promised Plaintiffs when they were recruited in India and the United Arab Emirates.
278. At the same time as Defendant Signal was promising to arrange for H-2B visa extensions and green cards for the Plaintiffs as well as other Indian H-2B workers, Signal in fact was secretly evaluating all of the Indian workers with the intent not even to apply for visa extensions for certain of the Indian H-2B workers.
279. Plaintiffs’ continuing dependence on Defendant Signal for their present and future immigration status, their continuing high levels of indebtedness, as well as other factors reasonably led Plaintiffs to fear serious harm and/or abuse of the legal process if they left Signal’s employ.
280. Under such circumstances, these Plaintiffs reasonably felt like they had no choice but to continue working for Signal.
281. At various times relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendant Signal refused to confirm whether valid H-2B visa extensions had in fact been obtained for Plaintiffs, coercing Plaintiffs to continue working for Signal in the hope that Signal would finally resolve their uncertain immigration status.
282. In addition, through the spring of 2007, Signal continued to recruit workers, including some of the Plaintiffs, to fill positions under the H-2B visas which Signal had been granted by the federal government. As a result, the workers continued to pay recruitment fees with the

Third Amended Complaint

48

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 49 of 72 PageID #: 3546

understanding they would have job opportunities at Signal. The workers were told by Recruiter Defendants that Signal representatives would pick them up from the airport upon their arrival to their final destination in the United States and transported to Signal’s facility. When the workers, including some of the Plaintiffs, arrived at their final destination in the United States, no one from Signal was there to pick them up, and consequently the work opportunity for which they had contracted was not provided to them.
283. Some of the workers who had not been picked up at the airport, including some of the Plaintiffs, contacted Signal’s Orange, Texas facility to ask about their work opportunities and Signal failed to respond or told that there was no work opportunity for them at Signal.
284. Some of the workers who were not picked up at the airport, including some of the Plaintiffs, and who were stranded in a country foreign to them, overcame obstacles and received help from third-parties to travel to Signal’s Orange, Texas facility. After they arrived there, Signal management told them that they needed to spend the night in the camp while Signal management figured out what to do with the workers. The next day, Signal management told them that they had to take a test testing the same skills for which they had already been tested. After taking the test, Signal management told the workers that they had failed the test. Signal used the test as a pretext for not employing the workers when Signal, at that point, had no intention of employing the workers who Signal had recruited to the United States.
285. Signal knew it had no intention of fulfilling its contractual promises and employing the workers before the workers left India and made payments to Signal’s agents. Nevertheless, Signal did not inform the workers, including the Plaintiffs, of its intention to breach the contract nor did Signal ensure that its agents inform the Plaintiffs that Signal would not fulfill its contractual obligations. Once the workers, including the Plaintiffs, arrived to Signal’s facilities in Texas and

Third Amended Complaint

49

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 50 of 72 PageID #: 3547

Mississippi, Signal continued to defraud the workers and lie about its intention to not fulfill its obligation to employ the workers, including the Plaintiffs.
286. Since first contracting with Defendants in India and the United Arab Emirates, none of Plaintiffs have yet to receive from Defendants the green cards Defendants promised them. Despite clear contractual provisions requiring them to do so, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants have refused to refund any of the moneys Plaintiffs paid to them for unsuccessful green card and visa processing
287. The fact that the Plaintiffs gave up opportunities for work and financial gain by leaving India, Singapore, Africa, Canada, and the Persian Gulf to come work in the United States at Signal was known or foreseeable to Defendants.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2003
Forced Labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589); and Trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor) (18 U.S.C. §1590)
Defendants Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc., the Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); and the Legal Facilitator
Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center)
288. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in
the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
289. Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal
Facilitator Defendants.
290. Plaintiffs are authorized to bring these civil claims against Defendants pursuant to the
civil remedies provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003

Third Amended Complaint

50

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 51 of 72 PageID #: 3548

(TVPA), 18 U.S.C. § 1595. 291. Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants attempted to
and did subject Plaintiffs to forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589.1 292. Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants knowingly
attempted to and did physically restrain and/or threaten Plaintiffs with serious harm in order to obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1589(1).
293. Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants knowingly attempted to and did obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs using a scheme, plan, or pattern which, in the totality of the circumstances, was intended to coerce and did coerce Plaintiffs to believe that they would suffer serious harm if they were to leave the employ of Defendant Signal in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(2).
294. Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants’ scheme to isolate Plaintiffs, to coerce them to live in conditions causing psychological harm, and to limit their outside contacts, including unlawful discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, was designed to convince Plaintiffs that they would suffer serious harm if they were to leave the employ of Defendant Signal.
295. Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs for attempts to exercise their legal rights, and threatened Plaintiffs with deportation and deceived Plaintiffs about the terms of their immigration status in a manner that constitutes an abuse of the legal process under 18 U.S.C. § 1589(3).
296. Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants knowingly recruited, transported, harbored, provided, and/or obtained the Plaintiffs so as to obtain their labor

1 The Abandoned Plaintiffs do not assert claims for forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1589.

Third Amended Complaint

51

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 52 of 72 PageID #: 3549

and services in violation of laws prohibiting peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, and forced labor within the meaning of the provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (TVPA).
297. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590, and in addition to the violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1589 set forth above, Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants knowingly recruited, transported, harbored and/or obtained the Plaintiffs for labor or services in furtherance of these Defendants’ violations of the following provisions of Title 18, Chapter 77 of the U.S. Code:
a. enticing, persuading, or inducing the Plaintiffs to go on board an airliner and to go to various locations throughout the United Arab Emirates, India, and the United States, with the intent that they may be made or held in modern day slavery, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1583;
b. knowingly and willfully holding Plaintiffs to involuntary servitude, as defined by the TVPA, 22 U.S.C. § 7102(5)(a) and (b), violating 18 U.S.C. § 1584;2
c. removing, confiscating, or possessing Plaintiffs’ passports and other immigration documents in the course of, or with the intent to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1583, 1584, 1589, and 1590, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1592(a); and
d. attempting to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1583, 1584, 1589, and 1590, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a).
298. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries to their persons, businesses, and property, and other damages.

2 The Abandoned Plaintiffs do not assert that Defendants knowingly and willfully held the Abandoned Plaintiffs to involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1584.

Third Amended Complaint

52

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 53 of 72 PageID #: 3550

299. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including attorneys’ fees.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) All Defendants
300. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
301. Plaintiffs’ RICO Case Statement, filed concurrently with Plaintiffs’ original Complaint, is incorporated herein by reference.
302. Plaintiffs’ claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (“RICO”), are brought against all Defendants.
303. Plaintiffs are “persons” with standing to sue within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). 304. Each of the Defendants is a “RICO person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1963(1). 305. All Defendants and the United States Consular officers in India constitute an associationin-fact, and therefore an enterprise (the “RICO Enterprise I”), within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(4). 306. Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal are an association-in-fact, and therefore an enterprise (the “RICO Enterprise II”), within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(4). 307. Recruiter Defendants, Defendant Signal, Legal Facilitator Defendants, Swetman Security, and Capital One Bank are an association-in-fact, and therefore an enterprise (the “RICO Enterprise III”) within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(4).
The RICO Enterprises

Third Amended Complaint

53

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 54 of 72 PageID #: 3551

RICO Enterprise I 308. RICO Enterprise I at all relevant times was an ongoing business relationship between all Defendants, and the United States Consular officers in India, with the common purpose of recruiting, transporting, providing, processing, and obtaining foreign workers to work on shipyards in the United States, including on Signal’s operations in Texas and Mississippi. 309. RICO Enterprise I was engaged in interstate commerce in that its activities and transactions relating to the international and interstate movement of workers affect interstate commerce and frequently require travel and communications across state and international lines. 310. The members of RICO Enterprise I functioned as a continuing unit. 311. Defendants conducted or participated in, and/or conspired to conduct or participate in the affairs of RICO Enterprise I through a pattern of numerous acts of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), related by their common goal to recruit, obtain, transport, process, and provide workers through the use of fraudulent promises, exorbitant fees, forced labor, and/or trafficking. 312. Specifically, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal conducted or participated in and/or conspired to conduct the affairs of RICO Enterprise I by engaging in the following predicate acts of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1):
a. Enticement into modern day slavery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1583. b. Involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584. 3 c. Forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589;4 d. Trafficking persons with respect to modern day slavery, involuntary servitude, and
forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590; and

3 The Abandoned Plaintiffs do not assert involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584. 4 The Abandoned Plaintiffs do not assert forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589.

Third Amended Complaint

54

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 55 of 72 PageID #: 3552

e. Unlawful document-related practices in furtherance of trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1592(a);
313. Specifically, all Defendants conducted or participated in and/or conspired to conduct the affairs of RICO Enterprise I by engaging in the following predicate acts of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1):
a. Mail fraud to further their unlawful scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; b. Wire fraud to further their unlawful scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and c. Immigration document fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546.
RICO Enterprise II 314. RICO Enterprise II was at all relevant times an ongoing business relationship between Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal with the common purpose of selling United States green cards, visas, and work opportunities to Indian workers to convince such workers to pay fees and to travel to the United States to work for companies, including Signal. 315. The members of RICO Enterprise II operated as a continuing unit. 316. RICO Enterprise II was engaged in interstate commerce in that its activities and transactions relating to the sale of United States green cards, visas, and job opportunities affect interstate commerce. 317. Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal conducted or participated in and/or conspired to conduct or participate in, the affairs of RICO Enterprise II through a pattern of numerous acts of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), related by their common goal to sell United States green cards and work opportunities to Indian workers for the purposes of furnishing such workers for employment at

Third Amended Complaint

55

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 56 of 72 PageID #: 3553

Signal’s operations. 318. Specifically, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant
Signal conducted or participated in the affairs of RICO Enterprise II by engaging in the following predicate acts of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1):
a. Enticement into modern day slavery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1583. b. Involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584.5 c. Forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589;6 d. Trafficking persons with respect to modern day slavery, involuntary servitude, and
forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590; e. Unlawful document-related practices in furtherance of trafficking in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1592(a); f. Mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; g. Wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and h. Immigration document fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546.
RICO Enterprise III 319. RICO Enterprise III was at all relevant times an ongoing business relationship between the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, Defendant Signal, and Capital One Bank with the common purpose of providing and maintaining a consistent and acquiescent labor force at Signal operations. 320. RICO Enterprise III was engaged in interstate commerce in that its activities and transactions relating to maintaining and providing a consistent labor force at Signal occurred across state and international lines, and involve wages and working conditions at an employer engaged

5 The Abandoned Plaintiffs do not assert involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584. 6 The Abandoned Plaintiffs do not assert forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589.

Third Amended Complaint

56

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 57 of 72 PageID #: 3554

in interstate commerce (Signal). 321. The members of RICO Enterprise III functioned as a continuing unit. 322. Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal conducted, or
participated in, and/or conspired to conduct or participate in, the affairs of RICO Enterprise III through a pattern of numerous acts of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), related by their common goal to maintain a consistent and acquiescent H-2B Indian labor force at Signal through the use of fraudulent promises, forced labor, and trafficking.
323. Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal conducted, or participated in, and/or conspired to conduct or participate in, the affairs of RICO Enterprise III by engaging in the following predicate acts of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1):
a. Enticement into modern day slavery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1583. b. Involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584.7 c. Forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589;8 d. Trafficking persons with respect to modern day slavery, involuntary servitude, and
forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590; e. Unlawful document-related practices in furtherance of trafficking in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1592(a); f. Mail fraud to further their unlawful scheme in violation of 18U.S.C. § 1341;\ g. Wire fraud to further their unlawful scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and h. Immigration document fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546.
Predicate Acts Enticement to Slavery: 18 U.S.C. § 1583

7 The Abandoned Plaintiffs do not assert involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584. 8 The Abandoned Plaintiffs do not assert forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589.

Third Amended Complaint

57

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 58 of 72 PageID #: 3555

324. Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal, through RICO Enterprises I, II, and III willfully, knowingly, and intentionally committed and/or conspired to commit multiple predicate acts of enticement into modern-day slavery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1583, and as set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief.
Involuntary Servitude: 18 U.S.C. § 15849 325. Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal, through Enterprises I, II, and III willfully, knowingly, and intentionally committed and/or conspired to commit multiple predicate acts of involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1584, and as set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief.
Forced Labor: 18 U.S.C. § 158910 326. Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal through RICO Enterprises I, II, and III willfully, knowingly, and intentionally committed and/or conspired to commit multiple predicate acts of forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589, and as set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief.
Trafficking for the Purposes of Forced Labor and/or Involuntary Servitude: 18 U.S.C. § 1590
327. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal through RICO Enterprises I, III, and III willfully, knowingly, and intentionally committed and/or conspired to commit multiple predicate acts of trafficking for the purposes of forced labor and/or involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590, and as set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief.
Document Servitude: 18 U.S.C. § 1592

9 The Abandoned Plaintiffs do not assert involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584. 10 The Abandoned Plaintiffs do not forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589.

Third Amended Complaint

58

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 59 of 72 PageID #: 3556

328. Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal, through Enterprises I, II, and III willfully, knowingly, and intentionally committed and/or conspired to commit multiple predicate acts of document servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1592, and as set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief.
Mail and Wire Fraud: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343 329. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants, through RICO Enterprise I, made and/or conspired to make false promises regarding green cards and other benefits in a scheme calculated to defraud Plaintiffs out of large sums of money. 330. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal, through RICO Enterprises I, II, and III, made and/or conspired to make false statements related to applications submitted to the U.S. Government for H-2B visas and false promises to Plaintiffs regarding green cards and other benefits in a scheme calculated to defraud Plaintiffs out of large sums of money. 331. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants, through RICO Enterprise I, used the mails and wire communications, including communications via telephone, fax, internet and/or e-mail, on numerous occasions to further these fraudulent schemes. 332. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal, through RICO Enterprises I, II, and III, used the mails and wire communications, including communications via telephone, fax, internet and/or email on numerous occasions to further this fraudulent scheme. 333. These willful, knowing, and intentional acts constitute mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343.
Immigration Document Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a)

Third Amended Complaint

59

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 60 of 72 PageID #: 3557

334. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants, through RICO Enterprise I, fraudulently sold and/or conspired to sell H-2B visa extensions and green cards to Plaintiffs despite these Defendants’ awareness that applications for these green cards and visa extensions were not bona fide or lawful under United States immigration law.
335. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal, through RICO Enterprises I, II, and III, obtained, accepted, and/or received H-2B visas despite knowing these visas to have been procured through false statements and/or fraud on the U.S. Government.
336. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal, through RICO Enterprises I, II, and III, fraudulently sold and/or conspired to sell H-2B visa extensions and green cards to Plaintiffs despite these Defendants’ awareness that applications for these green cards and visa extensions were not bona fide or lawful under United States immigration law.
337. These willful, knowing, and intentional acts constitute immigration document fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).
Pattern of Related Racketeering Acts 338. Defendants engaged in the racketeering activity described in this Claim repeatedly starting in 2003 and continuing at least through January 2009 with respect to approximately 590 Indian workers. 339. Upon information and belief, Signal sought new Indian H-2B workers for employment at Signal who may be subject to similar racketeering activities, stopping this recruitment only upon the filing of the David Litigation. 340. Defendants, though the RICO Enterprises, rely on the racketeering acts described in this

Third Amended Complaint

60

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 61 of 72 PageID #: 3558

Complaint to conduct their regular business activities. 341. Defendants’ racketeering acts have or had similar purposes: to profit from the fraudulent
recruitment and forced labor of Plaintiffs and other Indian workers, and to recruit, obtain, provide and maintain a consistent, submissive, and compliant Indian H-2B guestworker labor force at Signal’s operations.
342. Defendants’ acts yielded similar results and caused similar injuries to Plaintiffs, including payment of high fees, assumption of significant interest bearing debt, loss of real and personal property, lost work opportunities, lost or unpaid wages and additional legal fees.
343. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, the racketeering acts have or had similar participants: the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, the Labor Broker Defendants, and Signal.
344. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in the attached Exhibit 1, Defendants, though the RICO Enterprises, directed their racketeering activities at similar victims: Indian workers who contacted the Recruiter Defendants in search of green cards, economic opportunity, and stable employment in the United States.
345. Defendants’ acts have or had similar methods of commission, such as common recruitment tactics, relatively consistent practices with respect to collecting payments from Plaintiffs and other Indian workers, and use of similar employment practices and policies with respect to Plaintiffs and other Indian workers.
Injury 346. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional acts discussed in this section, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries to their property and/or business, including but not limited to: exorbitant fees paid by Plaintiffs for green cards, visas and other

Third Amended Complaint

61

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 62 of 72 PageID #: 3559

immigration and recruitment-related services; interest on debts assumed by Plaintiffs to pay such fees; losses of personal and real property incurred in reliance on Defendants’ fraudulent acts; lost and unpaid wages, excessive charges from room and board, and other pecuniary and/or losses to real or personal property.
347. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
42 U.S.C. 1981 Defendant Signal (Signal International LLC, Signal International Inc., Signal International
Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P.) 348. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 349. Plaintiffs assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for declaratory relief, and damages against Defendant Signal.11 350. The actions of Defendant Signal, as set forth herein, violated Plaintiffs’ rights to receive full and equal benefit of all laws as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. § 1981, including Plaintiffs’ rights to enjoy and benefit from non-discriminatory employment relationships with Defendant Signal. 351. Specifically, Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs to discriminatory and offensive mandatory room and board arrangements at the Signal labor camp in Orange. 352. Defendant Signal did not subject its non-Indian and/or U.S. citizen employees to the same or similar room and board arrangements. 353. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendant Signal also imposed discriminatory

11 The Abandoned Plaintiffs do not assert claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Third Amended Complaint

62

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 63 of 72 PageID #: 3560

job-related requirements and adverse terms and conditions of employment to which non-Indian and/or U.S. citizen employees were not similarly subject.
354. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, through the actions and statements of its personnel referring to and/or directed at Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B workers, Defendant Signal maintained an objectively hostile and abusive work environment on account of Plaintiffs’ race, national origin, and/or alienage.
355. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendant Signal’s discriminatory and offensive treatment of Plaintiffs was sufficiently severe that it created a hostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
356. Plaintiffs reasonably perceived their work environment to be hostile, abusive, and discriminatory on the basis of their race, national origin, and/or alienage.
357. Defendant Signal’s hostile, abusive, and discriminatory treatment of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated was unwelcome.
358. Defendant Signal knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and without justification acted to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.
359. As a result of Defendant Signal’s unlawful acts, Plaintiffs have suffered injury to their property and/or persons.
360. Plaintiffs seek all appropriate relief, including declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action, and damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT OF 1871
42 U.S.C. § 1985 and the Thirteenth Amendment Defendant Signal (Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc., Signal International

Third Amended Complaint

63

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 64 of 72 PageID #: 3561

Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P.), the Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Inc., Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants), and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C.
Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center) 361. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 362. Plaintiffs assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for declaratory relief, and damages against Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants. 363. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief, Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants, along with non-defendants, acting at the discretion of those defendants (including a private security firm and Capital One Bank) conspired, agreed, planned and coordinated for the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of equal protection of their rights under the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its implementing and enforcing statutes (inter alia, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1590) to be free from forced labor, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons. 364. Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants were motivated by racial, anti-Indian, and/or anti-immigrant animus when they conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights and/or acted in furtherance of a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights. 365. Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and without justification planned and acted to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights. 366. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered damages. 367. Plaintiffs seek all appropriate relief, including declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, costs of

Third Amended Complaint

64

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 65 of 72 PageID #: 3562

this action, and damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION UNDER TEXAS LAW
All Defendants 368. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs. 369. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in the attached Exhibit 1, Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees, and/or representatives, knowingly and/or negligently made materially false and untrue statements and representations to Plaintiffs regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States. 370. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in the attached Exhibit 1, Defendants knowingly or negligently failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States. 371. Defendants intended that the false statements made by Defendants and/or their agents, employees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to pay the exorbitant fees requested by the Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants. 372. Defendants intended that the false statements made by Defendants and/or their agents, employees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to pay exorbitant fees to the Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants, and to leave their homes and jobs in India and the United Arab Emirates and travel to the United States to work for

Third Amended Complaint

65

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 66 of 72 PageID #: 3563

the Labor Broker Defendants and/or Defendant Signal. 373. Plaintiffs were entitled to rely on Defendants’ representations. 374. In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent representations
regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money to Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants.
375. In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs incurred substantial interestbearing debts in order to pay recruitment, immigration-related, and travel fees charged by Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives.
376. In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs sold personal and real property and surrendered employment opportunities in India, the Middle East, Singapore, Africa, and Canada.
377. In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs left their homes and jobs and India and other countries and traveled to the United States to work for Defendant Signal.
378. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ knowing, willing, intentional, and/or negligent actions, Plaintiffs have been injured.
379. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF BREACH OF CONTRACT UNDER TEXAS LAW
All Defendants

Third Amended Complaint

66

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 67 of 72 PageID #: 3564

380. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
381. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees and/or representatives, offered to obtain permanent residence and immigration status for Plaintiffs in the United States within 18 to 24 months as well as steady work opportunities in the United States with Defendant Signal and/or Labor Broker Defendants in exchange for Plaintiffs’ payment of exorbitant fees to Defendants and their employees, agents and/or representatives and agreement to work for Defendant Signal and/or Labor Broker Defendants.
382. Plaintiffs accepted Defendants’ offers, paid the agreed upon fees, travelled to the United States, and performed the agreed-upon work.
383. Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with their binding promises regarding employment, permanent residence and immigration status.
384. In reliance on these agreements, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money and entered into substantial debts, surrendered other employment opportunities, and incurred other financial losses.
385. As a direct result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages. 386. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover actual compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION UNDER MISSISSIPPI LAW
All Defendants 387. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs. 388. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in the attached Exhibit 1, Defendants,

Third Amended Complaint

67

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 68 of 72 PageID #: 3565

individually and through their agents, employees, and/or representatives, knowingly and/or negligently made materially false and untrue statements and representations to Plaintiffs regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States.
389. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in the attached Exhibit 1, Defendants knowingly or negligently failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States.
390. Defendants intended that the false statements made by Defendants and/or their agents, employees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to pay the exorbitant fees requested by the Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants.
391. Defendants intended that the false statements made by Defendants and/or their agents, employees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to pay exorbitant fees to the Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants, and to leave their homes and jobs in India and the United Arab Emirates and travel to the United States to work for the Labor Broker Defendants and/or Defendant Signal.
392. Plaintiffs were entitled to rely on Defendants’ representations. 393. In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money to Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants. 394. In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs incurred substantial interestbearing debts in order to pay recruitment, immigration-related, and travel fees charged by

Third Amended Complaint

68

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 69 of 72 PageID #: 3566

Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives. 395. In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent representations
regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs sold personal and real property and surrendered employment opportunities in India, the Middle East, Singapore, Canada and Africa.
396. In reliance or reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs left their homes and jobs and India and other countries and traveled to the United States to work for Defendant Signal.
397. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ knowing, willing, intentional, and/or negligent actions, Plaintiffs have been injured.
398. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF BREACH OF CONTRACT UNDER MISSISSIPPI LAW
All Defendants 399. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 400. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees and/or representatives, offered to obtain permanent residence and immigration status for Plaintiffs in the United States within 18 to 24 months as well as steady work opportunities in the United States with Defendant Signal and/or Labor Broker Defendants in exchange for Plaintiffs’ payment of exorbitant fees to Defendants and their employees, agents and/or representatives and agreement to work for Defendant Signal and/or Labor Broker Defendants.

Third Amended Complaint

69

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 70 of 72 PageID #: 3567

401. Plaintiffs accepted Defendants’ offers, paid the agreed upon fees, travelled to the United States, and performed the agreed-upon work.
402. Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with their binding promises regarding employment, permanent residence and immigration status.
403. In reliance on these agreements, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money and entered into substantial debts, surrendered other employment opportunities, and incurred other financial losses.
404. As a direct result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages. 405. Defendants’ actions evince actual malice and/or reckless indifference towards the Plaintiffs. 406. As a direct result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have suffered direct and consequential damages, and are entitled to recover actual compensatory damages, including opportunity costs, and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief:
a. Declaratory relief; b. Compensatory damages; c. Punitive damages; d. Treble damages as authorized by RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); e. An award of prevailing party costs, including attorney fees; f. A finding of alter ego between Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal International
Texas, L.P., thus piercing the corporate veil; g. A finding of alter ego between Signal International Texas, L.P. and Signal International

Third Amended Complaint

70

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 71 of 72 PageID #: 3568

LLC, thus piercing the corporate veil; h. A finding that Signal International, Inc. is the successor in interest to Signal International
LLC, or in the alternative, a finding of alter ego between Signal International LLC and Signal International, Inc., thus piercing the corporate veil; i. A finding of alter ego among Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., thus piercing the corporate veil; j. A finding of alter ego between Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants Pvt., thus piercing the corporate veil; k. A finding of alter ego between Billy R. Wilks and J & M, thus piercing J & M’s corporate veil; l. A finding that J & M Marine is the successor of J & M; and m. Such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this action of all issues so triable.

Date: May 4, 2015.
Third Amended Complaint

Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Christopher J. Willett Christopher J. Willett Texas Bar No. 24061895 Kayvon Sabourian Texas Bar No. 24076824 (admitted by pro hac vice) EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER and TRANSNATIONAL WORKER RIGHTS CLINIC 510 S. Congress Ave., Suite 206 Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (512) 474-0007 Facsimile: (512) 474-0008
71

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 117 Filed 05/06/15 Page 72 of 72 PageID #: 3569
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 6, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to all ECF participants.
/s/ Kayvon Sabourian Kayvon Sabourian Texas State Bar No. 24076824 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Third Amended Complaint

72

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 56 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1224

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION

SRINIVASA RAO KAMBALA et al.

§

§

v.

§

§

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C. et al. §

NO. 1:13-CV-498

SATHEESH MARIMUTHU et al.

§

§

v.

§

§

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C. et al. §

NO. 1:13-CV-499

RAJU MEGANATHAN et al.

§

§

v.

§

§

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C. et al §

No. 1:13-CV-497

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER Pending before the court is a “Motion for Stay Pendente Lite and for Transfer Pursuant to First Filed Rule” (Doc. No. 14) filed by Signal International, L.L.C., Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P. (“the Signal Defendants”), and a “Motion to Transfer Venue and Memorandum in Support” (Doc. No. 31) filed by Malvern C. Burnett, the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C (“the Burnett Defendants”). These two motions are also pending before the court in related cases. See Marimuthu et. al v. Signal International L.L.C. et al., 1:13-cv-499 (Doc. Nos. 23, 36); Meganathan et al. v. Signal International L.L.C. et al., 1:13-cv-497 (Doc. Nos. 17, 12). Because

Page 1 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 56 Filed 07/16/14 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 1225
these motions and corresponding responses are for all intents and purposes the same, the undersigned’s decision and reasoning on the motions pending in the instant suit will apply to the corresponding motions filed in Marimuthu and Meganathan as well. Id.
Having considered the pending motions and the corresponding responses, the court denies the Signal and Burnett Defendants’ motions to transfer pursuant to the first-to-file rule because there is not a substantial overlap between the instant suit and Kurian David et al. v. Signal, Int’l, L.L.C. et al., the first filed suit. See Civ. A. No. 08-1220 (E.D. La.).
I. Background A. Procedural Background
On March 7, 2008, twelve individuals who were allegedly trafficked into the United States filed a putative class action against the Defendants in the Eastern District of Louisiana asserting trafficking, RICO, civil rights, and state law contract and fraud claims.1 See David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, Civ. A. No. 08-1220 (E.D. La.). That Court denied class certification;2 and, as a result of this ruling, the Plaintiffs in the instant action filed suit in this District, where they were allegedly subjected to deplorable working conditions at a Signal facility in Orange, Texas.3 (Doc. No. 39.) On August 7, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this court against the Burnett Defendants, the Signal Defendants, Michael Pol, Global Resources, Inc., Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants
1. The Plaintiffs presumably still have FLSA claims pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana. (Doc. No. 21, p. 10.)
2. David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, Civ. A. No. 08-1220, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247, at *129 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2012).
3. Srinivasa Rao Gonna is the only Plaintiff in this lawsuit who worked in Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility as opposed to their Orange, Texas facility.
Page 2 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 56 Filed 07/16/14 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 1226
Pvt. Ltd., Indo-Ameri Soft L.L.C., Kurella Rao, J&M Associates of Mississippi, Inc., J&M Marine & Industrial, L.L.C., and Billy R. Wilks. The Plaintiffs allege that some or all of the Defendants violated the following federal statutes: 1) The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003; 2) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; 3) The Civil Rights act of 1866; and 4) The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. (Id.) In addition, the Plaintiffs bring state law fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract claims against all of the Defendants. (Id.) B. Factual Background
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, approximately 590 men, including the Plaintiffs, were allegedly trafficked into the United States through the federal government’s H-2B guest worker program to provide labor and services to the Signal Defendants. (Doc. No. 39, p. 2.) The Plaintiffs claim they were lured to work for Signal through the fraudulent promise of legal and permanent work-based immigration to the United States for themselves and their families. (Id., p. 4.) Subsequently, after coming to the United States, the Plaintiffs were allegedly denied employment or were subjected to forced labor and other serious abuses at Signal operations in Orange, Texas and Pascagoula, Mississippi. (Id., p. 5.)
II. Jurisdiction The Plaintiffs seek recovery pursuant to several federal statutes. For actions brought under these statutory provisions, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction predicated upon federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). For the state law causes of action, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction predicated upon supplemental jurisdiction. See
Page 3 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 56 Filed 07/16/14 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 1227
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the above claims occurred within the confines of this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
III. First to File Rule The Signal and Burnett Defendants move to transfer the instant case to the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to the First-Filed Doctrine. (Doc. Nos. 14, 31.) “Under the first-to-file rule, when related cases are pending before two federal courts, the court in which the case was last filed may refuse to hear it if the issues raised by the cases substantially overlap.” Int’l Fid. Ins. Co. v. Sweet Little Mexico Corp., 665 F.3d 671, 677 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999)). “The first-to-file rule is a discretionary doctrine.” Jones v. Xerox Commercial Solutions, LLC, CIV. A. No. H-13-0650, 2013 WL 3245957, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June 26, 2013) (quoting Cadle Co., 174 F.3d at 603). The rule is utilized “to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid rulings which may trench upon the authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.” Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997). The party wishing to transfer the case has the burden to prove that transfer is warranted. Jones, 2013 WL 3245957, at *2 (citing Sanofi–Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 2d 772, 777 n. 5 (E.D. Tex. 2009); VCode Holdings, Inc. v. Cognex Corp., No. 2:07–cv–138, 2007 WL 2238054, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2007); Buckalew v. Celanese, LTD., No. G–05–315, 2005 WL 2266619, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2005)). “In deciding whether to apply the first-to-file rule, the Court must resolve two questions: (1) are the two pending actions so duplicative or do they involve such substantially similar issues
Page 4 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 56 Filed 07/16/14 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 1228
that one court should decide the subject matter of both actions, and if so, (2) which of the two courts should take the case.” Datamize, Inc. v. Fid. Brokerage Servs., LLC, 2:03-CV-321-DF, 2004 WL 1683171, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2004) (citing Texas Instruments v. Micron Semiconductor, 815 F. Supp. 994, 997 (E.D. Tex. 1993)). “The first-to-file rule does not require that cases be identical, but merely that there is a substantial overlap in issues and parties.” White v. Peco Foods, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 2d 339, 342 (S.D. Miss. 2008).
IV. Analysis The Defendants argue there is substantial overlap between the instant case and the first filed case, David. (Doc. Nos. 14, 31.) While there are similarities in the two cases, the undersigned finds that the two cases do not involve such substantially similar parties and issues that one court should decide the subject matter of both actions. A. Parties There is some overlap between the parties in David and the instant case, but it is not substantial. While all of the Plaintiffs in the instant suit are also plaintiffs in David, as explained below, they are only asserting FLSA claims in David, which they do not assert here.4 (Doc. No. 21, p. 10.) Conversely, none of the David plaintiffs asserting non-FLSA claims are parties in the instant case. (Id., p. 8) The David defendants and the Defendants in this suit are not completely identical, but for purposes of this analysis, the court finds that the difference is insignificant. While the first-to-file rule does not require identical parties, see Save Power Ltd., 121 F.3d at 950,
4. Even if the Plaintiffs in this case were at one point putative class members in the David class action litigation, they were never parties since the class was never certified. See Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368, 2379 (2011) (holding that it is erroneous to believe a nonnamed class member is a party to class action litigation before the class is certified, or if certification is ultimately denied).
Page 5 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 56 Filed 07/16/14 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 1229
“the fact that the parties are different cuts against an argument for substantial overlap.” Jones, 2013 WL 3245957, at *4. B. Claims
Although the first-to-file rule also does not require the issues to completely overlap, “the cases should be more than merely related to support a motion to transfer when venue is otherwise appropriate.” Buckalew v. Celanese, Ltd., CIV. A. No. G-05-315, 2005 WL 2266619, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2005). The instant suit and David are related to the extent that all of the claims asserted in this suit are also asserted by the different David Plaintiffs. However, there is not substantial overlap among the claims in both suits. As the District Court established in its opinion denying the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification in David, each of the Plaintiffs’ claims require individualized proof as it pertains to that particular Plaintiff. David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, Civ. A. No. 08-1220, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247, at *129 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2012). Thus, not only are each of the individual plaintiffs’ forced labor, trafficking, RICO and civil rights claims different from one another in this suit, as explained below, they are entirely different from their pending FLSA claims in David. Therefore, the issues presented by the Plaintiffs here cannot be resolved in the David suit. W. Gulf Mar. Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, S. Atl. & Gulf Coast Dist. of ILA, AFL-CIO, 751 F.2d 721, 729 (5th Cir. 1985) (“. . . a district court may dismiss an action where the issues presented can be resolved in an earlier-filed action pending in another district court.”).
Page 6 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 56 Filed 07/16/14 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 1230
1. Forced Labor and Trafficking The success of each Plaintiff’s forced labor and trafficking claims is dependent on individualized factors. The question in a forced labor case is “whether Defendants’ coercive conduct was such that it could overcome the will of the victim so as to make him render his labor involuntary.” David, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247 at 77. “This question cannot be answered via generalized class-wide proof but rather must be answered individually based upon individualized proof.” Id. Similarly, with trafficking, “individual issues will play a significant part” because involuntary servitude is an essential element of the claim. Id. at 80-81. 2. RICO Claims The success of each Plaintiff’s RICO claim is also based on each individual’s experience because the Plaintiff will be “required to prove that the [Defendants] committed the predicate acts upon which they rely for the pattern of racketeering activity.” Id. at 92. As stated above, proof of the predicate acts of trafficking and forced labor are “all premised on coercion” and “cannot be made without resort to individualized proof.” Id. Additionally, in order to prove the fraud-based predicate acts, each Plaintiff will “have to prove first-party reliance on the alleged fraud that was directed at them,” because “the question of individual reliance [is] paramount to resolving whether Plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by a RICO violation.” Id. at 105-06. 3. Civil Rights Claims The Plaintiffs are suing the Signal Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for violating their rights to “enjoy and benefit from non-discriminatory employment relationships” with the Signal Defendants. (Doc. No. 39, p. 62.) In order to obtain compensatory damages under this claim, as
Page 7 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 56 Filed 07/16/14 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 1231
sought by the Plaintiffs, each “Plaintiff must prove actual injury to himself and that injury must be attributable to (caused by) the Defendant’s disparate treatment.” David, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247, at *119. For this reason, the outcome of each Plaintiff’s case will vary based on their individualized experience.
4. Violations of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 The Plaintiffs allege that the Burnett Defendants violated the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1971 by violating their right to be free from “forced labor, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons.” (Doc. No. 39, p. 64.) Forced labor, involuntary servitude, and trafficking all include an element of coercion, which requires an individualized analysis of each Plaintiff’s situation, as stated above. David, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247, at *128. As one can easily discern, none of the above causes of action involve substantially similar issues to the Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims pending in David, which include claims of violating the federally mandated minimum wage laws. The proof required for the FLSA claims and the remedies sought are distinct from the proof and remedies at issue in the instant matter. Given that there is not a substantial overlap of the claims between the David litigation and this case, and with the exception of the Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims in David, none of the Plaintiffs in the instant suit and David overlap, the court’s denial of the Burnett Defendants’ motion to transfer will not result in “piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.” Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997).
Page 8 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 56 Filed 07/16/14 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 1232 V. Conclusion
The court finds that the instant suit does not substantially overlap with the first-filed suit, David. Accordingly, the Signal Defendants’ “Motion for Stay Pendente Lite and for Transfer Pursuant to First Filed Rule” (Doc. No. 14), and the Burnett Defendants’ “Motion to Transfer Venue and Memorandum in Support” (Doc. No. 31) are DENIED. As discussed previously, these same motions filed in related cases—Marimuthu et. al v. Signal International L.L.C. et al., 1:13-cv-499 (Doc. Nos. 23, 36); Meganathan et al. v. Signal International L.L.C. et al., 1:13-cv-497 (Doc. Nos. 17, 12)—are also DENIED for the same reasons.
SIGNED this 16th day of July, 2014.
_________________________ Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge
Page 9 of 9

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 131 Filed 04/03/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 3784

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION

SRINIVASA RAO KAMBALA, et al.
Plaintiffs. v.
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, et al.
Defendants.

§ § § § Case No. 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH § § § §

PLAINTIFFS’ STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs hereby file this Status Report as of April 3, 2017. As noted in Plaintiffs’ and the Signal Entities’ prior notices [Dkt. No. 126, 127, 128], the Signal Entities filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code on July 12, 2015. In re Signal Int’l, Inc, et al., No. 15-11498 (Bankr. D. Del. July 12, 2015) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”).1 On November 24, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Confirming Debtors’ First Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code [ECF No. 555] (the “Confirmation Order”), confirming the Signal Entities’ plan of liquidation, which implemented the plan support agreement among the Plaintiffs, the Signal Entities and certain other parties, for the settlement of, inter alia, the Plaintiffs’ claims against the relevant Signal Entities. Pursuant to the Plan, a litigation trust (the “Signal Litigation Trust”) has been created for the distribution of the settlement proceeds. That process remains ongoing, as the Signal Litigation Trust distributed Trust Claim Forms in February and the Plaintiffs have 60 days from the distribution date to submit their claim forms, which deadline was subsequently extended through June 15, 2016.

1 The other entities are: Signal Ship Repair, LLC (Case No. 15-11499), Signal Int’l, LLC (Case No. 15-11500), Signal Int’l Texas GP, LLC (Case No. 15-11501), and Signal Int’l Texas, L.P. (Case No. 15-11502). By the Bankruptcy Court’s order, all five cases are being jointly administered with the Signal Int’l, Inc. case. In re Signal Int’l, Inc., No. 15-11498 (Bankr. D. Del. July 14, 2015), ECF No. 55.

Status Report

1

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 131 Filed 04/03/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 3785
The Plan became effective on December 14, 2015 [Bankr. Dkt. No. 589]. As of that date, pursuant to the Confirmation Order, “any suit, legal action, or other proceeding … in any forum in the United States that is released, stayed, or enjoined pursuant to Article XI of the Plan against or affecting any Released Party [the Signal Entities], shall be stayed, enjoined or otherwise prohibited from continuation as to any Released Party.” (Confirmation Order at 25.)
With respect to the claims against the Burnett Defendants, twenty of the twenty-one Plaintiffs have reached a settlement with the Burnett Defendants. The Burnett Defendants have satisfied their obligations under the agreement and the twenty participating Plaintiffs will agree to the dismissal of claims against the Burnett Defendants.
The one Plaintiff that is not participating in the settlement with the Burnett Defendants is Srinivasa Reddy Dalli. Plaintiffs’ counsel has been unable to locate Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli to obtain his consent to settle. In the related cases against Signal International, LLC consolidated in the Eastern District of Louisiana under the case number 2:14-cv-02811-SM-DEK, Samuel, et al. v. Signal Int’l, LLC, et al., Judge Morgan of the Eastern District of Louisiana entered an order requiring Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli to communicate with counsel within sixty days of the August 5, 2016 order. Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli did not communicate with counsel and Judge Morgan entered a judgment dismissing with prejudice all pending claims Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli had against the Dewan Defendants. See Order with exhibits (Dkt. #263, 2:14-cv-02811-SM-DEK, Aug. 5, 2016), attached as Exhibit A; and Judgment (Dkt. #266, 2:14-cv-02811-SM-DEK, Dec. 29, 2016), attached to this Status Report as Exhibit B.
In light of the status of Signal’s Bankruptcy and the settlement with the Burnett Defendants, the undersigned parties respectfully request that the stay remain in effect as to the Signal Defendants and Dewan Defendants, and the Plaintiffs request a telephonic status conference with the Court concerning the dismissal of claims against the Burnett Defendants.
Respectfully submitted, this 3rd day of April, 2017.

Status Report

2

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 131 Filed 04/03/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 3786
/s/ Christopher J. Willett Christopher J. Willett Texas Bar No. 24061895 cwillett@equaljusticenter.org
EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER and TRANSNATIONAL WORKER RIGHTS CLINIC 510 S. Congress Ave., Suite 206 Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (512) 474-0007, ext. 107 Facsimile: (512) 474-0008
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 3, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Status Report with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to all ECF participants.
/s/ Christopher J. Willett Christopher J. Willett Texas State Bar No. 24061895 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Status Report

3

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 132 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 3797

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION

SRINIVASA RAO KAMBALA, et al.
Plaintiffs. v.
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, et al.
Defendants.

§ § § § Case No. 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH § § § §

STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs, Sachin Dewan, Malvern Burnett, in accordance with the Court’s Order Staying Case Pursuant to Bankruptcy [Dkt. No. 124] requiring the parties to file a notice every 120 days informing the Court of the status of the Signal bankruptcy proceedings, hereby file this Status Report as of November 6, 2017. As noted in Plaintiffs’ and the Signal Entities’ prior notices [Dkt. No. 126, 127, 128], the Signal Entities filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code on July 12, 2015. In re Signal Int’l, Inc, et al., No. 15-11498 (Bankr. D. Del. July 12, 2015) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”).1 On November 24, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Confirming Debtors’ First Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code [ECF No. 555] (the “Confirmation Order”), confirming the Signal Entities’ plan of liquidation, which implemented the plan support agreement among the Plaintiffs, the Signal Entities and certain other parties, for the settlement of, inter alia, the Plaintiffs’ claims against the relevant Signal Entities. Pursuant to the Plan, a litigation trust (the “Signal Litigation Trust”) has been created for the distribution of the settlement proceeds. That process

1 The other entities are: Signal Ship Repair, LLC (Case No. 15-11499), Signal Int’l, LLC (Case No. 15-11500), Signal Int’l Texas GP, LLC (Case No. 15-11501), and Signal Int’l Texas, L.P. (Case No. 15-11502). By the Bankruptcy Court’s order, all five cases are being jointly administered with the Signal Int’l, Inc. case. In re Signal Int’l, Inc., No. 15-11498 (Bankr. D. Del. July 14, 2015), ECF No. 55.

Status Report

1

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 132 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 3798

remains ongoing, as the Signal Litigation Trust distributed Trust Claim Forms in February and the Plaintiffs have 60 days from the distribution date to submit their claim forms, which deadline was subsequently extended through June 15, 2016.
The Plan became effective on December 14, 2015 [Bankr. Dkt. No. 589]. As of that date, pursuant to the Confirmation Order, “any suit, legal action, or other proceeding … in any forum in the United States that is released, stayed, or enjoined pursuant to Article XI of the Plan against or affecting any Released Party [the Signal Entities], shall be stayed, enjoined or otherwise prohibited from continuation as to any Released Party.” (Confirmation Order at 25.)
With respect to the claims against the Burnett Defendants, twenty of the twenty-one Plaintiffs have reached a settlement with the Burnett Defendants. The Burnett Defendants have satisfied their obligations under the agreement and the twenty participating Plaintiffs will agree to the dismissal of claims against the Burnett Defendants.
The one Plaintiff that is not participating in the settlement with the Burnett Defendants is Srinivasa Reddy Dalli. Plaintiffs’ counsel has been unable to locate Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli to obtain his consent to settle. In the related cases against Signal International, LLC consolidated in the Eastern District of Louisiana under the case number 2:14-cv-02811-SM-DEK, Samuel, et al. v. Signal Int’l, LLC, et al., Judge Morgan of the Eastern District of Louisiana entered an order requiring Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli to communicate with counsel within sixty days of the August 5, 2016 order. Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli did not communicate with counsel and Judge Morgan entered a judgment dismissing with prejudice all pending claims Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli had against the Dewan Defendants. See Plaintiffs’ Status Report [Dkt. No. 131]. Plaintiffs will file a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli.
In light of the status of Signal’s Bankruptcy and the settlement with the Burnett Defendants, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the stay remain in effect as to the Signal Defendants and Dewan Defendants.

Status Report

2

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 132 Filed 11/06/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 3799
Respectfully submitted, this 6th day of November, 2017.

/s/ Christopher J. Willett Christopher J. Willett Texas Bar No. 24061895 cwillett@equaljusticenter.org Kayvon Sabourian Texas Bar No. 24076824 (pro hac vice)
EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER and TRANSNATIONAL WORKER RIGHTS CLINIC
510 S. Congress Ave., Suite 206 Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (512) 474-0007, ext. 107 Facsimile: (512) 474-0008

/s/ Timothy W. Cerniglia (w/exp. permission) Timothy W. Cerniglia (Tex. Bar 00789930)
TIMOTHY W. CERNIGLIA, PLC 1521 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: (504) 586-0555 Facsimile: (504) 586-0550 tcerniglia@cerniglialaw.pro
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS MALVERN C. BURNETT, THE LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C. BURNETT, A.P.C., and THE GULF COAST IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER, LLC
/s/ Stephen H. Shapiro (w/exp. permission) Stephen H. Shapiro (#21076)
ATTORNEY AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 700 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: (504) 309-8442 Facsimile: (504) 934-2000 steve@shapirolaw-nola.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS SACHIN DEWAN and DEWAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.

Status Report

3

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 132 Filed 11/06/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 3800
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that on November 6, 2017, I conferred with opposing counsel for all Defendants concerning the filing of this Status Report. Counsel for the Burnett and Dewan Defendants joined this status report. Plaintiffs reached out to counsel for Signal and related entities, but did not receive a response.
/s/ Christopher J. Willett Christopher J. Willett Texas State Bar No. 24061895 Attorney for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 6, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Status Report with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to all ECF participants.
/s/ Christopher J. Willett Christopher J. Willett Texas State Bar No. 24061895 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Status Report

4

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 138 Filed 08/24/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 3820

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION

SRINIVASA RAO KAMBALA, et al.

Plaintiffs, vs.

NO. 1:13-CV-00498-RC

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, et al.

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING PLAINTIFF DALLI This case is assigned to the Honorable Ron Clark, United States District Judge, and is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. Doc. No. 2. On July 5, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the court that they have been “unable to contact Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli over the course of the last year and several months,” despite numerous attempts. See Doc. No. 134, at 1. Because of the inability to contact Mr. Dalli, Plaintiffs’ counsel has filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli.” Id. On July 17, 2018, the court entered an order requiring Mr. Dalli to notify the court within thirty days whether or not he consents to the motion to withdraw. Doc. No. 136, at 1. Mr. Dalli was warned that failure to inform the court within thirty days will result in dismissal of his claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel was directed to serve the order on Mr. Dalli at his last known email and mailing addresses (id. at 2), and they did so on July 20, 2018. See Doc. No. 137. Because Mr. Dalli has not responded to the court’s order, his claims should be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b), for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order.

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 138 Filed 08/24/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 3821
I. Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with a court order. Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985). “This authority flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Id. (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)). The exercise of this power is committed to the sound discretion of the court. Forney Engineering Co., 589 F.2d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 1979).
II. Analysis By failing to communicate with his counsel over the course of one year and several months (see Doc. No. 134, at 1), Mr. Dalli has failed to prosecute his case. By failing to respond to the court’s order (Doc. No. 136) requiring Mr. Dalli to notify the court of his position on the motion to withdraw, he has failed to comply with a court order. Mr. Dalli was warned that his claims would be dismissed without prejudice if he did not notify the court within thirty days.
III. Recommendation The undersigned recommends that Mr. Dalli’s claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IV. Order It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel shall mail this Report to Mr. Dalli at his last known address and email it to his last known email address within seven (7) days of this order. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file a notice with the court when they have completed this task.
V. Objections Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (Supp. IV 2011), each party to this action has the right to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Objections to this Report must (1) be
2 of 3

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 138 Filed 08/24/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 3822
in writing, (2) specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, (3) be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report; and (4) be no more than eight pages in length. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Tex. Civ. R. CV-72(c). A party who objects to this Report is entitled to a de novo determination by the United States District Judge of those proposed findings and recommendations to which a specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in this Report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of this Report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States District Judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276– 77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996).
SIGNED this 24th day of August, 2018.
_________________________ Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge
3 of 3

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 133 Filed 03/06/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 3801

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION

SRINIVASA RAO KAMBALA, et al.
Plaintiffs. v.
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, et al.
Defendants.

§ § § § Case No. 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH § § § §

STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs, Sachin Dewan, Malvern Burnett, in accordance with the Court’s Order Staying Case Pursuant to Bankruptcy [Dkt. No. 124] requiring the parties to file a notice every 120 days informing the Court of the status of the Signal bankruptcy proceedings, hereby file this Status Report as of March 6, 2018. As noted in Plaintiffs’ and the Signal Entities’ prior notices [Dkt. No. 126, 127, 128], the Signal Entities filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code on July 12, 2015. In re Signal Int’l, Inc, et al., No. 15-11498 (Bankr. D. Del. July 12, 2015) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”).1 On November 24, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Confirming Debtors’ First Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code [ECF No. 555] (the “Confirmation Order”), confirming the Signal Entities’ plan of liquidation, which implemented the plan support agreement among the Plaintiffs, the Signal Entities and certain other parties, for the settlement of, inter alia, the Plaintiffs’ claims against the relevant Signal Entities. Pursuant to the Plan, a litigation trust (the “Signal Litigation Trust”) has been created for the distribution of the settlement proceeds. That process remains ongoing, as the Signal Litigation Trust distributed Trust Claim Forms in February and the Plaintiffs

1 The other entities are: Signal Ship Repair, LLC (Case No. 15-11499), Signal Int’l, LLC (Case No. 15-11500), Signal Int’l Texas GP, LLC (Case No. 15-11501), and Signal Int’l Texas, L.P. (Case No. 15-11502). By the Bankruptcy Court’s order, all five cases are being jointly administered with the Signal Int’l, Inc. case. In re Signal Int’l, Inc., No. 15-11498 (Bankr. D. Del. July 14, 2015), ECF No. 55.

Status Report

1

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 133 Filed 03/06/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 3802

have 60 days from the distribution date to submit their claim forms, which deadline was subsequently extended through June 15, 2016.
The Plan became effective on December 14, 2015 [Bankr. Dkt. No. 589]. As of that date, pursuant to the Confirmation Order, “any suit, legal action, or other proceeding … in any forum in the United States that is released, stayed, or enjoined pursuant to Article XI of the Plan against or affecting any Released Party [the Signal Entities], shall be stayed, enjoined or otherwise prohibited from continuation as to any Released Party.” (Confirmation Order at 25.)
With respect to the claims against the Burnett Defendants, twenty of the twenty-one Plaintiffs have reached a settlement with the Burnett Defendants. The Burnett Defendants have satisfied their obligations under the agreement and the twenty participating Plaintiffs will agree to the dismissal of claims against the Burnett Defendants.
The one Plaintiff that is not participating in the settlement with the Burnett Defendants is Srinivasa Reddy Dalli. Plaintiffs’ counsel has been unable to locate Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli to obtain his consent to settle. In the related cases against Signal International, LLC consolidated in the Eastern District of Louisiana under the case number 2:14-cv-02811-SM-DEK, Samuel, et al. v. Signal Int’l, LLC, et al., Judge Morgan of the Eastern District of Louisiana entered an order requiring Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli to communicate with counsel within sixty days of the August 5, 2016 order. Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli did not communicate with counsel and Judge Morgan entered a judgment dismissing with prejudice all pending claims Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli had against the Dewan Defendants. See Plaintiffs’ Status Report [Dkt. No. 131]. Plaintiffs will file a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli.
In light of the status of Signal’s Bankruptcy and the settlement with the Burnett Defendants, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the stay remain in effect as to the Signal Defendants and Dewan Defendants.

Respectfully submitted, this 6th day of March, 2018.

Status Report

2

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 133 Filed 03/06/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 3803

/s/ Christopher J. Willett Christopher J. Willett Texas Bar No. 24061895 cwillett@equaljusticenter.org Kayvon Sabourian Texas Bar No. 24076824 (pro hac vice)
EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER and TRANSNATIONAL WORKER RIGHTS CLINIC
510 S. Congress Ave., Suite 206 Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (512) 474-0007, ext. 107 Facsimile: (512) 474-0008

/s/ Timothy W. Cerniglia (w/exp. permission) Timothy W. Cerniglia (Tex. Bar 00789930)
TIMOTHY W. CERNIGLIA, PLC 1521 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: (504) 586-0555 Facsimile: (504) 586-0550 tcerniglia@cerniglialaw.pro
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS MALVERN C. BURNETT, THE LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C. BURNETT, A.P.C., and THE GULF COAST IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER, LLC
/s/ Stephen H. Shapiro (w/exp. permission) Stephen H. Shapiro (#21076)
ATTORNEY AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 700 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: (504) 309-8442 Facsimile: (504) 934-2000 steve@shapirolaw-nola.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS SACHIN DEWAN and DEWAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.

Status Report

3

Case 1:13-cv-00498-RC-ZJH Document 133 Filed 03/06/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 3804
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that on March 6, 2018, I conferred with opposing counsel for all Defendants concerning the filing of this Status Report. Counsel for the Burnett and Dewan Defendants joined this status report. Plaintiffs reached out to counsel for Signal and related entities, but did not receive a response.
/s/ Christopher J. Willett Christopher J. Willett Texas State Bar No. 24061895 Attorney for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 6, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing Status Report with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to all ECF participants.
/s/ Christopher J. Willett Christopher J. Willett Texas State Bar No. 24061895 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Status Report

4

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 1 of 23
CASREF,JURY,PROTECTIVE−ORDER,STAYED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Beaumont) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−00498−RC−ZJH

Kambala et al v. Signal International LLC et al Assigned to: Judge Ron Clark Referred to: Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn Demand: $75,000 Related Cases: 1:13−cv−00323−MAC−ZJH
1:13−cv−00324−RC−ZJH Cause: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff
Srinivasa Rao Kambala

Date Filed: 08/07/2013 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Kayvon Sabourian Equal Justice Center, Inc. 510 South Congress Ave Ste 206 Austin, TX 78704 512−474−0007 Fax: 512−474−0008 Email: ksabourian@equaljusticecenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Joseph Willett Equal Justice Center − Austin 510 South Congress Ave Ste 206 Austin, TX 78704 512−474−0007 Fax: 512−474−0008 Email: cwillett@equaljusticecenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Srinivasa Rao Gonna

represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Amandeep Singh Kang

represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Saravanan Arunachalam

represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 2 of 23

Plaintiff Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rama
Plaintiff Antony Antony Valilyaparambil
Plaintiff Harbans Singh
Plaintiff Annadurai Ruthirapathi
Plaintiff Ponniah Muthu Kumar
Plaintiff Mahendran Periyasamy
Plaintiff Malkiah Paul

represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Joseph Willett

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 3 of 23

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Harvinder Singh

represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Pradeep Kumar

represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Abdullah Keepurath Maideen

represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Francis Sequira

represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Unnikrishna Pillai Balakrishna Pillai

represented by Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff All Plaintiffs

represented by Christopher Joseph Willett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kayvon Sabourian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 4 of 23

Signal International LLC

represented by Erin Casey Hangartner Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 (504) 522−5690 Fax: (504) 522−5689 Email: ehangartner@hanrylaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Dean Weinberger Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504.522.5690 Email: aweinberger@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Christopher Roux Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504.522.5690 Fax: 504.522.5689 Email: broux@hanrylaw.com TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elham R Rabbani Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 (504) 522−5690 Fax: (504) 522−5689 Email: erabbani@hanrylaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D Ungar Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 (504) 522−5690 Fax: (504) 522−5689 Email: hungar@hanrylaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L Cornblatt Patricia A Bollman, APLC 3636 S Interstate 10 Service Rd W Metarie, LA 70001 504.218.5887 Email: jcornblatt25@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Marc Herman Herman Law Firm 1601 Elm Street

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 5 of 23
Suite 2002 Dallas, TX 75201 214−624−9805 Fax: 469−383−3469 Email: jherman@herman−lawfirm.com TERMINATED: 04/04/2014
Kevin Patrick Maney Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504.522.5690 Fax: 504.522.5689 Email: kmaney@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance R Rydberg Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504.522.5690 Fax: 504.522.5689 Email: lrydberg@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Masur Davis Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504.522.5690 Fax: 504.522.5689 Email: lmasur@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P Hasenkampf Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504.522.5690 Fax: 504.522.5689 Email: mhasenkampf@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Bollman Patricia A Bollman, APLC PO Box 13707 New Orleans, LA 70185 504.218.5887 Fax: 504.304.0890 Email: patricia@bollmanfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert L Keller , II Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504.522.5690 Fax: 504.522.5689 Email: rkeller@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 6 of 23

Defendant Signal International, Inc.
Defendant Signal International Texas, G.P.

represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Christopher Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hal D Ungar (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James L Cornblatt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014
Kevin Patrick Maney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance R Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Masur Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert L Keller , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 7 of 23

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Christopher Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D Ungar (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L Cornblatt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin Patrick Maney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance R Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren Masur Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell P Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert L Keller , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Signal International Texas, L.P.

represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address)

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 8 of 23

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Christopher Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D Ungar (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L Cornblatt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014

Kevin Patrick Maney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance R Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren Masur Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell P Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert L Keller , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Malvern C. Burnett

represented by Timothy W Cerniglia Timothy W. Cerniglia, PLC 1521 St Charles Ave New Orleans, LA 70130 504−586−0555 Fax: 504−586−0550 Email: tcerniglia@cerniglialaw.pro LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.

represented by Timothy W Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 9 of 23

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C.

represented by Timothy W Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Global Resources, Inc.

Defendant Michael Pol

Defendant
Dewan Consultants PVT. LTD. also known as Medtech Consultants

represented by Stephen H Shapiro Stephen H Shapiro, Attorney at Law, LLC 700 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 504.309.8442 Fax: 504.934.2000 Email: steve@shapirolaw−nola.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Sachin Dewan

represented by Stephen H Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Indo−Ameri Soft, L.L.C.

Defendant Kurella Rao

Defendant J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc.

Defendant Billy R. Wilks

Defendant J & M Marine & Industrial, LLC

Cross Claimant Signal International LLC

represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Christopher Roux

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 10 of 23

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D Ungar (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014

Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant Signal International, Inc.

represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Christopher Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D Ungar (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014

Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant Signal International Texas, L.P.

represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Dean Weinberger

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 11 of 23

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Christopher Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D Ungar (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014

Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant Signal International Texas, G.P.

represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Christopher Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D Ungar (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 12 of 23

Cross Defendant
Sachin Dewan TERMINATED: 06/17/2015

Cross Defendant
Dewan Consultants PVT. LTD. TERMINATED: 06/17/2015

Cross Defendant
Global Resources, Inc. TERMINATED: 06/17/2015

Cross Defendant
Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. TERMINATED: 06/17/2015

represented by Timothy W Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Defendant Indo−Ameri Soft, L.L.C.

Cross Defendant J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc.

Cross Defendant J & M Marine & Industrial, LLC

Cross Defendant
Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. TERMINATED: 06/17/2015

represented by Timothy W Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Defendant
Malvern C. Burnett TERMINATED: 06/17/2015

represented by Timothy W Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Defendant Kurella Rao

Cross Defendant Billy R. Wilks

Date Filed 08/07/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0540−4255246.), filed by Malkiah Paul, Harbans Singh, Srinivasa Rao Gonna, Srinivasa Rao Kambala, Unnikrishna Pillai Balakrishna Pillai, Pradeep Kumar, Antony Antony Valilyaparambil, Amandeep Singh Kang, Ponniah Muthu Kumar, Harvinder Singh, Abdullah Keepurath Maideen, Francis Sequira, Annadurai Ruthirapathi, Saravanan Arunachalam, Mahendran Periyasamy, Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rama. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit RICO Fraud Chart, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 08/07/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 13 of 23

08/07/2013 08/08/2013
08/12/2013 08/13/2013
08/13/2013
09/19/2013 10/03/2013
10/23/2013 11/06/2013 11/08/2013 11/08/2013 11/08/2013 11/08/2013

Case assigned to Judge Ron Clark. (pkb, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 USC Section 636(c), you are hereby notified that a U.S. Magistrate Judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or non−jury trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. The form Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge is available on our website. All signed consent forms, excluding pro se parties, should be filed electronically using the event Notice of Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge. (pkb, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
2 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn for all pretrial proceedings. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 8/9/13. (tkd, ) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
3 SUMMONS Issued and emailed to attorney Christopher Willett for service in case as to Dewan Consultants PVT. LTD., Global Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Indo−Ameri Soft, L.L.C., J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc., J & M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P. and Billy R. Wilks. (Attachments: # 1 Summons(es), # 2 Summons(es), # 3 Summons(es), # 4 Summons(es), # 5 Summons(es), # 6 Summons(es), # 7 Summons(es))(pkb, ) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
4 SUMMONS Issued and emailed to attorney Christopher Willett for service in case as to Sachin Dewan, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett, Michael Pol, Kurella Rao, Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Summons(es), # 2 Summons(es), # 3 Summons(es), # 4 Summons(es), # 5 Summons(es), # 6 Summons(es), # 7 Summons(es))(pkb, ) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
5 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Kayvon Sabourian on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4322831. (Sabourian, Kayvon) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
6 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT. LTD., Global Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Indo−Ameri Soft, L.L.C., J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc., J & M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett, Kurella Rao, Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc., Billy R. Wilks, filed by Malkiah Paul, Harbans Singh, Srinivasa Rao Gonna, Srinivasa Rao Kambala, Unnikrishna Pillai Balakrishna Pillai, Pradeep Kumar, Amandeep Singh Kang, Ponniah Muthu Kumar, Harvinder Singh, Abdullah Keepurath Maideen, Francis Sequira, Annadurai Ruthirapathi, Saravanan Arunachalam, Mahendran Periyasamy, Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rama. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit RICO Fraud Chart)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
7 SUMMONS Issued as to Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT. LTD and mailed via USPS to attorney Christopher Willett to perfect service. (Attachments: # 1 Summons(es))(pkb, ) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint and 6 Amended Complaint by Billy R. Wilks. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope(s))(pkb, ) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
9 WAIVERS OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Srinivasa Rao Kambala. Signal International LLC; Signal International Texas, G.P.; Signal International Texas, L.P. and Signal International, Inc. waivers sent on 10/7/2013, answers due 12/6/2013. (tkd, ) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Srinivasa Rao Kambala. Indo−Ameri Soft, L.L.C. and Kurella Rao (located in Belize) waivers sent on 10/16/2013, answers due 1/14/2014. (tkd, ) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
11 ORDER granting 8 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Wilks has until December 8, 2013, to file an answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 11/8/2013. (bjc) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Billy R. Wilks answer due 12/8/2013. (bjc) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 14 of 23

11/12/2013 11/12/2013 12/05/2013 12/05/2013
12/05/2013 12/12/2013 12/12/2013 12/18/2013 12/23/2013
12/23/2013
12/31/2013 01/02/2014 01/03/2014

12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Srinivasa Rao Kambala. Billy Wilks served on 10/27/13. (tkd, ) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Srinivasa Rao Kambala. J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc. and J & M Marine & Industrial, LLC served on 10/27/2013, answers due 11/18/2013. (tkd, ) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
14 MOTION for Stay Pendente Lite and for Transfer Pursuant to First−Filed Rule by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Text of Proposed Order, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Herman, Jonathan) Modified on 12/6/2013 (tkd, ). (Entered: 12/05/2013)
15 MOTION Extension of Time for Service of Defendants by Saravanan Arunachalam, Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rama, Srinivasa Rao Gonna, Srinivasa Rao Kambala, Amandeep Singh Kang, Ponniah Muthu Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, Abdullah Keepurath Maideen, Malkiah Paul, Mahendran Periyasamy, Annadurai Ruthirapathi, Francis Sequira, Harbans Singh, Harvinder Singh, Antony Antony Valilyaparambil. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 12/05/2013)
16 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Herman, Jonathan) Modified on 12/6/2013 (tkd, ). (Entered: 12/05/2013)
17 ADVISORY to the Parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 12/11/13. (tkd, ) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
18 ORDER to Conduct Rule 26(f) Conference by 12/20/13 and file a joint report by 1/3/14. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 12/11/13. (tkd, ) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
19 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Erin Casey Hangartner on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4449171. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/18/2013)
20 RESPONSE in Opposition re 16 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) filed by Saravanan Arunachalam, Unnikrishna Pillai Balakrishna Pillai, Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rama, Srinivasa Rao Gonna, Srinivasa Rao Kambala, Amandeep Singh Kang, Ponniah Muthu Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, Abdullah Keepurath Maideen, Malkiah Paul, Mahendran Periyasamy, Annadurai Ruthirapathi, Francis Sequira, Harbans Singh, Harvinder Singh, Antony Antony Valilyaparambil. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/26/2013: # 2 Revised Proposed Order) (tkd, ). (Entered: 12/23/2013)
21 RESPONSE in Opposition re 14 MOTION for Stay Pendent Lite and for Transfer Pursuant to First−Filed Rule filed by Saravanan Arunachalam, Unnikrishna Pillai Balakrishna Pillai, Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rama, Srinivasa Rao Gonna, Srinivasa Rao Kambala, Amandeep Singh Kang, Ponniah Muthu Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, Abdullah Keepurath Maideen, Malkiah Paul, Mahendran Periyasamy, Annadurai Ruthirapathi, Francis Sequira, Harbans Singh, Harvinder Singh, Antony Antony Valilyaparambil. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H−2B Application (TWC), # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/26/2013: # 3 Revised Proposed Order) (tkd, ). (Entered: 12/23/2013)
22 RESPONSE in Support re 14 MOTION for Stay Pendent Lite and for Transfer Pursuant to First−Filed Rule filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/31/2013)
23 NOTICE of Change of Address by Erin Casey Hangartner (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
24 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by All Plaintiffs and Signal Defendants. (Willett, Christopher) Modified on 1/6/2014 (bjc, ). (Entered: 01/03/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 15 of 23

01/06/2014 01/08/2014 01/09/2014 01/10/2014
01/22/2014 01/30/2014 02/13/2014 02/18/2014 02/27/2014 03/21/2014 03/21/2014 03/21/2014 03/21/2014 04/03/2014 04/04/2014 04/07/2014

NOTICE of Hearing: Scheduling Conference set for 1/28/2014 10:00 AM in Ctrm 4 (Beaumont) before Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn. (ttp, ) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
25 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 1/8/2014. (bjc) (Entered: 01/08/2014)
ORAL ORDER granting 15 Motion for Extension of Time for Service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 1/9/14. (zjh1) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
26 NOTICE of Discovery Disclosure by Saravanan Arunachalam, Unnikrishna Pillai Balakrishna Pillai, Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rama, Srinivasa Rao Gonna, Srinivasa Rao Kambala, Amandeep Singh Kang, Ponniah Muthu Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, Abdullah Keepurath Maideen, Malkiah Paul, Mahendran Periyasamy, Annadurai Ruthirapathi, Francis Sequira, Harbans Singh, Harvinder Singh, Antony Antony Valilyaparambil Pursuant to Local Rule CV−26(c) (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
27 SUMMONSES Issued as to Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT. LTD., Global Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett and emailed to plf's attorney for service. (tkd, ) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 2/13/2014 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn. (ttp, ) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
28 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn: Scheduling Conference held on 2/13/2014. DCR OP: Piper, T. (ttp, ) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
29 SCHEDULING ORDER setting various deadlines. Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/3/2015 at 9:00 AM and Jury Selection/Trial set for 12/7/2015 at 9:00 AM − all to be held in Ctrm 2 (Beaumont) before Judge Ron Clark. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 2/18/14. (tkd, ) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
30 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Srinivasa Rao Kambala. Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett waiver sent on 1/23/2014; answers due 3/24/2014. (tkd, ) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
31 MOTION to Transfer Venue by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett. (Attachments: # 1 La Complaint − David v signal, # 2 Order − Achari v Signal, # 3 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified on 3/24/2014 (tkd, ). (Entered: 03/21/2014)
32 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affidavit of Burnett, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 03/21/2014)
33 MOTION to Dismiss by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 03/21/2014)
34 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Srinivasa Rao Kambala. Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants PVT. LTD. waivers sent on 2/19/2014, answers due 4/21/2014. (tkd, ) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
35 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Jonathan M. Herman and Middleberg Riddle Group by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Herman, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
ORAL ORDER granting 35 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jonathan Marc Herman terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 4/4/14. (zjh1) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
36 RESPONSE in Opposition re 32 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Saravanan Arunachalam, Unnikrishna Pillai Balakrishna Pillai, Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rama, Srinivasa Rao Gonna, Srinivasa Rao Kambala, Amandeep Singh

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 16 of 23

04/07/2014
04/07/2014
04/11/2014
04/22/2014 04/25/2014 04/29/2014 04/29/2014 05/01/2014 05/09/2014 05/09/2014 05/09/2014

Kang, Ponniah Muthu Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, Abdullah Keepurath Maideen, Malkiah Paul, Mahendran Periyasamy, Annadurai Ruthirapathi, Francis Sequira, Harbans Singh, Harvinder Singh, Antony Antony Valilyaparambil. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Willett Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
37 RESPONSE in Opposition re 33 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Saravanan Arunachalam, Unnikrishna Pillai Balakrishna Pillai, Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rama, Srinivasa Rao Gonna, Srinivasa Rao Kambala, Amandeep Singh Kang, Ponniah Muthu Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, Abdullah Keepurath Maideen, Malkiah Paul, Mahendran Periyasamy, Annadurai Ruthirapathi, Francis Sequira, Harbans Singh, Harvinder Singh, Antony Antony Valilyaparambil. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
38 RESPONSE in Opposition re 31 MOTION to Transfer Venue filed by Saravanan Arunachalam, Unnikrishna Pillai Balakrishna Pillai, Chandra Sekhar Dwadasi Rama, Srinivasa Rao Gonna, Srinivasa Rao Kambala, Amandeep Singh Kang, Ponniah Muthu Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, Abdullah Keepurath Maideen, Malkiah Paul, Mahendran Periyasamy, Annadurai Ruthirapathi, Francis Sequira, Harbans Singh, Harvinder Singh, Antony Antony Valilyaparambil. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
39 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT. LTD., Global Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Indo−Ameri Soft, L.L.C., J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc., J & M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett, Kurella Rao, Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc., Billy R. Wilks, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit RICO Fraud Chart)(Willett, Christopher) Modified on 4/14/2014 (tkd, ). (Entered: 04/11/2014)
40 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Brian Christopher Roux on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4624098. (Roux, Brian) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
41 ORDER denying as moot and without prejudice 16 , 32 and 33 Motions to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 4/25/14. (tkd, ) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
42 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 39 Amended Complaint by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 4/30/2014 (tkd, ). (Entered: 04/29/2014)
43 MOTION to Reassert Motions to Dismiss by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified on 4/30/2014 (tkd, ). (Entered: 04/29/2014)
ORAL ORDER granting 42 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 5/1/14. (zjh1) (Entered: 05/01/2014)
44 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Alan Dean Weinberger on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4652432. (Weinberger, Alan) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
45 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Patricia Bollman on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4652449. (Bollman, Patricia) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
46 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Hal D Ungar on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4652471. (Ungar, Hal) (Entered: 05/09/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 17 of 23

05/09/2014 05/13/2014 05/16/2014
05/30/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/12/2014 06/18/2014
06/19/2014 07/11/2014 07/15/2014 07/16/2014 07/17/2014 07/29/2014 07/31/2014 08/13/2014

47 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Elham R Rabbani on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4652499. (Rabbani, Elham) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
48 RESPONSE to Motion re 43 MOTION to Reassert Motions to Dismiss by Burnett Defendants filed by All Plaintiffs. (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
49 ANSWER to 39 Amended Complaint and CROSSCLAIM against Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT. LTD., Global Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Indo−Ameri Soft, L.L.C., J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc., J & M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett, Kurella Rao, Billy R. Wilks by Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International Texas, G.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Answer to Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs' Complaint)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 5/19/2014 (tkd, ). (Entered: 05/16/2014)
50 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Automatic Stay Against Defendants Kurella Rao and Indo−Ameri Soft, LLC (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
51 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 39 Amended Complaint,, by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT. LTD.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
52 ANSWER to 39 Amended Complaint,, by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT. LTD..(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
ORAL ORDER granting 51 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 6/12/14. (zjh1) (Entered: 06/12/2014)
53 Unopposed MOTION Entry of Consent Orders Regarding Discovery by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Use of Discovery from Related Cases, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Clawback Order, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Supplemental Protective Order, # 4 Text of Proposed Order Relating to ESI Protocol, # 5 Exhibit Schedules A−E)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
ORAL ORDER granting 53 Motion. This oral order will serve as a signature on the consent orders. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 6−19−2014. (Hawthorn, Zack) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
54 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Lance R Rydberg on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4740879. (Rydberg, Lance) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
55 ADVISORY concerning page limitations for appeals of magistrate judge decisions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 7/15/14. (tkd, ) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
56 ORDER denying 14 MOTION for Stay Pendent Lite and for Transfer Pursuant to First−Filed Rule, denying 31 Motion to tranfer venue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 7/16/14. (tkd, ) Modified on 7/17/2014 (tkd, ). (Entered: 07/17/2014)
57 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
58 MOTION for Reconsideration of Magistrate's Decision re 56 Order by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 7/30/2014 (tkd, ). (Entered: 07/29/2014)
59 RESPONSE in opposition to Defendants' 57 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court or alternatively Objection to 56 order denying motion to transfer filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) Modified on 8/1/2014 (bjc, ). (Entered: 07/31/2014)
60 RESPONSE in Opposition re 58 MOTION for Reconsideration of Magistrate's Decision re 56 Order filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit JPMDL Order

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 18 of 23

09/12/2014 09/12/2014 09/12/2014 09/15/2014 09/15/2014 10/03/2014 10/21/2014 10/21/2014 10/23/2014 10/23/2014
11/08/2014 11/08/2014 12/05/2014 12/17/2014

Denying Transfer, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
61 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Kevin Patrick Maney on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4832481. (Maney, Kevin) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
62 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Robert L Keller, II on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4832954. (Keller, Robert) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
63 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by James L Cornblatt on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4832993. (Cornblatt, James) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
64 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Mitchell P Hasenkampf on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4834378. (Hasenkampf, Mitchell) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
65 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Lauren Masur Davis on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4835131. (Davis, Lauren) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
ORAL ORDER granting 43 Motion to Reassert 33 Motion to Dismiss and 32 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 10−3−2014. (zjh1, ) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
66 ORDER denying 57 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court re denial of motion to transfer venue. The alternative request for an interlocutory appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is also denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 10/20/14. (tkd, ) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
67 ORDER denying 58 Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate's Decision denying motion for stay pendente lite and for transfer pursuant to first filed rule. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 10/20/14. (tkd, ) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
68 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File /Designate Expert Witnesses and Provide Expert Reports by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
ORAL ORDER granting 68 Motion for Extension of Time to Designate Expert Witnesses and Provide Expert Reports. Plaintiffs shall designate expert witnesses by November 4, 2014, and Defendants shall designate expert witnesses by December 5, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 10−23−2014. (zjh1, ) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
69 ANSWER to 39 Amended Complaint,, by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett.(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 11/08/2014)
70 ANSWER to 49 Crossclaim by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett.(Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified on 11/10/2014 (bjc, ). (Entered: 11/08/2014)
71 NOTICE of Expert Witness Disclosure by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 12/8/2014 (tkd, ). (Entered: 12/05/2014)
72 MOTION TO Extend Discovery Deadlines and the Motion Cut−Off by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 12/18/2014 (tkd, ). (Entered: 12/17/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 19 of 23

01/05/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/16/2015 01/16/2015 01/26/2015

73 RESPONSE in Opposition re 72 MOTION to Extend Discovery Deadlines and the Motion Cut−Off filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/6/2015: # 2 Revised Proposed Order) (bjc, ). (Entered: 01/05/2015)
74 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Dr. Louise Shelley by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Dr. Louise Shelley, # 2 Exhibit "David" Report of Dr. Louise Shelley, # 3 Exhibit Deposition of Dr. Louise Shelley, # 4 Exhibit Order from David case, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
75 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Donald H. Strobel by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Don H. Strobel, # 2 Exhibit "David" Report of Don H. Strobel, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
76 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Virginia Miles by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Virginia Miles, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
77 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Ronald L. Signorino by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Clyde Payne, # 2 Exhibit Report of Ronald L. Signorino, # 3 Exhibit Deposition of Ronald L. Signorino, # 4 Exhibit Correspondence to Plaintiffs, # 5 Exhibit Declaration and DOL−OSHA Interpretation, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
78 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Kevin Fox Gotham by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Kevin Fox Gotham, # 2 Exhibit Deposition of Kevin Fox Gotham, # 3 Exhibit Order from David case, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
79 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Ron McAlear by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "David" Report of Ron McAlear, # 2 Exhibit Correspondence to Plaintiffs, # 3 Exhibit Depostion of Ron McAlear, # 4 Exhibit Report of Ron McAlear, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
80 MOTION Limit Testimony of Enrique Gonzalez, III by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Report of Enrique Gonzalez, # 2 Exhibit Depostion of Enrique Gonzalez, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
81 MOTION to Exclude the Opinion Testimony of Clyde Payne by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 1/16/2015 (bjc, ). (Entered: 01/15/2015)
82 MOTION in Limine to Exclude/Limit the Testimony of Florence Burke by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
83 MOTION in Limine to Exclude/Limit the Testimony of Amy Mowl by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
84 REPLY to Opposition to 72 MOTION to Extend Discovery Deadlines and the Motion Cut−Off filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 1/16/2015 (bjc, ). (Entered: 01/16/2015)
85 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Substitute Document by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
86 SUR−REPLY to Reply to Response to Motion re 72 MOTION to Extend Discovery Deadlines and the Motion Cut−Off filed by All Plaintiffs. (Willett, Christopher)

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 20 of 23

01/29/2015 01/29/2015
01/29/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015
01/30/2015
02/02/2015 02/02/2015 02/02/2015 02/02/2015
02/04/2015

(Entered: 01/26/2015)
87 RESPONSE in Opposition re 79 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Ron McAlear filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
88 RESPONSE in Opposition re 80 MOTION Limit Testimony of Enrique Gonzalez, III filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Expert Report of Gonzalez, # 2 Exhibit B − relevant portions of Gonzalez depo, # 3 Exhibit C − Speaking Engagements of Gonzalez)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
89 RESPONSE in Opposition re 77 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Ronald L. Signorino filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
90 ORDER granting 72 Motion to extend discovery deadlines and the motion cut−off. Discovery should be completed by 4/1/15 and motions cut−off is 4/15/15. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 1/30/15. (tkd, ) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
91 ORDER to Designate Five Plaintiffs for the First Trial. The parties are to submit their designations within seven days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 1/30/15. (tkd, ) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
92 FILED IN ERROR per attorney. Replaced by document #93. RESPONSE in Opposition re 78 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Kevin Fox Gotham filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Relevant portions of depo of Richard Marler, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Relevant portions of depo of Lisa Spears, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Info considered by Kevin Gotham, # 4 Exhibit 4 − CV of Kevin Gotham, # 5 Exhibit 5 Revelant portions of depo of KevinGotham)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 2/10/2015 (tkd, ). (Entered: 01/30/2015)
93 RESPONSE in Opposition re 78 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Kevin Fox Gotham filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− David, 08−1220 Order Doc. 2197, # 2 Exhibit 2 − 6−15−2014 Depo of Richard Marler, p. 76−78, # 3 Exhibit 3 − 6−13−14 depo of Lisa Spears, p. 426−428)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
94 RESPONSE in Opposition re 81 MOTION to exclude the opinion of Clyde Payne filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (1) Deposition Excerpts − Ron Signorino, # 2 Exhibit (2) Report of Ron Signorino, # 3 Exhibit (2) Deposition Excerpts − Clyde Payne, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
95 RESPONSE in Opposition re 82 MOTION in Limine to Exclude/Limit the Testimony of Florence Burke filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (1) Deposition − Florence Burke, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
96 RESPONSE in Opposition re 83 MOTION in Limine to Exclude/Limit the Testimony of Amy Mowl filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (1) Deposition − Amy Mowl, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
97 RESPONSE in Opposition re 74 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Dr. Louise Shelley filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
98 Consent MOTION to Withdraw Expert Witnesses Virginia Miles and Donald Strobel by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 21 of 23

02/06/2015 02/09/2015 02/09/2015 02/09/2015 02/09/2015 02/11/2015 02/12/2015
02/12/2015
02/12/2015
02/12/2015 02/13/2015
03/03/2015
03/06/2015 03/06/2015 03/10/2015 04/15/2015

Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Hangartner, Erin) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/9/2015: # 1 Proposed Order) (tkd, ). (Entered: 02/04/2015)
99 DESIGNATION of Plaintiffs for the First Trial by All Plaintiffs re 91 Order (Willett, Christopher) Modified on 2/9/2015 (tkd, ). (Entered: 02/06/2015)
100 DESIGNATION for First Trial by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 91 Order (Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 2/10/2015 (tkd, ). (Entered: 02/09/2015)
101 REPLY to Response to Motion re 79 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Ron McAlear filed by All Plaintiffs. (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
102 REPLY to Response to Motion re 80 MOTION Limit Testimony of Enrique Gonzalez, III filed by All Plaintiffs. (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
103 REPLY to Response to Motion re 77 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Ronald L. Signorino filed by All Plaintiffs. (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
104 REPLY to Response to Motion re 78 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Kevin Fox Gotham filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit David Order (Jan. 23, 2015))(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
105 REPLY to Response to Motion re 83 MOTION in Limine to Exclude/Limit the Testimony of Amy Mowl filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
106 REPLY to Response to Motion re 82 MOTION in Limine to Exclude/Limit the Testimony of Florence Burke filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
107 REPLY to Response to Motion re 81 MOTION to exclude the opinion of Clyde Payne filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
108 REPLY to Response to Motion re 74 MOTION Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Dr. Louise Shelley filed by All Plaintiffs. (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
109 ORDER granting 98 Motion to withdraw expert report and testimony of Donald Strobel and Virginia Miles. Order also denying as moot 75 and 76 Motions to exclude testimony and strike expert reports of Donald Strobel and Virginia Miles. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 2/13/15. (tkd, ) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
110 ORDER directing Burnett and Dewan defts to respond to 91 Order within 7 days by designating one pltf each for trial. Failure to designate a pltf will forfeit their ability to do so. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 3/3/15. (tkd, ) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
111 DESIGNATION for First Trial by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 3/9/2015 (tkd, ). (Entered: 03/06/2015)
112 DESIGNATION of Plaintiff for Trial by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett (Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified on 3/9/2015 (tkd, ). (Entered: 03/06/2015)
113 NOTICE by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT. LTD. of Designation of Trial Plaintiff (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
114 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Uncontested Material Facts, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 04/15/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 22 of 23

05/04/2015 05/04/2015 05/06/2015 05/08/2015 05/13/2015 06/16/2015 06/17/2015
06/24/2015 06/26/2015
06/29/2015 07/13/2015 07/13/2015 07/14/2015
07/30/2015

115 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, # 3 Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) Modified on 5/6/2015 (tkd, ). (Entered: 05/04/2015)
116 RESPONSE in Opposition re 114 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
117 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit RICO Fraud Chart)(Sabourian, Kayvon) Modified on 5/7/2015 (tkd, ). (Entered: 05/06/2015)
ORAL ORDER granting 115 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 5/8/2015. (zjh1, ) (Entered: 05/08/2015)
118 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that 114 Defts' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be denied as moot without prejudice to reassertion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 5/13/15. (tkd, ) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
119 ORDER adopting 118 Report and Recommendation and denying as moot 114 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Order also denying as moot the reasserted 32 and 33 Motions to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 6/16/15. (tkd, ) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
120 ORDER severing and transferring Signal International's cross−claims against cross−defendants Malvern C Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt Ltd, Global Resources Inc, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center LLC, Law Offices of Malvern C Burnett APC and Michael Pol. The Clerk is directed to transfer these cross−claims to the Eastern District of Louisiana. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 6/17/15. (tkd, ) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
Case transferred from Texas Eastern has been opened in Eastern District of Louisiana as case 2:15−cv−02297, filed 06/24/2015. (tkd, ) (Entered: 07/01/2015)
121 ORDER granting in part 79 Motion to exclude testimony and strike the expert report of Ronald J McAlear, 78 Motion to exclude testimony and strike the expert report of Kevin Fox Gotham, 82 Motion in limine to exclude/limit testimony of Florence Burke, and 74 Motion to exclude the testimony and strike the expert report of Dr Louise Shelley. Order granting 81 Motion to exclude the opinion testimony of Clyde Payne, 77 Motion to exclude the testimony and strike the report of Ronald L Signorino and 80 Motion to limit the testimony of Enrique Gonzalez III. Order denying 83 Motion in limine to exclude/limit testimony of Amy Mowl. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 6/26/2015. (bjc, ) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
ORAL ORDER DENYING as moot 85 Motion for Leave to File Substitute Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 6/29/2015. (zjh1, ). (Entered: 06/29/2015)
122 SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1, # 2 Exhibit A−2, # 3 Exhibit A−3, # 4 Exhibit A−4, # 5 Exhibit A−5)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 7/14/2015 (tkd, ). (Entered: 07/13/2015)
123 Emergency MOTION to Amend/Correct 29 Scheduling Order, by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Christopher J. Willett)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
124 ORDER STAYING CASE Pursuant to Bankruptcy. The parties are directed to notify the Court every 120 days regarding the status of bankruptcy proceedings. A letter brief regarding severance of certain claims may be filed by 7/31/15; deadline for any opposition is governed by Local Rule CV−7(e). Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 7/14/15. (tkd, ) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
125 Letter Brief filed by All Plaintiffs (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 07/30/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-498 As of: 04/04/2019 12:21 PM CDT 23 of 23

11/12/2015 03/11/2016 07/11/2016 11/08/2016 11/16/2016
11/29/2016 04/03/2017 11/06/2017 03/06/2018 07/05/2018 07/05/2018 07/17/2018
07/23/2018 08/24/2018
08/28/2018 09/12/2018

126 STATUS REPORT by All Plaintiffs. (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
127 STATUS REPORT by All Plaintiffs. (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
128 THIRD STATUS REPORT by All Plaintiffs. (Willett, Christopher) Modified on 7/12/2016 (tkd, ). (Entered: 07/11/2016)
129 FOURTH STATUS REPORT by All Plaintiffs. (Willett, Christopher) Modified on 11/9/2016 (tkd, ). (Entered: 11/08/2016)
130 Ex Parte MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Brian C. Roux by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2016: # 2 Revised Proposed Order) (tkd, ). (Entered: 11/16/2016)
ORDER granting 130 Defendants' Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brian Christopher Roux terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 11/29/2016. (zjh1, ) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
131 STATUS REPORT by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E.D. La. Order, # 2 Exhibit E.D. La. Judgment)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
132 STATUS REPORT by All Plaintiffs. (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
133 STATUS REPORT by All Plaintiffs. (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
134 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff Srinivasa Reddy Dalli by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Christopher J. Willett, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
135 STATUS REPORT by All Plaintiffs. (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
136 ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF REDDY DALLI TO RESPOND. It is ordered that Plaintiff Reddy Dalli must notify the court whether he does or does not consent to the motion to withdraw within 30 days of this order. It is ordered that if Plaintiff Reddy Dalli does not notify the court within 30 days of this order, the court will, without further notice, order dismissal of his claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 7/17/18. (mrp, ) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
137 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re 136 Order,, of Mailing to Plaintiff Reddy Dalli (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
138 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING PLAINTIFF DALLI. It is ordered that Plaintiffs' counsel shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Mr. Dalli at his last known address and email it to his last know email address within 7 days of this order. Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a notice with the court when they have completed this task. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 8/24/18. (mrp, ) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
139 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re 138 Report and Recommendations, of Mailing to Plaintiff Reddy Dalli (Willett, Christopher) (Entered: 08/28/2018)
140 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING PLAINTIFF DALLI. Plaintiff Dalli's claims are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 9/12/18. (mrp, ) (Main Document 140 replaced on 9/12/2018) (mrp, ). (Entered: 09/12/2018)