Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 41

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, SONY VASUDEVAN SULEKHA, )

PALANYANDI THANGAMANI,

)

MARUGANANTHAM KANDHASAMY, HEMANT )

KHUTTAN, ANDREWS ISSAC PADAVEETTIYL, and DHANANJAYA KECHURU, on behalf of other

)

similarly situated individuals, and SABULAL

)

VUAYAN, KRISHAN KUMAR, JACOB JOSEPH

)

KADDAKKARAPPALLY, KULDEEPSINGH,AND )

THANASEKAR CHELLAPPAN, individually,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, MALVERN C.

)

BURNETT, GULF COAST IMMIGRATION LAW

)

CENTER, L.L.c., LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C. BURNETT, A.P.c., INDO-AMERI SOFT L.L.c.,

)

KURELLA RAO, J & M ASSOCIATES, INC. OF

)

MISSISSIPPI, GLOBAL RESOURCES, INC.,

)

MICHAEL POL, SACHIN DEWAN, and DEWAN

)

CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. (a/k:/a MEDTECH

CONSULTANTS).

08-1220 ..
SECT. AMAG 3
Civ. No.
Complaint -Class Action and Collective Action

Defendants.
COMPLAINT 1. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Plaintiff class members, over 500 Indian men, were trafficked into the United States through the federal government's H-2B guestworker

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 41
program to provide labor and services to Defendant Signal International LLC ("Signal"). Plaintiffs were subjected to forced labor as welders, pipefitters, shipfitters, and other marine fabrication workers at Signal operations in Pascagoula, Mississippi and Orange, Texas.
2. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of similarly situated workers, bring this action to recover for damages inflicted by Signal and Signal's recruiters and agents operating in India, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Defendants have exploited and defrauded Plaintiffs and other class members by fraudulently recruiting them to work in the United States and effectuating a broad scheme of psychological coercion, threats of serious harm and physical restraint, and threatened abuse of the legal process to maintain control over Plaintiffs and other class members.
3. Lured by Defendants' fraudulent promises of legal and permanent work-based immigration to the United States for themselves and their families, Plaintiffs and other class members plunged their families into debt. Plaintiffs and other class members incurred substantial debt, liquidated their life savings, and sold their family homes to pay mandatory recruitment, immigration processing, and travel fees charged by Defendants totaling as much as $20,000 per worker. Trusting in the immigration and work benefits promised by Defendants, Plaintiffs and other class members further surrendered stable employment opportunities in India and as guestworkers in the Persian Gulf.
4. Defendants' main recruiting agents in India and the United Arab Emirates held Plaintiffs' and other class members' passports and visas and threatened, coerced, and defrauded Plaintiffs and other class members into paying extraordinary fees for recruitment, immigration processing and travel. Defendants further caused Plaintiffs and other class members to believe that if they did not work for Signal under the auspices of temporary and Signal-restricted H-2B

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 41
guestworker visas, they would suffer abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process, physical restraint, and/or other serious harms.
5. Upon Plaintiffs' and other class members' arrival in the United States, Signal required them to live in guarded, overcrowded, and isolated labor camps. Signal further deceived Plaintiffs and other class members regarding their visa status, threatened Plaintiffs and other class members with loss of immigration status and deportation, and generally perpetrated a campaign of psychological abuse, coercion, and fraud designed to render Plaintiffs and other class members afraid, intimidated, and unable to leave Signal's employ.
6. On March 9,2007, Signal, in coordination with Defendant Sachin Dewan ("Dewan") and private security guards, attempted to forcibly and unlawfully deport Plaintiffs Sabulal Vijayan and Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally in retaliation for speaking out against discriminatory conditions in Signal's labor camp in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Signal similarly attempted to forcibly and unlawfully deport Plaintiffs Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, and Krishan Kumar.
7. Terrified by the threat of imminent deportation and the security guards pursuing him, Plaintiff Vijayan attempted suicide and had to be taken to a local hospital. Amidst the chaos, Plaintiff Singh hid and escaped the Signal labor camp. Signal personnel and security guards successfully forced Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally, Chellappan, and Kumar into a locked and guarded room. There, Signal detained Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally, Chellappan, and Kumar for several hours, refusing their pleas for water and access to the bathroom.
8. Witnessing and/or hearing of the events of March 9, 2007, the remaining Plaintiffs and other class members at Signal's operations in Mississippi and Texas reasonably feared that they would suffer harm or physical restraint if they left employment with Signal. Deeply
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 4 of 41
fearful, isolated, disoriented, and unfamiliar with their rights under United States law, these workers felt compelled to continue working for Signal.
9. Plaintiffs assert class action claims against Defendants arising from violations of their rights under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act ("TVPA"); 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); collective action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); and claims for damages arising from fraud/negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. Plaintiffs Sabulal Vijayan, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Krishan Kumar, and Thanasekar Chellappan also bring individual claims arising from the retaliation in violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.c. § 1981); the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.c. § 1985), false imprisonment, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. 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), 28 U.S.c. § 1343 (civil rights), and 29 U.S.c. § 216(b) (FLSA). 11. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over 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 facts which support the federal claims. 12. Venue in the Eastern District of Louisiana is proper under 18 U.S.c. § 1965 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in that various Defendants and/or agents of Defendants, including Malvern C. Burnett, the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.c., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center
4

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 5 of 41
L.L.c., Kurella Rao, and Indo-Amerisoft, L.L.c., reside and/or may be found in New Orleans and a substantial portion of the communications, transactions, events or omissions underlying Plaintiffs' claims occurred in and around the New Orleans area.
13. Declaratory and injunctive relief are sought under 28 U.S.c. § 2201 et seq.
PARTIES Plaintiffs 14. Plaintiffs are Indian nationals and former or current H-2B guestworkers who were recruited from India and/or the United Arab Emirates by Defendants at various points between 2003 and 2007. 15. Plaintiffs are of South Asian Indian descent. 16. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were "persons" within the meaning of that term as defined by RICO, 18 U.S.c. § 1961(3). 17. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were employed by Signal as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.c. § 203(g). 18. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were engaged in commerce and/or in the production of goods for sale in interstate commerce. The Group I Plaintiffs 19. Class representative Plaintiff Dhananjaya Kechuru was recruited in 2003 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2007, Kechuru worked at Signal's Orange, Texas facility. 20. Class representative Plaintiff Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl was recruited in 2004 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2006, Andrews worked at Signal's Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.
5

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 6 of 41
21. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Plaintiffs Padaveettiyl and Kechuru as the "Group I Plaintiffs."
The Group II Plaintiffs 22. Class representative Plaintiff Kurian David was recruited in 2006 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2007, David worked at Signal's Orange, Texas facility. 23. Class representative Plaintiff Sony Vasudevan Sulekha was recruited in 2006 from India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2006, Sulekha worked at Signal's Pascagoula, Mississippi facility. 24. Class representative Plaintiff Maruganantham Kandhasamy was recruited in 2006 from India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2007, Kandhasamy worked at Signal's Orange, Texas facility. 25. Class representative Plaintiff Palanyandi Thangamani was recruited in 2006 from India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2006, Thangamani worked at Signal's Pascagoula, Mississippi facility. 26. Class representative Plaintiff Hemant Khuttan was recruited in 2006 from India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2007, Khuttan worked at Signal's Pascagoula, Mississippi facility. 27. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Plaintiffs David, Sulekha, Kandhasamy, Thangamani, and Khuttan as the "Group II Plaintiffs."
Individual Plaintiffs
6

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 7 of 41
28. Individual Plaintiff Sabulal Vijayan was recruited beginning in late 2003 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. Vijayan worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from late 2006 until Signal terminated him on March 9,2007.
29. Individual Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally was recruited beginning in late 2003 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. Kaddakkarappally worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from late 2006 until Signal terminated him on March 9, 2007.
30. Individual Plaintiff Thanasekar Chellappan was recruited beginning in 2006 from India for work in the United States. Chellappan worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from early 2007 until Signal terminated him on March 9,2007.
31. Individual Plaintiff Kuldeep Singh was recruited beginning in 2006 from India for work in the United States. Singh worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from early 2007 until Signal terminated him on March 9,2007.
32. Individual Plaintiff Krishan Kumar was recruited beginning in 2006 from India for work in the United States. Kumar worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from early 2007 until Signal terminated him on March 9,2007.
Defendants The Employer Defendant 33. Defendant Signal International, LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, is a provider of marine and fabrication services in the Gulf Coast region, with operations in Orange, Texas, and Pascagoula, Mississippi. The Recruiter Defendants
7

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 8 of 41
34. Defendant Global Resources, Inc. ("Global") is a corporation organized under the laws of Mississippi and is engaged in the business of recruiting workers from India for employment in the United States. Global has substantial business contacts with New Orleans, Louisiana.
35. Defendant Michael Pol ("Pol"), the President of Global Resources, Inc., resides in Mississippi, and has substantial business contacts with New Orleans, Louisiana.
36. Defendant Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (alk/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 has substantial business contacts with New Orleans, Louisiana.
37. Defendant Sachin Dewan ("Dewan") is the Director of Dewan Consultants, resides in India, and has substantial business contacts with New Orleans, Louisiana.
38. Upon information and belief, Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants authorize and use Defendants Pol and Global as their United States-based branch of operations and/or agents.
39. Upon information and belief, Defendants Pol and Global authorize and use Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants to act as their India and United Arab Emiratesbased branch of operations and/or agents.
40. Upon information and belief, Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, Pol, and Global acted as a joint venture with respect to the recruitment, contracting, and provision of Plaintiffs for labor or services.
41. Defendants Pol and Global Resources utilize Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants to conduct and carry out their shared business interests and activities in India and
8

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 9 of 41
the United Arab Emirates. Among other things, Defendants Pol and Global Resources share offices with Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants in India and the United Arab Emirates.
42. Upon information and belief, Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants utilize Defendants Pol and Global Resources to conduct and effectuate their shared business interests and activities in the United States.
43. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, Pol, and Global collectively as "the Recruiter Defendants."
The Legal Facilitator Defendants 44. Defendant Malvern C. Burnett ("Burnett") is an attorney who resides in and maintains offices in New Orleans, Louisiana. 45. 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 its sole registered agent, member, and/or corporate officer. 46. Defendant Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.c. ("Burnett Law Offices") is a professional law corporation organized under the laws of and located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Upon information and belief, Defendant Burnett serves as its sole registered agent, member, and/or corporate officer. 47. Upon information and belief, Defendants Burnett, GCILC, and Burnett Law Offices are engaged in a joint venture and/or are alter egos in that all entities have the same corporate mailing address, intermingle business assets, fail to operate at arms' length, and Defendant Burnett serves as the registered agent and sole member and/or corporate officers for GCLIC and Burnett Law Offices.
9

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 10 of 41
48. 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.
49. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Defendants Burnett, GCILC, and Burnett Law Offices collectively as "The Legal Facilitator Defendants."
The Labor Broker Defendants 50. Defendant Indo-Amerisoft, L.L.C, a corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana and headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana, 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. 51. Defendant Kurella Rao, the Chairman and Director of Indo-Amerisoft, LLC, maintains offices in the New Orleans, Louisiana metropolitan area and has substantial business contacts there. 52. Defendant J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc. ("J & M"), a corporation organized under the laws of Mississippi with substantial business contacts in New Orleans, 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. 53. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Defendants Indo-Amerisoft, Rao, and J & M collectively as "the Labor Broker Defendants."
All Defendants 54. At all relevant times, Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, Pol, Global, Burnett, Burnett Law Offices and GCILC acted as agents of Defendants Signal, J & M, Indo-Amerisoft
10

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 11 of 41
and Rao for the purposes of recruiting, obtaining, contracting, transportation and/or providing Plaintiffs for labor or services.
55. Individually and through their agents, associates, attorneys, and/or employees, all Defendants have significant contacts with New Orleans, Louisiana.
56. At all relevant times, Defendants were "persons" within that term as defined by RICO, 18 U.S.c. § 1961(3).
57. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been engaged in and will continue to engage in ongoing contacts with Plaintiffs and/or class members, including recruiting, obtaining, labor contracting, providing immigration-related services to, transporting, harboring, providing and/or employing of Plaintiffs and/or other class members.
58. At all relevant times, Defendants operated enterprises engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.
59. At all relevant times, Defendant Signal employed Plaintiffs for the purposes of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203.
CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 60. Claims for damages, injunctive and declaratory relief under the TVPA, 42 U.S.c. §§ 1981 and 1985, for damages and declaratory relief under RICO, and for damages based on state law fraud and breach of contract (the First through Seventh Claims for Relief) are brought by the Class Representative Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons pursuant to Rule 23. 61. All claims for damages under the FLSA are brought by the Class Representative Plaintiffs as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.c. § 216(b).
Rule 23 Class Allegations
11

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 12 of 41
62. Class claims for injunctive relief are brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2). For the purposes of injunctive relief, the class consists of all Indian H-2B guestworkers who were recruited by Defendants from 2003 on and who traveled and/or were transported to the United States at any under the auspices of H-2B visas assigned to Defendant Signal International.
63. Class claims for actual, punitive and treble damages are brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). For the purposes of actual, punitive and treble damages, the class consists of all Indian H-2B guestworkers who were recruited by Defendants and who traveled and/or were transported to the United States at any time from 2006 to the present under the auspices of H-2B visas assigned to Defendant Signal International.
Rule 23(a) 64. The precise number of individuals in the class is known only to Defendants, but the class is believed to include over 500 individuals. Because of the number of class members and because class members are foreign nationals and migrant workers, joinder of all class members is impracticable. 65. This action involves questions of law common to the class, including: a. Whether Defendant Signal and the Recruiter Defendants' conduct as set out in the
First and Second Claims for Relief violated the forced labor and trafficking provisions of the TVPA (18 U.S.c. §§ 1589 and 1590); b. Whether all Defendants' conduct as set out below in the Third Claim for Relief violated RICO Sections 1962(c) and 1962(d); c. Whether Defendant Signal's conduct as set out below in the Fourth Claim for Relief violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981;
12

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 13 of 41
d. Whether Defendant Signal's conduct as set out below in the Fifth Claim for Relief violated 42 U.S.c. § 1985(3);
e. Whether Defendants' conduct as set out below in the Sixth Claim for Relief constituted fraud and/or negligent misrepresentation for which they are legally liable;
f. How terms of Plaintiffs' and other class members' contracts with Defendants should be interpreted and whether Defendants breached contracts with Plaintiffs and other class members as set out in the Seventh Claim for Relief below;
g. The nature of damages available to Plaintiffs and other class members, including the applicability of treble, compensatory and/or punitive damages; and
h. Whether and what kinds of injunctive relief are appropriate. 66. This action involves questions of fact common to the class, including:
a. Whether Defendant Signal and the Labor Recruiter Defendants used and/or threatened Plaintiffs and other class members with physical restraint, serious harm, and/or abuse of the legal process in order to obtain Plaintiffs' and other class members' labor or services;
b. Whether Defendant Signal and the Labor Recruiter Defendants recruited, harbored, transported, obtained and/or provided Plaintiffs and other class members for the purpose of subjecting them to forced labor and/or involuntary servitude;
c. Whether Defendants conducted one or more enterprises through a pattern of racketeering activity;
13

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 14 of 41
d. Whether Defendants conspired to conduct one or more enterprises through a pattern of racketeering activity;
e. Whether Defendants committed or agreed to commit the predicate racketeering acts identified in the Third Claim for Relief, inter alia, mail fraud, wire fraud, visa fraud, Travel Act violations, forced labor, trafficking, and unlawful document-related activities in furtherance of trafficking;
f. Whether Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs and other class members to differential and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment and created a hostile work environment;
g. Whether Defendant Signal conspired with other actors for the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs and other class members of their right to be free from involuntary servitude and/or forced labor;
h. Whether Defendants made promises and/or representations to Plaintiffs and other class members through the mail and wires that were fraudulent;
1. Whether such promises were made willfully or negligently; j. Whether Plaintiffs and other class members reasonably relied on Defendants'
fraudulent promises; k. Whether Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs and other class members to
differential and/or adverse terms and conditions of employment on the basis of their race and/or alien status; 1. Whether Defendant Signal conspired with other parties for the purposes of depriving Plaintiffs and other class members of their rights to be free of forced labor and involuntary servitude;
14

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 15 of 41
m. Whether Defendants in fact failed to comply with the terms of their contracts with Plaintiffs and other class members and, if so, which terms were breached; and
n. The source and amount of Plaintiffs' and other class members' damages. 67. The claims of the Class Representative Plaintiffs asserted in the First through Seventh Claims for Relief are typical of the claims of the class. 68. The Class Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 69. Plaintiffs' counsel are experienced in handling class action litigation on behalf of guestworkers and migrant workers like Plaintiffs and are prepared to advance costs necessary to vigorously litigate this action.
Rule 23(b)(2) 70. Defendants have acted and/or have refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class with respect to the claims set forth in the Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief thereby making final injunctive relief applicable to the class appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), by, inter alia: a. Engaging in and refusing to desist from engaging in unlawful discriminatory
practices, such as requiring Plaintiffs and other class members to live in substandard segregated housing in Signal-owned labor camps; b. Engaging in and refusing to desist from engaging in a common illegal scheme, plan, and/or pattern of fraudulent recruitment and immigration processing activities which attempted to force and forces Plaintiffs and other class members
15

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 16 of 41
to provide labor or services to Defendant Signal and which injured Plaintiffs and other class members in their business and/or property; c. Engaging in and refusing to desist from engaging in a common scheme, plan and/or pattern designed to cause Plaintiffs and other class members believe that they would suffer serious harm, abuse of the legal process and/or physical restraint if they did not provide labor or services to Defendant Signal; and d. Engaging in and refusing to desist from engaging in actions that constitute illegal labor trafficking; and e. Upon information and belief, Defendants' continuing involvement in similar recruitment and labor practices 71. Upon information and belief, Defendants continue to conduct and engage in unlawful recruitment and labor practices, threatening current and future violations of Plaintiffs' and other class members' rights.
Rule 23(b)(3) 72. Common questions of law and fact relevant to the First through Seventh Claims for Relief, as identified above, predominate over any pertinent questions involving only individual members. 73. A class action is superior to other available methods of adjudicating the claims set forth in the First through Seventh Claims for Relief because, inter alia: a. Common issues of law and fact, as identified in part above, substantially diminish
the interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions;
16

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 17 of 41
b. The class members are foreign nationals and migrant workers who are heavily in debt and lack the means and/or resources to secure individual legal assistance and who are particularly likely to be unaware of their rights to prosecute these claims;
c. No member of the class has already commenced litigation to determine the questions presented; and
d. A class action can be managed with efficiency and without undue difficulty because Defendants have systematically and regularly committed the violations complained of herein and have used standardized recruitment, record-keeping, and employment practices. FLSA Collective Action Allegations
74. All claims set forth in the Eighth Claim for Relief are brought against Defendant Signal by the Class Representative Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons pursuant to the collective action provisions of 29 U.S.c. § 216(b) of the FLSA.
75. The Class Representative Plaintiffs seek to represent a FLSA class consisting of all Indian H-2B workers employed by Defendant Signal at its Orange, Texas and Pascagoula, Mississippi facilities at any time from October 1, 2006 through the present.
76. The proposed FLSA class members are similarly situated in that they have been subject to uniform practices by Defendant Signal which violated the FLSA, including:
a. Signal's systematic unlawful payroll deductions for room and board and work-related tools; and
b. Signal's workforce-wide failure to reimburse class members for travel, immigration processing, visa, recruitment, and other immigration-related expenses to the extent
17

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 18 of 41
necessary to ensure that class members earned the required minimum and overtime wages during their first workweek.
STATEMENT OF FACTS The Recruitment Process Recruitment of the Group I Plaintiffs 77. Beginning in late 2003 and continuing through at least 2004, the Recruiter Defendants (Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, Pol, and Global) placed ads in various newspapers across India and the United Arab Emirates, seeking welders, fitters, and other marine fabricators on behalf of various U.S.-based companies and individuals, including the Labor Broker Defendants (Defendants Indo-Amerisoft, Rao, and J & M). 78. Upon information and belief, the Recruiter Defendants placed such ads in coordination and agreement with the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Defendants Burnett, GCILC, and Burnett Law Offices), and the Labor Broker Defendants. 79. Upon information and belief, since at least December 2003 through at least mid2004, the Legal Facilitator Defendants and the Labor Broker Defendants communicated and consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail and/or telephone communications to coordinate and direct the Recruiter Defendants' activities, including advertising efforts on behalf of the Labor Broker Defendants. 80. The advertisements placed by the 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. 81. At various points throughout late 2003 through approximately mid-2004, Class Representative Plaintiffs Dhananjaya Kechuru and Plaintiff Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl and
18

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 19 of 41
others similarly situated (hereinafter "the Group I Plaintiffs") responded to the advertisements placed by the Recruiter Defendants.
82. Specifically, the Group I Plaintiffs contacted the Recruiter Defendants by telephone, and/or attended meetings and testing sessions organized by the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives at several locations throughout India and the United Arab Emirates.
83. Upon information and belief, prior to attending these meetings and testing sessions, the Labor Broker Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants conferred in and around the months of February, March, and April 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.
84. The U.S.-based Recruiter Defendants (Pol and Global), the Labor Broker Defendants, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants traveled across state and intemationallines to attend meetings with Group I Plaintiffs in India and the United Arab Emirates.
85. In telephone communications, in-person meetings, faxes, contracts, and other written documents transmitted by mail and/or wire in the first half of 2004, the Recruiter Defendants personally and through employees, agents and/or associates, told the Group I Plaintiffs that if the Group I Plaintiffs passed skills tests administered in the United Arab Emirates or India and paid fees totaling approximately 5 to 8lakh rupees (approximately $12,000 to $20,000), they would be able to apply for permanent resident (green card) status in the United States with the Labor Broker Defendants.
86. In these communications occurring during the first half of 2004, the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants further explained that the installment payments
19

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 20 of 41
would be divided among the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and one of the two Labor Broker Defendants.
87. In telephone communications, in-person meetings, faxes, written contracts, andlor other written communications, transmitted, upon information and belief, by mail andlor wire in the first half of 2004, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants instructed the Group I Plaintiffs that the total fees would be paid in a series of approximately three to four installments.
88. In these conversations in the first half of 2004, the Group I Plaintiffs were informed on multiple occasions by the Recruiter Defendants andlor the 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.
89. The Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendants IndoAmerisoft and Rao, personally andlor through their agents, representatives, andlor employees, made representations to Class Representative Kechuru that the Labor Broker Defendants would obtain a work-authorized green card for him on numerous occasions, including:
a. In or around December 2003 in an advertisement in the Gulf News, a newspaper based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Upon information and belief, in the weeks leading up to the appearance of the advertisement, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, the Recruiter Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants communicated and consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail andlor telephone communications regarding its content and placement; b. In or around December 2003 at the Recruiter Defendants' Dubai offices by an employee of the Recruiter Defendants believed to be named Disha; and
20

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 21 of 41
c. In or around January 2004 in a meeting at the Recruiter Defendants' Dubai offices attended by the Legal Facilitators and Defendants Rao and IndoAmerisoft. Upon information and belief, in the weeks leading up to the January 2004, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, the Recruiter Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants communicated and consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail and/or telephone communications regarding the issues to be discussed at the meeting. 90. The Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant J & M, personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, made representations to Class Representative PlaintiffPadaveettiyl that the Labor Broker Defendants would obtain a work-authorized green card for him on numerous occasions, including a meeting at the Recruiter Defendants' Dubai offices in or around April 2004. This meeting was attended by the Legal Facilitator Defendants and the Recruiter Defendants. 91. Upon information and belief, in the weeks leading up to these 2004 meetings attended by Plaintiff Padaveettiyl, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, the Recruiter Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants communicated and consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail and/or telephone communications regarding the issues to be discussed at the meetings. 92. At informational meetings and in telephone conversations, faxes, contracts, and other written documents transmitted in late 2003 through approximately mid-2004, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants, personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, represented to the Group I Plaintiffs that the Labor Broker Defendants were stable and reputable U.S. companies offering lawful and ample employment opportunities, and that Labor Broker Defendants would
21

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 22 of 41
obtain for the Group I Plaintiffs work-authorized green cards enabling the Group I Plaintiffs to permanently and legally immigrate to United States with their families.
93. 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 the Group I Plaintiffs that the green card process, once commenced, would be completed within 18 to 24 months.
94. In such communications with Plaintiffs, the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants further promised to act diligently and do everything necessary to obtain green cards for the Group I Plaintiffs in the timelines stipulated.
95. Based on these and other contractually-binding promises made to them regarding green cards and work opportunities in the United States, the Group I Plaintiffs signed contracts (hereinafter "the green card contracts") at various points in early to mid-2004 with the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants.
96. Contracts signed by Plaintiffs and other documents provided to the Group I Plaintiffs by the Legal Facilitator Defendants, the 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 the Group I 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 the Group I Plaintiffs as promised.
97. The Legal Facilitator Defendants, the Recruiter Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants knew or should have known, however, that they would not refund the Group I Plaintiffs' money as promised in the contracts and other documents.
22

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 23 of 41
98. The Legal Facilitator Defendants, the Recruiter Defendants and the Labor Broker Defendants induced the Group I Plaintiffs to enter the green card contracts without intent to diligently pursue the Group I Plaintiffs' applications and knowingly without any basis whatsoever for representing, inter alia, that the companies and/or entities purportedly sponsoring the Group I Plaintiffs' applications were financially solvent and had reliable and stable employment opportunities to provide the Group I Plaintiffs; that green card applications sponsored by such companies would be valid and bona fide under U.S. immigration law; and that such applications were likely to be successfully completed and approved within the promised timelines.
99. In reasonable reliance on the Legal Facilitator Defendants, the Recruiter Defendants and the Labor Broker Defendants' explicit and repeated promises regarding green cards and employment opportunities in the United States, the Group I Plaintiffs undertook considerable personal and familial sacrifices to amass the funds necessary to initiate the green card process.
100. The Group I Plaintiffs gathered their life savings and borrowed staggering sums of money from family members, friends, banks, and loan sharks, often at high interest rates, in order to make the payments required by Defendants and their agents. Many of the Group I Plaintiffs mortgaged or sold their homes and/or land belonging to them or their families. Some of the Group I Plaintiffs cashed in life insurance policies and/or sold prized family possessions such as their wives' wedding jewelry.
101. In reasonable reliance on Defendants' explicit and repeated promises regarding green cards and employment opportunities in the United States, Class Representative Plaintiff Kechuru paid 6lakh rupees (approximately $15,000) total to the Recruiter Defendants, Legal
23

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 24 of 41
Facilitator Defendants, and Defendants Indo-Amerisoft and Kurella Rao. Plaintiff Kechuru had to rely on loans to obtain this money, including an interest-bearing bank loan.
102. In reasonable reliance on Defendants' explicit and repeated promises regarding green cards and employment opportunities in the United States, Class Representative Plaintiff Padaveettiyl paid the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants and Defendant J & M over 5.5 lakh rupees (approximately $12,500). To pay these fees, Plaintiff Padaveettiyl had to liquidate his life savings and sell property.
103. The Group I Plaintiffs signed contracts with the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants and made the first round of installment payments required by these contracts.
104. Despite having signed contracts with the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants, and having paid the first installment payments required by the contracts, these Defendants failed to provide the Group I Plaintiffs with updates regarding the progress of their green card applications for extended periods of time.
105. When the Group I Plaintiffs contacted the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or the Labor Broker Defendants by phone, mail, and/or email at various points from approximately the last half of 2004 through approximately mid-2006 to check on the progress of their applications, these Defendants assured them that the process was going forward.
106. While awaiting the processing of their green cards, the Group I Plaintiffs continued to accrue substantial interest on moneys they had borrowed in order to make the first installment payment to these Defendants.
24

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 25 of 41
107. In or around January 2006, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants and the Labor Broker Defendants, personally and/or through their agents, employees and/or representatives notified the Group I Plaintiffs via wire and/or mail communications that the labor certification required for their green card applications had been approved by the U.S. government.
108. After this notification, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants and the Labor Broker Defendants used wire and/or mail communications to effectuate collection of the second and/or third installment payments from the Group I Plaintiffs.
109. By spring of 2006, after the 18 to 24 month period promised by the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants had elapsed, the Group I Plaintiffs had still not received their green cards as promised.
110. By spring of 2006, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants had yet to refund the Group I Plaintiffs' payments as promised by Plaintiffs' green card contracts.
111. While awaiting the processing of their green cards, the Group I Plaintiffs continued to accrue substantial interest on moneys they had borrowed in order to make the required payments to the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants.
112. In late May and early June of 2006, Defendant Signal filed with the Mississippi Department of Employment Security, the Texas Workforce Commission, and the United States Department of Labor by mail and/or fax 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)(l5)(H)(ii)(b), attendant regulations 8 c.F.R. § 214.2(h)(6) and 20 c.F.R. § 655.3, and
25

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 26 of 41
associated administrative letters and/or guidance (commonly known as "the H-2B guestworker program").
113. Defendant Signal sought these workers to perform various jobs essential to its marine fabrication services business, including welding and fitting.
114. 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.
115. 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.
116. Defendant Signal further 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."
117. In the ETA 750 forms, Defendant Signal named the Legal Facilitator Defendants as its agents for the purposes of preparing and submitting these applications to import H-2B guestworkers.
118. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal, at or around the time it filed the ETA 750 forms seeking permission to import H-2B guestworkers in May and June 2006, repeatedly contacted the Legal Facilitator Defendants and the 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.
26

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 27 of 41
119. Upon information and belief, in the course of telephone, fax, email and/or mail communications occurring in or around Mayor June 2006, Defendant Signal authorized the 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.
120. Upon information and belief, in the course of these communications, Defendant Signal further authorized the Recruiter Defendants to represent that Signal would assume sponsorship of the pending and as-yet-unsuccessful green card applications on behalf of the Group I Plaintiffs and apply for at least two to three H-2B visa extensions on behalf of all Plaintiffs to allow them to remain in the United States working for Signal while the Group I Plaintiffs' green card applications were being processed.
121. Defendant Signal authorized these representations even through 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 and even though it did not intend to apply for and in fact knew it could not legally apply for such visa extensions and/or green cards on behalf of the Group I Plaintiffs.
122. In spring and summer of 2006, the Group I Plaintiffs who had initiated the green card process spoke with the Recruiter Defendants over the phone and in person regarding their long-pending green card applications.
123. In these communications, the Recruiter Defendants offered the Group I Plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue their green cards under the sponsorship of Defendant Signal. For an additional sum of approximately 35,000 to 45,000 rupees ($800 to $1,100), Plaintiffs were told
27

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 28 of 41
they could quickly obtain H-2B visas to go to the United States for work at Defendant Signal's operations.
124. In these communications, the Recruiter Defendants falsely assured the Group I Plaintiffs that Defendant Signal would seek at least two extensions for the temporary H-2B visa with which Plaintiffs would gain admittance to the United States, and that Plaintiffs' H-2B visas would thereafter lead to immediate and permanent green cards.
125. The Recruiter Defendants personally and through their agents, representatives and employees, made representations to Class Representative Plaintiff Kechuru that Defendant Signal would obtain a work-authorized green card and H-2B visa extensions for him on numerous occasions, including in or about November or December of 2006 during a phone conversation with employees in the Recruiter Defendants' offices in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
126. Upon information and belief, in the weeks leading up to the phone conversation with Plaintiff Kechuru, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, the Recruiter Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants communicated and consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail and/or telephone communications regarding the contents of the green card and H-2B visa offers being made to Plaintiffs.
127. The Recruiter Defendants, personally and/or through their agents, representatives and/or employees, made representations to the Class Representative Padaveettiyl that Defendant Signal would obtain a work-authorized green card and H-2B visa extensions for him on numerous occasions, including a meeting at the Recruiter Defendants' offices in Dubai in or around February 2006.
28

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 29 of 41
128. Upon information and belief, in the weeks leading up to this February 2006 meeting, the 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 at the meeting.
129. In these communications, the Recruiter 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 visas is fundamentally incompatible with applying for green cards.
130. The Group I Plaintiffs, unaware of U.S. immigration law and the temporary, nonimmigrant character of H-2B visas, agreed, in reliance on the representations of the Recruiter 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 the Recruiter Defendants.
131. In reliance on the representations of the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants and Defendant Signal, Class Representative Plaintiff Kechuru entered the United States on an H-2B guestworker visa in December 2003 and worked for Signal at its facility in Orange, Texas.
132. In reliance on the representations of the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants and Defendant Signal, Class Representative Plaintiff Padaveettiyl entered the United States on an H-2B guestworker visa in October 2006 and worked for Signal at its Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.
29

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 30 of 41
133. The Group I Plaintiffs would not have paid the extraordinary fees charged by the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants for travel, green cards, visas, and work opportunities had they known that these Defendants' promises and representations were false.
134. The Group I Plaintiffs would not have paid the extraordinary fees charged by the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator 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.
Recruitment of the Group II Plaintiffs 135. Acting as Defendant Signal's recruiting agent for the purposes of facilitating the recruitment of Indian workers for employment at Signal, the Recruiter Defendants placed advertisements in newspapers throughout India and the United Arab Emirates in spring, summer, and fall of 2006 offering opportunities for welders and fitters to immigrate permanently to the United States under the auspices of Defendant Signal, "a leading marine and fabrication company in Mississippi and Texas." 136. In response to the advertisements posted by the Recruiter Defendants, Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Palanyandi Thangamani, Hemant Khuttan, and all those similarly situated (hereinafter "the Group II Plaintiffs") contacted the Recruiter Defendants in spring, summer and fall of 2006 via telephone and in-person meetings. 137. The 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.
30

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 31 of 41
138. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal's direction of and coordination of the Recruiter Defendants' recruitment efforts was effectuated by the use of numerous telephone, fax, email, and/or mail communications occurring from spring of 2006 through at least January 2007.
139. Upon information and belief, in these communications Defendant Signal authorized the 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 anticipated H-2B guestworker jobs at Signal operations.
140. Upon information and belief, in these communications, Defendant Signal further authorized the Recruiter Defendants to represent that Signal would agree to sponsor bona fide green card applications for the Group II Plaintiffs and obtain at least two H-2B visa extensions on behalf the Group II Plaintiffs to allow them to remain in the United States working for Signal while all their green card applications were being processed.
141. Defendant Signal authorized these representations even through 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 and even though Signal did not intend to apply for and in fact knew that it could not legally apply for such visa extensions and/or green cards on behalf of the Group II Plaintiffs.
142. In spring, summer, and fall of 2006, the Group II Plaintiffs attended meetings at which the Recruiter Defendants and the Legal Facilitator Defendants, acting on Signal's behalf, informed the Group II Plaintiffs of the opportunity to work for Defendant Signal on H-2B visas which would lead to permanent resident (green card) status.
31

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 32 of 41
143. Upon information and belief, prior to attending these meetings and testing sessions, Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants conferred in and 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 meetings.
144. The United States-based Recruiter Defendants (Pol and Global) and the Legal Facilitator Defendants traveled across state and intemationallines to attend meetings with Group II Plaintiffs in India and the United Arab Emirates in spring, summer, and fall of 2006.
145. According the statements made at these meetings and in communications effected by wire and mail during this time period, Defendant Signal would sponsor the Group II Plaintiffs' green card applications and extend their H-2B visas multiple times to enable the Group II Plaintiffs to work in the United States while their green card applications were pending. In exchange, the Group II Plaintiffs would have to pay fees totaling approximately 8 lakhs ($20,000) each in a series of approximately three installments.
146. The Group II Plaintiffs were further informed by the Recruiter Defendants and/or the 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.
147. At informational meetings and in telephone conversations, faxes, contracts, and other written documents transmitted through the use of mail and wire communications occurring during the spring and summer of 2006, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants, personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, represented to the Group II Plaintiffs that Signal would provide lawful, stable, and ample employment opportunities, that working under an H-
32

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 33 of 41
2B visa for Signal was not inconsistent with applying for permanent immigration status sponsored by Signal, and that Signal would obtain for the Group II Plaintiffs work-authorized green cards enabling the Group II Plaintiffs to permanently and legally immigrate to United States with their families.
148. In such communications with Plaintiffs, the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants further promised to act diligently and do everything necessary to obtain green cards for the Group II Plaintiffs within 24 months.
149. The Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, made representations to Class Representative Plaintiff Kandhasamy that Signal would obtain a work-authorized green card and H-2B visa extensions for him on numerous occasions, including:
a. In or about May 2006 in an advertisement in the Daily Thanthi, an Indian newspaper. Upon information and belief, in the weeks to the appearance of the May 2006 advertisement, the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal communicated and consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail and/or telephone communications regarding its content and placement; b. In or about May 2006 at a meeting in Chennai (Madras) attended by the Recruiter Defendants and Defendant Signal. Upon information and belief, in the weeks leading up to May 2006 meeting, the 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 at the meeting; and c. In or about August or September 2006 at a meeting in Chennai attended by the Recruiter Defendants, Defendant Signal, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants. Upon
33

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 34 of 41
information and belief, in the weeks leading up to September 2006 meeting, the 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 at the meeting; 150. The Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, made representations to Class Representative Plaintiff Thangamani that Signal would obtain a work-authorized green card and H-2B visa extensions for him on numerous occasions, including:
a. In or about March or April 2006 in advertisements published in Malayalam and Tamil newspapers in India. Upon information and belief, in the weeks to the appearance of the April 2006 advertisement, the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal communicated and consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail and/or telephone communications regarding its content and placement; b. In or about May 2006 at a meeting in Chennai attended by the Recruiter Defendants and Defendant Signal. Upon information and belief, in the weeks leading up to May 2006 meeting, the 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 at the meeting; and c. In August or September 2006 in a meeting in Chennai attended by the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal. Upon information and belief, in the weeks leading up to September 2006 meeting,
34

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 35 of 41
the 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 at the meeting. 151. The Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, made representations to Class Representative Plaintiff Khuttan that Signal would obtain a work-authorized green card and H-2B visa extensions for him on numerous occasions, including:
a. In or about September 2006 in an advertisement in the Times of India. Upon information and belief, in the weeks to the appearance of the September 2006 advertisement, the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal communicated and consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail and/or telephone communications regarding its content and placement;; b. In or about September 2006 during a phone call with staff at the Recruiter Defendants' office; and c. In October 2006 by employees in the Recruiter Defendants' Mumbai office. Upon information and belief, in the weeks leading up to October 2006 meeting, the 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 at the meeting. 152. The Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, made representations to Class Representative Plaintiff David that Signal would obtain a work-authorized green card and H-2B visa extensions for him on numerous occasions, including:
35

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 36 of 41
a. In or around March 2006 in an advertisement in the Gulf News, a newspaper based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Upon information and belief, in the weeks to the appearance of the March 2006 advertisement, the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal communicated and consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail and/or telephone communications regarding its content and placement; b. In or around March 2006 in at a meeting in a hotel at Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates attended by the Recruiter Defendants. Upon information and belief, in the weeks leading up to March 2006 meeting, the 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 at the meeting; and c. In or about April 2006 at a meeting in Dubai, United Arab Emirates attended by the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants. Upon information and belief, in the weeks leading up to April 2006 meeting, the 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 at the meeting. 153. The Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, made representations to Class Representative PlaintiffVasudevan that Signal would obtain a work-authorized green card and H-2B visa extensions for him on numerous occasions, including:
36

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 37 of 41
a. In or about April 2006 in an advertisement in an Indian newspaper. Upon information and belief, in the weeks to the appearance of the April 2006 advertisement, the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal communicated and consulted frequently via mail, fax, e-mail and/or telephone communications regarding its content and placement; and b. On or about May 1, 2 or 3,2006, at a meeting at the Hilton Hotel in Cochin attended by the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants at which a video discussing opportunities at Defendant Signal was shown to workers in attendance. Upon information and belief, in the weeks leading up to May 2006 meeting, the 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 at the meeting. 154. Reasonably relying on these and other contractually-binding promises made to them regarding green cards and work opportunities in the United States, the Group II Plaintiffs signed green card contracts at various points from mid-2006 and late 2007 with the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants in which they promised to pay the fees charged by these Defendants. 155. Contracts signed by Plaintiffs and other documents provided to the Group II Plaintiffs by the Legal Facilitator Defendants and Recruiter Defendants through the use of mail and/or wire transmissions in and around mid 2006 through at least early 2007, further promised that the Group II 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 the Group II Plaintiffs as promised.
37

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 38 of 41
156. The Legal Facilitator Defendants and the Recruiter Defendants knew or should have known, however, that they would not refund the Group II Plaintiffs' money as promised in the contracts and other documents.
157. The Legal Facilitator Defendants and Recruiter Defendants induced the Group II Plaintiffs to enter the green card contracts without intent to diligently pursue the Group II Plaintiffs' applications and without any basis whatsoever for representing, inter alia, that Defendant Signal had lawful long-term employment opportunities to provide the Group II Plaintiffs; that Defendant Signal could legally apply for numerous H-2B visa extensions to maintain the Group II Plaintiffs' presence in the United States; that working under an H-2B visa for Signal was not inconsistent with applying for permanent immigration status sponsored by Signal; that green card applications sponsored by Defendant Signal would be valid and bona fide under U.S. immigration law; and that such applications were likely to be successfully completed and approved within the promised timelines.
158. In reasonable reliance on the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitators' explicit and repeated promises regarding green cards and employment opportunities in the United States, the Group II Plaintiffs undertook considerable personal and familial sacrifices to amass the funds necessary to initiate the green card process with Defendant Signal.
159. The Group II Plaintiffs gathered their life savings and borrowed staggering sums of money from family members, friends, banks, and loan sharks, often at high interest rates, in order to make the payments required by Defendants and their agents. Many Group II Plaintiffs mortgaged or sold their homes and/or land belonging to them or their families. Some Group II Plaintiffs cashed in life insurance policies and/or sold prized family possessions such as their wives' wedding jewelry.
38

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 39 of 41
160. In reasonable reliance on the explicit and repeated promises of the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal regarding green cards, H-2B visas, and employment opportunities in the United States, Class Representative Kandhasamy paid the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants over 6 lakh rupees (approximately $15,000), which he collected by selling his wife's jewelry and taking out an interest-bearing bank loan.
161. In reasonable reliance on the explicit and repeated promises of the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal regarding green cards, H-2B visas, and employment opportunities in the United States, Class Representative Thangamani paid the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants over 6 lakh rupees (approximately $15,000), which he collected by selling his relatives' and his wife's jewelry, taking out an interest-bearing bank loan from a finance company, and selling land that he owned.
162. In reasonable reliance on the explicit and repeated promises of the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal regarding green cards, H-2B visas, and employment opportunities in the United States, Class Representative Khuttan paid the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants approximately 8.5 lakh rupees (approximately $21,000), which he collected by taking out an interest-bearing bank loan, and borrowing from his father's retirement account.
163. In reasonable reliance on the explicit and repeated promises of the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal regarding green cards, H-2B visas, and employment opportunities in the United States, Class Representative David paid the
39

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 40 of 41
Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants approximately $18,000, which he collected by taking out an interest-bearing bank loan and selling his house.
164. In reasonable reliance the explicit and repeated promises of the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal regarding green cards and employment opportunities in the United States, Class Representative PlaintiffVasudevan paid 6 lakh rupees (approximately $15,000) to the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants, which he collected by taking out an interest-bearing bank loan and selling land owned in his wife's name.
165. In reasonable reliance on the promises of the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants, the Group II Plaintiffs signed contracts with these Defendants and made payments required by these contracts.
166. The Group II Plaintiffs would not have paid the extraordinary fees charged by the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants for green cards, visas, and employment opportunities had they known that these Defendants' promises and representations were false.
167. The Group II Plaintiffs would not have paid the extraordinary fees charged by the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants for 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 (All Plaintiffs) 168. At various points during the spring, summer, and fall of 2006, Defendant Signal's
personnel traveled to various locations in India and the United Arab Emirates and tested
40

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1 Filed 03/07/08 Page 41 of 41
Plaintiffs' and other class members' welding and fitting skills in anticipation of employing them in the United States.
169. Plaintiffs and other class members paid costs necessary to travel to the cities where these tests were held.
170. Plaintiffs and other class members paid admission fees charged to take these tests. 171. Plaintiffs and other class members attended and passed these tests, which were overseen and graded by Defendant Signal's agents, employees, and/or representatives. 172. Upon information and belief, prior to attending these meetings and testing sessions, Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants conferred in and 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. 173. The Defendant Signal's personnel, the United States-based Recruiter Defendants (Pol and Global) and the Legal Facilitator Defendants traveled across state and international lines to these testing sessions in spring, summer, and fall of 2006. 174. On or around July 20,2006 and August 17,2006, the United States Department of Labor approved Signal's applications for 590 H-2B workers for the period of October 1,2006 through July 31,2007. 175. Around the time of this approval, Plaintiffs and other class members 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 for mandatory H-2B visa and consular processing fees to the United States consulate, the Recruiter Defendants and the Legal Facilitator Defendants; attending H-2B visa interviews; and paying for travel arrangements through the Recruiter Defendants.
41

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 1 of 31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, SONY VASUDEVAN SULEKHA, )

PALANYAND! THANGAMANI,

)

MURUGANANTHAM KANDHASAMY, HEMANT )

KlIUTTAN, PADAVEETTIYIL ISSAC ANDREWS, )

and KECHURU DHANANJAVA, on behalf of other )

similarly situated individuals, and SABULAL VIJAYAN, KRISHAN KUMAR, JACOB JOSEPH KADDAKKARAPPALLY, KULDEEP SINGH, AND

) )

THANASEKAR CHELLAPPAN, individually,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, MALVERN C.

)

BURNETT, GULF COAST IMMIGRATION LAW

)

CENTER, L.L.C., LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C. )

BURNETT, A.P.C., INDO-AMERI SOFT L.L.C., KURELLA RAO, J & M ASSOCIATES, INC. OF

)

MISSISSIPPI, GLOBAL RESOURCES, INC., MICHAEL POL, SACHIN DEWAN, and DEWAN

CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. (a/k/a MEDTECH

CONSULTANTS).

08 Civ. 1220 (Section: A)
Class Action and Collective Action

Defendants.

RICO CASE STATEMENT

Pursuant to this Court's RICO Standing Order, Plaintiffs provide the following

information in support of their RICO claims. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this Statement,

andlor to change assertions stated herein after the benefit of discovery.

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 2 of 31

1. RICO Sections Under Which Plaintiffs Assert Their Claims A. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) B. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)

2. Identity of Each Defendant and the Alleged Misconduct and Basis for Liability of

Each Defendant

For ease of discussion, Plaintiffs have grouped the individual Defendants into four

distinct groups according to the identical RlCO claims asserted against them: (I) Signal

International, LLC ("Signal"); (2) the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Defendants Malvern C.

Burnett, the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center); (3)

the Labor Broker Defendants (Indo-Amerisoft, L.L.C., Kurella Rao, and J & M Associates);

and (4) the Recruiter Defendants (Defendants Michael Pol, Global Resources, Inc., Sachin

Dewan, Dewan Consultants).

A. Signal International, LLC

1.

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)

Signal International, LLC ("Signal") violated 18 U.S.c. § 1962(c) through the

conduct of enterprises engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity. Specifically, Signal

substantially conducted or participated in the affairs ofthree separate enterprises! through

a pattern of engaging in enticement into slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1583), involuntary servitude

(18 U.S.C. § 1584), forced labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589), trafficking in persons (18 U.S.c. §

I As set forth in the Complaint and with greater detail in response to ~ 6 ofthe RICO Standing Order, infra, the
three enterprises were: the ongoing business relationship between all Defendants, and the United States Consular officers in India (l" Am. Comp!. at ~ 279)("RICO Enterprise I"); the ongoing business relationship between the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal (l" Am. Comp!. at ~ 285)("RICO
Enterprise II"); and the ongoing business relationship between the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator
Defendants, Defendant Signal, Swetman Security, and M & M Bank (1" Am. Comp!. at 11 290)("RICO Enterprise
III").

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 3 of 31
1590), unlawful document-related practices in furtherance of trafficking ("document· servitude") (18 U.S.C. § 1592), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and immigration document fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1546)..
Signal significantly directed, instructed, determined and participated in the actions of the enterprises with respect to its recruitment of Plaintiffs and fraudulent promises of green cards, visas, and employment from at least 2006 on. Signal also directed, instructed, and determined much of the enterprises' conduct that rose to the level of inducement into slavery, involuntary servitude, forced labor, trafficking, and document servitude.
ii. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) With respect to Enterprise I, Signal conspired with the other Defendants, and various non-defendants to conduct or participate in the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity by agreeing with one or more of tile Defendants to pursue, though the enterprise, the common criminal objective of engaging in enticement into slavery (18 U.S.c. § 1583), involuntary servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1584), forced labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589), trafficking in persons (18 U.S.C. § 1590), document servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1592), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and/or immigration document fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1546). With respect to Enterprises II and III, Signal conspired with the Legal Facilitator Defendants, the Recruiter Defendants, and various non-defendants to conduct or participate in the affairs of the enterprises through a pattern of racketeering activity by agreeing with one or more of the Defendants to pursue, though the enterprises, the common criminal objective of engaging in enticement into slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1583), involuntary servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1584), forced labor (18
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 4 of 31

U.S.C. § 1589), trafficking in persons (18U.S~C. § 1590), document servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1592), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and/or immigration document fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1546).

B. The Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern c. Burnett, the Law Offices of
Malvern C. Burnett, the Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center)

1.

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)

The Legal Facilitator Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) through the

conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. Specifically, the Legal

Facilitator Defendants substantially conducted or participated in the affairs of the three

alleged RICO enterprises through a pattern of engaging in mail fraud (18 U.S.c. § 1341),

wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and immigration document fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1546). The

Legal Facilitator Defendants significantly directed, instructed, determined and

participated in the actions of the enterprise with respect to legal work, promises,

representations, and assurances undertaken to effectuate the recruitment of Plaintiffs and

to induce Plaintiffs' reliance on fraudulent promises of green cards, visas, and

employment.

11.

18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)

With respect to Enterprise I, the Legal Facilitator Defendants conspired with the other

Defendants and various non-defendants to conduct or participate in the affairs of the

enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity by agreeing with one or more of the

Defendants to pursue, though the enterprise, the common criminal objective of engaging

in enticement into slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1583), involuntary servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1584),

forced labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589), trafficking in persons (18 U.S.C. § 1590), document

4

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 5 of 31

servitude (18 U.S.C. §1592),mail fraud (18 U;S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and/or immigration document fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1546). With respect to Enterprises II and III, the Legal Facilitator Defendants conspired with the Recruiter Defendants, Defendant Signal, and various non-defendants to conduct or participate in the affairs of the enterprises through a pattern of racketeering activity by agreeing with one or more of the Defendants to pursue, though the enterprises, the common criminal objective of engaging in enticement into slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1583), involuntary servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1584), forced labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589), trafficking in persons (18 U.S.c. § 1590), document servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1592), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and/or immigration document fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1546). C. The Labor Broker Defendants (Defendants Indo-Amerisoft, L.L.C., J & M Associates, Inc., Kurella Rao)

1.

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)

The Labor Broker Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) through the conduct

of or the participation in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering

activity. Specifically, the Labor Broker Defendants substantially conducted or

participated in the affairs of RICO Enterprise I through a pattern of engaging in mail

fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and immigration document

fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1546). The Labor Broker Defendants significantly directed,

instructed, detennined and participated in the actions of RICO Enterprise I with respect to

the promises, representations, and assurances undertaken to effectuate the recruitment of

Plaintiffs and to induce Plaintiffs' reliance on fraudulent promises of green cards and

employment.

5

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 6 of 31

II.

18 U;S.C. § 1962(d)

The Labor Broker Defendants conspired with the other Defendants and various

non-defendants to conduct or participate in the affairs of Enterprise I through a pattern of

racketeering activity by agreeing with one or more of the Defendants to pursue, though

the enterprise, the common criminal objective of engaging in mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §

1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), andlor immigration document fraud (18 U.S.C. §

1546).

D. The Recruiter Defendants (Michael Pol, Global Resources, Inc., Sachin

Dewan, and Dewan Consultants (a/k/a Medteeh Consultants)

I.

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)

The Recruiter Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) through the conduct or

participation in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.

Specifically, the Recruiter Defendants substantially conducted or participated in the

affairs of the three alleged RICO enterprises through a pattern of engaging in enticement

into slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1583), involuntary servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1584), forced labor

(18 U.S.C. § 1589), trafficking in persons (18 U.S.C. § 1590), document servitude (18

U.S.C. § 1592), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and

immigration document fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1546). The Recruiter Defendants significantly

directed, instructed, determined and participated in the actions of the enterprises with

respect to efforts to recruit workers, promises, representations, and assurances undertaken

to effectuate the recruitment of Plaintiffs and to induce Plaintiffs' reliance on fraudulent

promises of green cards, visas, and employment. The Recruiter Defendants also directed,

6

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 7 of 31

instructed, and determined much of the enterprises' conduct that rose to the level of the

trafficking, involuntary servitude, and forced labor-related offenses.

11.

18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)

With respect to Enterprise I, the Recruiter Defendants conspired with the other

Defendants and various non-defendants to conduct or participate in the affairs of the

enterprise through a pattem of racketeering activity by agreeing with one or more of the

Defendants to pursue, though the enterprise, the common criminal objective of engaging

in enticement into slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1583), involuntary servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1584),

forced labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589), trafficking in persons (18 U.S.C. § 1590), document

servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1592), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §

1343), and/or immigration document fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1546).

With respect to Enterprises II and III, the Recruiter Defendants conspired with the

Legal Facilitator Defendants, Defendant Signal, and various non-defendants to conduct or

participate in the affairs of the enterprises through a pattem of racketeering activity by

agreeing with one or more of the Defendants to pursue, though the enterprises, the

common criminal objective of engaging in enticement into slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1583),

involuntary servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1584), forced labor (18 U.S,C. § 1589), trafficking in

persons (18 U.S.C. § 1590), document servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1592), mail fraud (18

U.S.c. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and immigration document fraud (18

U.S.C. § 1546).

3. Alleged Wrongdoers Other than Defendants and Alleged Misconduct

7

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 8 of 31
· A. .Darrell Snyder: Snyder participated in effectuating forced labor and trafficking at Signal operations, by, inter alii!, carrying out and overseeing the maintenance of coercive and abusive conditions in the Signal labor camp in Pascagoula, Mississippi. B. Swetman Security: Swetman assisted Defendant Signal in effectuating forced labor and trafficking at Signal operations by participating in the forced detention and attempted deportation of several Plaintiffs and possibly by conducting other security activities at the Pascagoula labor camp during Plaintiffs' presence. Swetman Security is expressly alleged to be part of RICO Enterprise III. (1 st Am. Compl. at ~ 290). C. Frank Tipton: Tipton participated in effectuating forced labor and trafficking at Signal operations, by, inter alia, carrying out and overseeing the maintenance of coercive and abusive conditions in the Signal labor camp in Pascagoula, Mississippi and by participating in the forced detention and attempted deportation of several Plaintiffs. D. John Sanders: Sanders participated in effectuating forced labor and trafficking at Signal operations, by, inter alia, carrying out and overseeing the maintenance of coercive and abusive conditions in the Signal labor camp in Pascagoula, Mississippi. E. Ravi Reddy: Reddy participated in effectuating forced labor and trafficking at Signal operations, by, inter alia, carrying out and overseeing the maintenance of coercive and abusive conditions in the Signal labor camp in Orange, Texas. F. Manesh Dewan: An employee and/or agent of the Recruiter Defendants, Dewan communicated Defendants' fraudulent assurances to Plaintiffs. Dewan also coordinated paperwork and collection of fees to effectuate fraud and forced labor and trafficking of Plaintiffs.
8

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 9 of 31

G. "Salimon": A man known as "Salimon" served as a recruiting agent for the

Recruiter Defendants in India, communicating Defendants' assurances and

representations in furtherance of Defendants' fraudulent activities. Salimon also assisted

in effectuating Defendants' forced labor and trafficking of Plaintiffs by overseeing and

administering paperwork and collection of fees from Plaintiffs.

H. "Rajesh": A man known as "Rajesh" served as an administrator or office

manager for the Recruiter Defendants in India, communicating Defendants' assurances

and representations in furtherance of Defendants' fraudulent activities. Rajesh also

assisted in effectuating Defendants' forced labor and trafficking of Plaintiffs and others

by overseeing and administering paperwork and collection offees from Plaintiffs and

others.

I.

"Disha": A woman known as "Disha" served as an administrator or office

manager for the Recruiter Defendants in the United Arab Emirates, communicating

Defendants' assurances and representations in furtherance of Defendants' fraudulent

activities. Disha also assisted in effectuating Defendants' forced labor and trafficking of

Plaintiffs and others by overseeing and administering paperwork and collection offees

from Plaintiffs and others.

J. M & M Bank: At the instruction of Defendant Signal, Plaintiffs and other

putative class members in Pascagoula, Mississippi opened accounts at M & M Bank and

agreed to have their wages directly deposited into these accounts. This gave Defendant

Signal unique access to and control over Plaintiffs' and other putative class members'

funds. Shortly before April 10,2007, some class members fled Signal's Pascagoula labor

camp. M & M denied these departed workers access to their bank accounts and

9

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 10 of 31
invalidated their ATM cards, apparently atDefendant Signal's behest. Workers still employed at Signal heard about this incident and reasonably believed that similar action might be taken against them should they try to leave Defendant Signal's employ. M & M Bank is expressly alleged to be part of RICO Enterprise III. (I sl Am. Compl. at ~ 290). K. Other Non-Defendant Management, Employees, Agents and/or Representatives of Defendants: Other individuals whose identities are unknown at this time are believed to have participated in, facilitated and/or supported the racketeering acts at the behest of Defendants or in their capacity as Defendants' agents, employees, and/or representatives. 1. U.S. and Indian Government Officials: Individuals employed by the U.S. or Indian government whose identities are unknown at this time may have participated in, facilitated, andlor supported the racketeering acts at the behest of Defendants. U.S. Consular Officers are expressly alleged to be part of RICO Enterprise I. (I sl Am. Compo ~ 279). It is not currently known whether they had any kn,owledge of the lll1derlying predicate acts. 4. Alleged Victims and Injuries
The victims of the racketeering activities in this case are approximately 600 Indian H-2B workers who were recruited by Defendants at various points between 2003 and 2006 and who traveled andlor were transported to the United States at any time from 2006 to the present under the auspices ofH-2B visas assigned to Defendant Signal. The victims have suffered significant injuries to their business and/or property as a result of Defendants' racketeering activities and conspiracies to commit racketeering activities, including: payment offees charged by Defendants and their agents for recruitment, travel, immigration processing, legal services, housing, and food; interest on loans
10

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 11 of 31

undertaken by Plaintiffs to pay fees charged by Defendants; lost and unpaid wages; .

personal property abandoned at Defendant Signal's labor camp; and lost work and

professional opportunities.

5. Pattern of Racketeering

A. Alleged Predicate Acts

Enticement into slavery (18 U.S.c. § 1583), involuntary servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1584),

forced labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589),. trafficking in persons (18 U.S.C. § 1590), document

servitude (18 U.S.c. § 1592), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §

1343), and inunigration document fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1546).

B. Dates, Participants in, and Description of the Predicate Acts

i.

Enticement into Slavery (18 U.S.C. § 1583)

a. Dates: Late 2003 through the present.

b. Participants: Defendant Signal, the Legal Facilitator Defendants,

and the Recruiter Defendants. U.S. Consular Officers, Swetman Security,

and M & M Bank are alleged to be part of an enterprise through which the

predicate acts were committed.

c. Facts: The facts surrounding the enticement into slavery predicate

act are detailed in ~~ 77 through 270 of the First Amended Complaint,

which are incorporated herein by reference. In summary, the Defendants,

through their respective RICO enterprises: Enticed, persuaded, or induced

the Plaintiffs and other class members 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 held in modem-day slavery,

11

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 12 of 31
as described in the TVPA, 22 U.S.C.§ 7101 (b)(1)("trafficking in persons is a modem fom1 of slavery, and it is the largest manifestation of slavery today."). 11. Involuntary Servitude (18 U.S.C. § 1584) a. Dates: November 2006 through the present. b. Participants: Defendant Signal, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Recruiter Defendants. U.S. Consular Officers, Swetman Security, and M & M Bank are alleged to be part of an enterprise through which the predicate acts were committed. c. Facts: The facts surrounding the involuntary servitude predicate act are detailed in ~~ 77 through 270 of the First Amended Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. In summary, the Defendants, through their respective RICO enterprises:
(1) knowingly and willfully attempted to and did physically restrain and/or threaten Plaintiffs and other class members with serious harm in order to obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs and other class members; (2) knowingly and willfully attempted to and did obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs and other class members using a scheme, plan, or pattern which, in the totality of the circumstances, was intended to coerce and did coerce Plaintiffs and other class members to believe that they would suffer serious hann if they were to leave the employ of Defendants;
12

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 13 of 31
(3) knowingly and willfully isolated Plaintiffs and other class members, forced Plaintiffs to live in conditions causing psychological harm, and limited Plaintiffs' outside contacts in order to coerce Plaintiffs and other class members into believing that they would suffer serious harm if they were to leave Defendant Signal's employ; (4) knowingly and willfully threatened Plaintiffs and other class members with deportation and deceived Plaintiffs and other class members about their current and future immigration status in a manner that constitutes an abuse ofJegal process. iii. Forced Labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589) a. Dates: November 2006 through the present. b. Participants: Defendant Signal, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Recruiter Defendants. U.S. Consular Officers, Swetman Security, and M & M Bank are alleged to be part of an enterprise through which the' predicate acts were committed. c. Facts: The facts surrounding the forced labor predicate act are detailed in ~~ 77 through 270 of the First Amended Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. In summary, the Defendants, through their respective RICO enterprises: (l) knowingly attempted to and did physically restrain and/or threaten Plaintiffs and other class members with serious harm in
13

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 14 of 31
order to obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs and other class members; (2) knowingly attempted to and did obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs and other class members using a scheme, plan, or pattern which, in the totality of the circumstances, was intended to coerce and did coerce Plaintiffs and other class members to believe that they would suffer serious harm if they were to leave the employ of Defendants; (3) knowingly isolated Plaintiffs and other class members, forced Plaintiffs to live in conditions causing psychological harm, and limited Plaintiffs' outside contacts in order to coerce Plaintiffs and other class members into believing that they would suffer serious harm if they were to leave Defendant Signal's employ; (4) knowingly threatened Plaintiffs and other class members with deportation and deceived Plaintiffs and other class members about the terms of their visas in a manner that constitutes an abuse oflegal process. IV. Trafficking with respect to Peonage, Slavery, Involuntary Servitude, or Forced Labor (18 U.S.C. § 1590) a. Dates: Late 2003 through the present. b. Participants: Defendant Signal, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Recruiter Defendants. U.S. Consular Officers, Swetman Security,
14

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 15 of 31
. and M & M Bank are alleged to be part of an enterprise through which the predicate acts were committed. c. Facts: The facts surrounding the trafficking predicate act are detailed in ~~ 77 through 270 of the First Amended Complaint, which are incorporated herein by reference. In summary, the Defendants, through their respective RICO enterprises: (l) knowingly recruited, transported and/or harbored the Plaintiffs and other class members in furtherance of the Defendants' violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1583, 1584, 1589, and 1592, as set forth in ~ 5(b)(i-iii), supra, and ~ 5(b)(v), infra. (2) knowingly recruited, transported and/or harbored the Plaintiffs and other class members by: enticing, persuading, or inducing the Plaintiffs and other class members to go on board aircraft or to go to various locations throughout India, the United Arab Emirates and the United States with the intent that Plaintiffs and other class members my be held in modem-day slavery; holding Plaintiffs and other class members in involuntary servitude and forced labor; removing, confiscating, or possessing Plaintiffs' and other class members' passports and other immigration documents in the course of, and with the intent to violate multiple provisions of Title 18, Chapter 77 of the U.S. Code; and attempting to violate multiple provisions of Title 18, Chapter 77 of the U.S. Code.
15

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 16 of 31

v. Document Servitnde (18 U.S.C.§ 1592(a».

a. Dates: Between approximately July 2006 and approximately

February 2007.

b. Participants: Defendant Signal, the Legal Facilitator Defendants,

and the Recruiter Defendants. U.S. Consular Officers are alleged to be

part of an enterprise through which these predicate acts were committed.

c.

Facts: The facts surrounding this predicate act are detailed in 11

158 through 179 of the First Amended Complaint, which are incorporated

herein by reference. In summary, these Defendants, through their

respective RICO enterprises, maintained possession of the Plaintiffs' and

other class members' passports and visa documents to assure that

Plaintiffs and other class members paid exorbitant fees and boarded U.S.-

bound aircraft. The recruiter Defendants threatened to destroy the

passports of any worker who did not acquiesce to these Defendants'

demands. The purpose of withholding the passport and visa documents

was to lead Plaintiffs and other class members to believe that they had no

choice but to board aircraft to travel to the United States to work for

Defendant Signal. Therefore, these acts occurred in the course of

violations of 18 U.S.c. §§ 1583, 1590, and I594(a), and with intent to

violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1583, 1584, 1589 and 1590.

Ill. Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341). See 1 5(c), infra.

IV. Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343). See 1 5(c), infra.

v.

Immigration Document Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1546). See 1 5(c), infra.

16

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 17 of 31

C. Fraud-Related Predicate Acts

The circumstances constituting mail fraud, wire fraud, and/or immigration

document fraud, "stated with particularity," are set forth in detail in the charts attached to

this Case Statement as Exhibit 1.

D. Relationship Between the Predicate Acts and the Enterprise as Part of A

Common Plan.

The predicate acts are related to one another and to the enterprises as part of a

common plan. The continuing frauds were committed through the enterprises as part of

the same overarching scheme to defraud the Plaintiffs through the use of false promises

that, in exchange for exorbitant fees, the Plaintiffs would receive green cards if they

accepted employment with Defendant Signal. Ultimately, the Defendants intended the

scheme to compel the Plaintiffs and others to work, and the Plaintiffs and others did

work, for Defendant Signal under conditions that violated multiple provisions of Article

18, Chapter 77 of the U.S. Code.

6. Description of the Enterprises

A. Enterprise I

I.

Individuals and Entities Constituting the Enterprise: all Defendants and

currently unidentified United States Consular officers in India.

II. Structure, Purpose, Roles, Function, and Course of Conduct of the

Enterprise: This information is provided in the First Amended Complaint at ~~ 279-284,

which is incorporated herein by reference. In summary, Enterprise I was an association

in fact between and among each of the Defendants and U.S. Consular officers in India.

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

17

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 18 of 31

Defendants worked in concert with the common purpose of secnring the labor of the

Group I Plaintiffs and other foreign workers at Defendant Signal's operations. At

Defendant Signal's behest, the Legal Facilitator Defendants and the Recruiter Defendants

worked in concert to secnre the labor of the Group II Plaintiffs, and ultimately all

Plaintiffs and other foreign workers, at Signal's operations. The U.S. Consular officers in

India, at the request of the Defendants, participated in the process of vetting Indian

workers for employment at Defendant Signal's operations and forwarding their passports

to the Recruiter Defendants.

111. None of the Defendants are employees, officers, or directors of Enterprise

I.

IV. Enterprise I is an "association in fact" enterprise. As set forth in

subsection (ii), supra, all of the Defendants are associated with Enterprise I.

v. The Defendants are individuals or entities separate from Enterprise I.

vi. None of the Defendants are the enterprise itself.

B. Enterprise II

1.

Individuals and Entities Constituting the Enterprise: The Recruiter

Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal.

11. Structure, Purpose, Roles, Function, and Conrse of Conduct of the

Enterprise: This information is provided in the First Amended Complaint at ~~ 285-289,

which is incorporated herein by reference. Enterprise II was an association in fact

between and among the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and

Defendant Signal. The Legal Facilitator Defendants and the Recruiter Defendants worked

in concert at Defendant Signal's behest with the common purpose of selling United States

18

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 19 of 31

visas and work opportunities to Indian workers to convince these workers to pay fees and

to travel to the United States to work for companies including Signal.

lll. None of the Defendants are employees, officers, or directors of Enterprise

II.

IV. Enterprise II is an "association in fact" enterprise. As set forth in

subsection (ii), supra, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and

Defendant Signal are associated with Enterprise II.

v. The Defendants are individuals or entities separate from Enterprise II.

vi. None of the Defendants are the enterprise itself.

B. Enterprise III

i.

Individuals and Entities Constituting the Enterprise: The Recruiter

Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, Defendant Signal, Swetman Secnrity, and

M&MBank.

11. Structnre, Pu!:pose, Roles, Function, and Conrse of Conduct of the

Enterprise: This information is provided in the First Amended Complaint at ~~ 290 -

294, which is incorporated herein by reference. Enterprise III was an association in fact

between and among the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants,

Defendant Signal, Swetman Secnrity, and M & M Bank. The Legal Facilitator

Defendants, the Recruiter Defendants, and Defendant Signal worked in concert with the

common pnrpose of providing and maintaining a consistent and acquiescent Indian

worker labor force at Signal's operations. Swetman Secnrity provided security services

in support of Enterprise III. M & M Bank provided financial services in support of

Enterprise III.

19

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 20 of 31
Ill. None of the Defendants are employees, officers, or directors of Enterprise III.
IV. Enterprise III is an "association in fact" enterprise. As set forth in subsection (ii), supra, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal are associated with Enterprise III.
v. The Defendants are individuals or entities separate from Enterprise III. vi. None of the Defendants are the enterprise itself. 7. Separate Nature of the Enterprise and Racketeering Activity A. Enterprise I The participants in this enterprise worked in concert with the common purpose of securing the labor of the Plaintiffs and other foreign workers at Defendant Signal's operations. As such, the enterprise as a whole has a common link other than the racketeering activity. B. Enterprise II The participants in this enterprise worked in concert at Defendant Signal's behest with the connnon purpose of selling United States visas and work opportunities to Indian workers to convince these workers to pay fees and to travel to the United States to work for companies including Signal. While the purpose of Enterprise II may violate other statutory protections, its common link - the for-profit business ofselling United States visa and work opportunities to Indian citizens - is distinguishable from the racketeering activity conducted through this enterprise. C. Enterprise III
20

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 21 of 31
The participants in this enterprise worked in concert with the common purpose of providing and maintaining a consistent and acquiescent Indian worker labor force at Signal's operations. The enterprise's common link - the maintenance of a workforce for Signal- is distinguishable from the racketeering activity conducted tbrough this enterprise. 8. Relationship Between the Activities of the Enterprise and the Pattern of Racketeering A. Enterprise I
The Defendants used the mails and wires to defraud the Plaintiffs and other workers, and committed visa fraud, for the otherwise non-racketeering purpose of securing a workforce for Defendant Signal. The Defendants engaged in both fraudulent and non-racketeering activities to further this purpose. Similarly, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Signal, in their ongoing relationship with the Plaintiffs, other workers, and Enterprise I as a whole, committed and/or conspired to commit acts constituting the involuntary servitude, forced labor, and human trafficking-related offenses. However, not every act Defendants committed in the context of these relationships constituted an element of these crimes. Therefore, the "usual and daily activities" of this enterprise were peppered with racketeering activities, but did not solely involve racketeering activities. B. Enterprise II
The Defendant participants in this enterprise used the mails and wires to defraud the Plaintiffs and other workers, and committed visa fraud, for the otherwise nonracketeering purpose of selling United States visas and work opportunities to Indian
21

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 22 of 31
·workers to convince these workers to pay fees and to travel to the United States to work for companies including Signal. These Defendants, through the enterprise, engaged in both fraudulent and legitimate activities to further this purpose. Similarly, these Defendants, in their ongoing relationship with the Plaintiffs, other workers, and Enterprise II as a whole, committed and/or conspired to commit acts comprising elements of the crimes of the involuntary servitude, forced labor, and human trafficking-related offenses. However, not every act these Defendants committed in the context of these relationships constituted an element of these crimes. Therefore, the "usual and daily activities" of this enterprise were peppered with racketeering activities, but did not solely involve racketeering activities. C. Enterprise III
The Defendant participants in this enterprise used the mails and wires to defraud the Plaintiffs and other workers, and committed visa fraud, for the otherwise nonracketeering purpose of providing and maintaining a consistent and acquiescent Indian worker labor force at Signal's operations. These Defendants, through the enterprise, engaged in both fraudulent and legitimate activities to further this purpose. Similarly, these Defendants, in their ongoing relationship with the Plaintiffs, other workers, and Enterprise III as a whole, committed and/or conspired to commit acts comprising elements of the crimes of the involuntary servitude, forced labor, and human traffickingrelated offenses. However, not every act these Defendants committed in the context of these relationships constituted an element these crimes. Therefore, the "usual and daily activities" of this enterprise were peppered with racketeering activities, but did not solely involve racketeering activities.
22

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 23 of 31
9. Benefits Received by the Enterprise from the Alleged Pattern of Racketeering Activity
The members of the enterprise enjoyed substantial financial profits from their racketeering activities. The Recruiter Defendants, the Labor Broker Defendants, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants, through the respective enterprises, collected significant recruitment and immigration processing fees from Plaintiffs who relied on Defendants' fraudulent promises. The Labor Broker Defendants and Signal obtained the benefits of workers, who, due to their extreme levels of personal indebtedness incurred in reliance on Defendants' fraud, were desperate to pay the Labor Broker Defendants for promised immigration and work opportunities and to accept and maintain employment with Defendant Signal.
The unlawful document-related activities committed by the Recruiter Defendants, coupled with the involuntary servitude, forced labor, and human trafficking-related offenses committed by the Recruiter Defendants and Signal in conspiracy with the Legal Facilitator Defendants caused Plaintiffs to surrender and forgo other employment and business opportunities and to remain working at Signal despite illegally low wages and large deductions for substandard and discriminatory labor camp housing. Defendant Signal profited from: maintaining the forced labor of the fearful and indebted Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs' acquiescence to Signal's excessive dednctions from their paychecks; and Signal's failure to reimburse Plaintiffs for mandatory recruitment, visa, and travel expenses as required by United States minimum wage laws. 10. Describe the Effect of the Activities on Interstate Commerce
23

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 24 of 31
The enterprises and Defendants identified in this action have conducted the racketeering activities and other business activities relevant to this action through interstate and international travel and communications. Plaintiffs have traveled and communicated across state lines and international borders in undertaking the transactions, travel, and provision of labor and services induced by Defendants' racketeering acts. Defendant Signal operates throughout the multi-state Gulf Coast region, with worksites and labor camps in Texas and Mississippi. Defendants' business and racketeering activities (involving travel, mail and wire transactions, importation of foreign workers, and payment of wages within the United States), as well as actions taken by Plaintiffs in response to andlor as a result of those activities (involving travel, mail, and wire transactions, and work performed within the United States) affect interstate commerce. 11. Allegations Specific to 18 U.S.c. § 1962(a) Not applicable. 12. Allegations Specific to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b) Not applicable. 13. Allegations Specific to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)
A. None of the Defendants were, at any relevant time, employed by any of the enterprises. All Defendants are associated with Enterprise I. The Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal are associated with Enterprises II and III. B. The liable Defendant "persons" are separate and distinct entities from the enterprises alleged above. 14. Allegations Specific to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Description of the Alleged Conspiracy) Plaintiffs assert the following RlCO conspiracies in this action:
24

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 25 of 31
Defendant Signal, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the· Labor Broker Defendants agreed to engage in mail, wire, and immigration docnment fraud to recruit, transport, and obtain Plaintiffs for work at Signal's operations in Mississippi and Texas. Defendant Signal authorized the Recruiter Defendants and the Legal Facilitator Defendants to act as its agents for the purpose of fraudulently encouraging Plaintiffs to obtain H-2B visas to come to the United States to work for Signal. The Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, the Labor Broker Defendants, and Defendant Signal agreed to certain fraudulent communications and transactions calculated to induce Plaintiffs' reasonable reliance and convince Plaintiffs to pay large snms of money to come to the United States to work for Defendant Signal.
The Labor Recruiters, the Legal Facilitators and Defendant Signal agreed that each would undertake certain measures to ensure that Plaintiffs would be enticed to travel on airliners and go to places throughout the United Arab Emirates, India, and the United States, and would continue to work at Signal's operations, resulting in involuntary servitude, forced labor, trafficking in persons, and docnment servitude. 15. Alleged Injury to Business or Property
Plaintiffs have suffered significant injuries to their business and/or property as a result of Defendants' racketeering activities including: payment of fees charged by Defendants and their agents for recruitment, travel, immigration processing, legal services, housing, and food; interest on loans undertaken by Plaintiffs to pay fees charged by Defendants; lost and unpaid wages, lost personal property abandoned at the labor canlps, and lost work and professional opportunities. 16. Relationship Between Injuries and Violations of RICO
25

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 26 of 31
All Defendants' acts of mail, wire, and visa fraud effectuated and directly induced Plaintiffs to pay exorbitant sums of money to the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and with respect to some Plaintiffs the Labor Broker Defendants by promising that Plaintiffs would receive permanent immigration status for themselves and their fanlilies and lucrative work in the United States. Relying on Defendants' fraudulent promises, Plaintiffs incurred substantial interest-bearing debts and sold personal and real property to come up with the funds necessary to pay the Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants and Labor Broker Defendants.
Defendants' acts of inducement into slavery, involuntary servitude, document servitude, trafficking in persons, and forced labor have caused Plaintiffs to make substantial payments to the Recruiter Defendants upon departing India for the United States, and caused Plaintiffs to remain working at Signal despite illegally low wages and wage deductions for housing and food at Signal's labor camps, and to abandon personal property when Plaintiffs left Signal's labor camps. These acts also coerced Plaintiffs to surrender and forgo other employment opportunities and to suffer emotional distress.
17. Damages Sustained by Reason of RICO Violations Attributable to Each Defendant Damages Resulting from Defendants' Mail, Wire, and Visa Fraud:
In reliance on Defendants' fraudulent promises regarding green cards and as a result of Defendants' conspiracy to make these fraudulent representations, each Plaintiff spent an estimated $12,000 to $20,000 or more to pay the mandatory fees charged by the Recruiter Defendants, the Labor Broker Defendants, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants plus an extra 33,500-45,000 rupees (approximately $800-$1,100) fee for H-2B visa processing to the Recruiter
26

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 27 of 31
Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants. 'This resulted in total estimated damages of at least $12,800 to $21,100 per Plaintiff.
Of these total estimated amounts, the Group I Plaintiffs, as defined in ~~ 19-21 of the First Amended Complaint made two payments (an estimated $ 7,500 to $13,300) to the Recruiter Defendants, the Labor Broker Defendants, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants due to detrimental reliance on fraudulent promises made by these Defendants and by Signal. The Recruiter Defendants, the Labor Broker Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Signal are therefore jointly and severally liable to the Group I Plaintiffs in at least the estimated quantity of$ 7,500 to $13,300 each per Plaintiff.
The Group II Plaintiffs, as defined in ~~ 22-27 of the First Amended Complaint made two payments (an estimated $ 7,500 to $13,300) to the Recruiter Defendants and the Legal Facilitator Defendants due to detrimental reliance on fraudulent promises made by these Defendants and by Signal. The Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Signal are therefore jointly and severally liable to the Group II Plaintiffs in at least the estimated quantity of$ 7,500 to $13,300 each per Plaintiff.
All Plaintiffs tendered a third payment (an estimated $3,750 to $6,600), plus an additional $800 to $1, I 00 paid as purported H-2B visa fees to the Recruiter Defendants and the Legal 'Facilitator Defendants in detrimental reliance on the fraudulent promises of the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and by Signal. The Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal are therefore jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs in at least the estimated quantity of$4,550 to $7,700 per Plaintiff. Damages as a Result of Defendants' Involuntary Servitude, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking-Related RICO Violations:
27

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 28 of 31

Plaintiffs suffered damages as 'a result of Defendant Signal, the Labor Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and these Defendants' agents, employees and/or representatives subjecting them to and/or conspiring to subject them to enticement into slavery, involuntary servitude, forced labor, human trafficking, and document servitude,. The Plaintiffs' damages include, but are not limited to, the damages resulting from the fraud-related acts delineated above, The Plaintiffs are also entitled to damag\,!s for rent charges, wage underpayments, and loss of work opportunities in the U.S. during and after their employment with Signal ceased, Because these damages continue to accrue, a specific amount cannot currently be calculated.
With respect to these predicate acts, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Signal are jointly and severally liable for related damages. All Violations
With respect to all Defendants' RICO violations, Plaintiffs seek treble damages available pursuant to 18 U,S.C § I964(c), plus costs and attorneys' fees associated with bringing this action.

18. All Other Federal Causes of Action

A. The Class Representative Plaintiffs bring the following additional federal claims

in this action:

1.

Trafficking Victims Protection Act of2003 (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. § 1589

11. Trafficking Victims Protection Act of2003 (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. § 1590

111. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C § 1981

iv. Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C §1985

28

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 29 of 31

v. . Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),29 U.S.C § 201 et seq.

B. Five Individual Plaintiffs also assert the following non-class federal claims:

1.

Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981

ii. Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1985

19. Pendent State Law Claims

A. The Class Representative Plaintiffs bring the following additional state law claims

in this action:

1.

Frandlnegligent misrepresentation

ii. Breach of contract

B. Five Individual Plaintiffs also assert the following non-class state claims:

1.

False Imprisonment

ii. Assault and Battery

Ill. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

IV. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

20. Additional Helpful Information

Plaintiffs are not aware of any additional information which may be helpful at this time.

Plaintiffs may seek to amend this Case Statement at later date should additional useful

information come to light.

Respectfully submitted,
..!sl Tracie 1. Washington~_ _ __ Tracie 1. Washington, Esq.
LSBA No. 25925 1631 Elysian Fields New Orleans, Louisiana 70117
29

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 30 of 31
Telephone: (504) 899-1889 Facsimile: (504) 940-6642 tlwesq@cox.net
/s/ Jennifer 1. Rosenbaum,_ _ _ __ Kristi L. Graunke, T.A. Georgia Bar No. 305653 (admitted pro hac vice) Jennifer J. Rosenbaum, T.A. Temlessee B.P.R. No. 022557 (admitted pro hac vice) Daniel Werner (admitted pro hac vice) New York State Bar Registration No. 3969839 Mary C. Bauer Virginia Bar No. 31388 (admitted pro hac vice) Morris S. Dees (admitted pro hac vice) Alabama Bar No. ASB-7003-E50M Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8200 Facsimile: (334) 956-8481 kgraunke@splcenter.org jennifer.rosenbaum@splcenter.org daniel.werner@sp1center.org mbauer@splcenter.org morris.dees@splcenter.org
/s/ Tushar 1. Sheth_ _ _ _ _ _ __ Tushar 1. Sheth, T.A. New York State Bar (admitted pro hac vice) Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund 99 Hudson Street, 12'h Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 966-5932 (ext. 220) Facsimile: (212) 966-4303 tsheth@aaldef.org
30

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 45 Filed 04/28/08 Page 31 of 31
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 28, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CMlECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following:
Erin Casey Hangartner Dominic Joseph Gianna Donald C. Douglas, Jr. Alan Dean Weinberger Paul John Mirabile Middleberg, Riddle & Gianna 201 St. Charles Avenue, 31 st Floor New Orleans, LA 70170-3100
Ralph R. Alexis III, Esq. Porteous, Hainkel and Johnson, L.L.P. 704 Carondelet Street New Orleans, LA 70130-3774
Christy Harowski, Esq. Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver 909 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
lsi Kristi Graunke_ _ __ Counsel for Plaintiffs

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO:

08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.

SECTION: "A" (3)

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court are a Motion to Dismiss Class Claims (Rec. Doc. 123) filed by defendant Signal International, in which defendants Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC, and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett (Rec. Doc. 132) and defendants J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi (Rec. Doc. 147) move to join, and a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Rec. Doc. 79) filed by third party defendant Zito Companies, LLC (“Zito”). The motions are before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.1

1 Oral argument has been requested but the Court is not persuaded that oral argument would assist the Court in resolving

I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are citizens of India who secured visas to work
in the United States for defendant Signal International, LLC in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Signal is in the business of providing construction services to the Gulf Coast oil and gas industry. Plaintiffs claim that they were subjected to forced labor as welders, pipefitters, and other marine fabrication workers at Signal operations in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Orange, Texas. (Comp. ¶ 1). Plaintiffs assert class action claims against Defendants arising from violations of their rights under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), the Civil Rights Act, and a host of other statutes. (Comp. ¶ 9). Signal asserts that it had no experience in hiring foreign workers and therefore relied on others to act lawfully to provide the foreign workers. Signal’s third party complaint against Zito alleges that Zito took steps to interfere with the contractual relationships between the workers and Signal. II. DISCUSSION
1. Rule 12(b)(b) Motion to Dismiss Third Party Complaint Against Zito (Rec. Doc. 79)
Zito moves to dismiss Signal’s third party complaint arguing
the issues presented. 2

that Signal does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Zito argues that Louisiana law does not recognize a claim for tortious interference with a contract.
In opposition, Signal contends that Zito is incorrect in assuming that Louisiana law would apply to its third party demand. Signal argues that Mississippi law might very well apply because Signal is based in Mississippi and the workers at issue for this particular third-party demand worked at Signal’s Mississippi facility. According to Signal, Mississippi law does recognize a claim for tortious interference with a contract.
Zito replies that Louisiana law should govern the claims asserted in the third party demand.
Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 570 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Shipp v. McMahon, 199 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2000)). In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court accepts as true those well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint. Id. (citing C.C. Port, Ltd. v. Davis-Penn Mortgage Co., 61 F.3d 288, 289 (5th Cir. 1995)). “Taking the facts alleged in the complaint as true, if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle it to the relief it seeks,” dismissal is proper. Id. (quoting C.C. Port, Ltd., 61
3

F.3d at 289). It must appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff “can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id. (quoting Campbell v. City of San Antonio, 43 F.3d 973, 975 (5th Cir. 1995)).
Signal and Zito both seem to recognize that the viability of Signal’s third party claims against Zito turns on whether Louisiana or Mississippi law applies to the claims asserted. The choice of law determination will be a fact intensive determination yet the allegations against Zito are not alleged in detail. Based on the current record and the paucity of briefing on the issue the Court cannot possibly make a choice of law determination at this time. Zito’s motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.
2. Motion to Dismiss Class Claims (Rec. Doc. 123) Signal moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for class certification arguing that their claims cannot be certified for class status as a matter of law. Signal argues that issues of individual reliance, whether for the RICO claims, fraud claims, or any of the other claims asserted, will preclude certification as a matter of law. Signal contends that it has a duty to seek an early declaration as to the futility of class certification. In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Signal’s motion is
4

premature and an improper attempt to obtain a court ruling on the commonality and predominance questions of certification before Plaintiffs have their day in court at the hearing where they will present their evidence. Plaintiffs contend that Signal’s motion is essentially an opposition to a motion for certification, one which Plaintiffs have yet to file, and that Signal’s arguments should be considered only after Plaintiffs are given an opportunity to file their motion and present their evidence.
The Court recognizes that Signal seeks to avoid the time and expense of a class certification hearing if Plaintiffs’ claims cannot be certified as a matter of law. However, the facts of this case and the roles of the various parties involved remain largely undefined to the Court. The parties have been involved in discovery in anticipation of the certification issue and the Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ contention that they should be given the opportunity to present their evidence to the Court. Signal’s arguments today, which are clearly arguments in opposition to certification, should be presented to the Court in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class. Following such a ruling the aggrieved party can petition the Fifth Circuit for review of this Court’s decision before the case proceeds to the next step. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(f).
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
5

IT IS ORDERED that the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Rec. Doc. 79) filed by third party defendant Zito Companies, LLC is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Class Claims (Rec. Doc. 123) filed by defendant Signal International is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions for Joinder (Rec. Docs. 132 & 147) filed by defendants Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC, and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett and by defendant J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi are DENIED AS MOOT.
September 11, 2008 JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL

SECTION "A" (3)

ORDER AND REASONS

The undersigned Magistrate Judge conducted a telephone hearing regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order Precluding Inquiries with an In Terrorem Effect (Doc. # 315) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Doc. # 319). Participating on behalf of plaintiffs were Alan Bruce Howard, Daniel Werner and Robert P. Wynne. Participating on behalf of defendants were Donald C. Douglas, Jr., Erin Casey Hangartner and Patricia F. Bollman for Signal International, LLC, Stephen H. Shapiro for Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Ralph R. Alexis, III, Glenn B. Adams and Michael Madiere for the Burnett defendants and Michael E. Whitehead for J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. Insofar as Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel seeks a representation order/determination of counsel or default judgment as to Indo-Ameri Soft LLC and Rao Defendants formerly represented by Kevin Kennedy Gipson (who has withdrawn), those issues are more appropriately addressed to the district judge. An order compelling
1

discovery responses against the unrepresented corporate defendants is premature at this point because the aforesaid corporate defendants are currently not represented by counsel and cannot represent themselves.
Turning to Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order Precluding Inquiries with an In Terrorem Effect (Doc. # 315), it is GRANTED for the following reasons.
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are a putative class of over 500 Indian men who were allegedly trafficked into the United States through the federal government's H-2B guestworker program to work for Signal International, LLC, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants knowingly recruited, transported and harbored the Plaintiffs and other putative class members in violation of laws prohibiting peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude and force labor within the meaning the provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (TVPA). Plaintiffs assert class action claims against the defendants arising from violations of their rights under a number of different statutes, to wit: (1) Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. § 1595; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (Forced Labor); (3) 42 U.S.C. § 1981;1 (4) Abuse of Process under 18 U.S.C. § 1589(3);2 (5) Violations of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1985 and the Thirteenth Amendment; (6) Fraud and Negligent
1Plaintiffs allege that defendants' scheme to isolate plaintiffs and other class members, to force them to live in conditions causing psychological harm, and to limit outside contacts, including unlawful discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, was designed to coerce Plaintiffs and other class members into believing that they would suffer serious harm if they were to leave the employ of defendants.
2Plaintiffs claim that defendants threatened putative class members with deportation and deceived plaintiffs and other class members about the terms of their visas. Complaint at ¶ 283 at p. 58.
2

Misrepresentation; (7) Breach of Contract; (8) Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 206, et seq.;3 and (9) False Imprisonment, Assault and Battery and Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Harm. Plaintiffs allege multiple predicate acts of forced labor under 18 U.S.C. § 1589 in furtherance of the defendants' unlawful scheme of RICO Enterprises to profit from recruiting, obtaining and provisioning plaintiffs for work in the United States through fraudulent promises, charging exorbitant payments for recruitment and immigration services and engaging in exploitative and coercive recruitment and labor practices, all of the foregoing in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962( c), (d) ("RICO").4 On October 1, 2008, putative class plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3).5
Defendant Signal International, LLC ("Signal"), is in the business of providing construction services to the Gulf Coast oil and gas industry. Factual allegations include that beginning in late 2003 the "recruiter defendants" Dewan Consultants, Sachin Dewan, Global Resources, Inc. and Michael Pol placed advertisements 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. According to plaintiffs, the advertisements promised that qualified candidates could obtain legal permanent residence (green cards) and thereby legally and permanently immigrate to the United States with their families. The plaintiffs contend that
3Plaintiffs' collective action under the FLSA includes claims of willful failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and unlawful deductions from wages, including expenses for point-of-hire travel, visa, recruitment, tools and housing expenses.
4Rec. Doc. No. 1. 5Rec. Doc. No. 165.
3

they paid exorbitant fees to the defendants for recruitment, immigration processing and travel.
Plaintiffs submit that, unbeknownst to them, they were never eligible to obtain the promised
green cards and that, once arriving in the United States, they were subject to serious abuses and
forced labor at Signal’s labor camps in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and in Orange, Texas.
In its Order and Reasons issued December 8, 2008, the district judge found the factual
assertions made by plaintiff, David Kurian, representative of the factual assertions made by
others. They are reiterated below in extenso.
According to David, a citizen of India, he saw a newspaper ad by Dewan Consultants while he was employed in Abu Dhabi. In May 2006, David attended a seminar led by defendant Sachin Dewan with the assistance of the defendant Malvern Burnett. David claims that at the seminar Dewan told the attendees that for 600,000 rupees plus costs, he could get workers an employment-based green card in the United States. The attendees were told that the money would be paid in three installments and that the money would cover Dewan’s fee as well as fees for Burnett and Michael Pol. Burnett is an attorney at law specializing in immigration matters, and Pol owns Global Resources, Inc., a company in the business of assisting U.S. companies in finding skilled labor to work at their facilities. David claims that Burnett spoke at the seminar and explained to the potential recruitees how the green card process would work.
David took and passed the pipe fitter skills test. Thereafter, David attended two additional group meetings, the second of which was led by Dewan and Burnett. Burnett explained the green card process once again and he and Dewan handed out contracts from Global Resources, Malvern Burnett and Dewan Consultants, and an employment contract for Signal International. A representative from Dewan’s office helped the group to successfully fill out the forms.
In June and August of 2006, David made installment payments at Dewan’s office including checks made payable to Burnett and Pol. In late August 2006 David attended a meeting in Dubai where Dewan and Burnett told the workers that before their visas would expire the green cards would be approved. At a subsequent meeting Dewan and Burnett gave workers instructions on how to answer questions from the U.S. consular officers during their visa interviews. Dewan and Burnett allegedly instructed the workers not to reveal how much money they had paid for the recruitment fees and not to mention the green cards.
The consulate officials took David’s passport and at the behest of Dewan Consultants the passport was returned directly to Dewan’s office. According to David, Dewan refused to return his passport until he made the final installment
4

payment to Dewan and paid for medical testing to be performed by a physician chosen by Dewan.
In February 2007, David made the final payment with checks made payable to Dewan, Burnett and Pol. David claims that he was then rushed to sign forms written in English that he could not understand and it was only upon signing these forms and making the final installment payment that Dewan finally returned his passport. During this process David saw other workers attempt to back out and have their money returned but that someone from Dewan Consultants had threatened to destroy their passports in retaliation. David contends that the and his wife sold many of their personal belongings to raise the money necessary to pay Dewan, Burnett and Pol.
On February 16, 2007, David arrived at Signal’s labor camp in Orange, Texas where he signed a number of additional employment forms. David claims that he later learned that the forms permitted Signal to take deductions from his salary for food and accommodations and that Signal required the workers to open an account with a specific bank where their paychecks would be deposited. David charges that the living conditions and food at Signal were horrible and that the Indian workers were told that even if they left that they would be charged the daily rate of room and board.
David claims that the Indian workers were searched by guards when they would come and go from camp and that guards would sometimes come into the living quarters at night to search workers’ belongings. According to David, the workers began to get sick because of the overcrowded conditions and Signal required the workers to purchase all of their own tools. David claims that the workers were relegated to performing all of the dangerous and dirty work inside of the ships and that the American workers were not required to do such work.
According to David, when the workers complained, Signal made more promises about the green cards and threatened that if the workers continued to complain then they would be deported and not receive the promised visas. David continued to work under conditions that he characterized as horrible because he was afraid of the consequences of leaving given that he had incurred so much debt to raise the money to come to the United States.6
The district judge took up the matter of several defendants' motions to dismiss, including
the Dewan Defendants, denying same.7
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Plaintiff seeks an order protecting Putative Class Representatives and putative class
6Order and Reasons filed December 8, 2008 [Rec. Doc. No. 288].
7Id.
5

members from inquiries which have an inherently in terrorem effect. More particularly, plaintiffs seek to prohibit inquiry into:
(1) current immigration status of any Plaintiff -- i.e., post-termination of his employment with defendant Signal;
(2) current address or place of residence of any Plaintiff; (3) employers or potential employers of any Plaintiff post-termination of employment with defendant Signal. Plaintiffs’ counsel explains that there are three issues central to plaintiffs' motion, which are: (1) whether the subject inquiries have an in terrorem effect or are threatening in nature; (2) whether the claims at issue in this case allow for the protection sought; and (3) whether the defendants have articulated any basis indicating that such inquiries are relevant and, if so, does this overcome the in terrorem effect. As to the first aspect of the analysis, plaintiffs submit that they have cited an abundance of authorities that support their position that inquiries as to the current immigration status of the putative class representatives, inter alia, will have an in terrorem effect on putative class representatives and prima facie chilling effect on any inclination they have to prosecute the putative class members claims in this case. Plaintiffs further argue that the current immigration status of putative class representatives have nothing to do with their claims, which concern the time period during which they were employed by Signal. Given the prima facie nature of the in terrorem effect at issue, plaintiffs contend that sworn declarations of the plaintiffs are not necessary to meet their burden and that the suggestion that plaintiffs are required to submit sworn declarations attesting to facts as to which they are seeking protection is a non sequitur.
6

As to the second issue, plaintiffs contend that their claims are the type of claims that
warrant the imposition of such protection. Plaintiffs contend that the cases cited by defendants --
including of Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002) and Egbuna v.
Time-Life Libraries, 153 F.3d 184, 187-188 (4th Cir. 1998) -- are inapplicable. Plaintiffs submit
that they cited a plethora of cases8 which challenge the defendants' suggestion that immigration
reform effected such a monumental change policy that it curtails the reach of Title VII and other
statutes such that they no longer afford protection to unauthorized aliens. For purposes of all of
the plaintiffs claims in addition to FLSA and Title VII -- including RICO, trafficking, inter alia
-- the ability to assert such claims does not hinge upon whether the plaintiffs are in status or out
of status. Plaintiffs submit that the NLRA case, Hoffman Plastics, supra, is inapposite because it
involved a claim for work which was not actually performed.9 Plaintiffs in the case at bar seek
damages for work actually performed.
Plaintiffs highlight that all of their claims are available to workers regardless of their
8See Olivera-Morales v. International Labor Management Corp., Inc. 2008 WL 53293 (M. D. N. C. 2008) (distinguishing Egbuna, supra, noting that Olivera-Morales sought assistance from Defendants not only to obtain employment in the United States but also to obtain the necessary documentation and authorization so that she could begin working in the United States and highlighting that both parties anticipated that, as a result of their efforts, Ms. Olivera-Morales would be qualified to work in the United States); Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc. 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that Hoffman,supra, does not resolve the question whether federal courts may award backpay to undocumented workers who have been discharged in violation of Title VII); Escobar v. Spartan Sec. Serv., 281 F.Supp.2d 895, 897 (S. D. Tex. 2003) (holding that Hoffman "did not specifically foreclose all remedies for undocumented workers under either the National Labor Relations Act or other comparable federal labor statutes").
9Reyes v. Van Elk, Ltd., 148 Cal. App. 4th 604 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 2007) (finding that Hoffman does not prohibit plaintiffs from having standing to raise claims for prevailing wages as those claims are also for work already performed and that "prevailing wage law uses the general term 'worker' and does not restrict workers to citizens"); Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 393 F. Supp.2d 295, 325 (D. N. J. 2005) (holding that the FLSA did not preclude undocumented workers from obtaining relief for work already performed).
7

immigration status; thus, current immigration status could not possibly have any relevance.
Finally, plaintiffs submit that any conceivable relevance is overshadowed by the in terrorem
effect.
Defendants contend that, in order to grant plaintiff’s motion, the Court must find that the
inquiries are not relevant as a matter of law as to every one of the claims that the plaintiffs have
raised in this lawsuit and the defenses raised by the defendants. Defendants argue that plaintiffs
have not cited one case that extends the discovery limitations of the FLSA wage and hour cases
to each of the claims that plaintiffs have made in this case.
As aforestated, the defendants contend that the Supreme Court's authority in Hoffman
Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002)10 suggests that the question in this case is
better analyzed through a wider lens than the plaintiffs suggest is appropriate.11 Defendants also
cite Egbuna v. Time-Life Libraries, 153 F3d 184, 187-188 (4th Cir. 1998) for the proposition that
the IRCA effected a monumental change in our country’s immigration policy and prior cases
which indicated that Title VII protects unauthorized aliens from employment discrimination are
inapplicable.12
10In Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), an NLRA case, the Supreme Court found that "awarding backpay to illegal aliens runs counter to policies underlying the [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986] IRCA" and that awarding backpay in the case before it "trivializes immigration laws" and "condones and encourages future violations." Id. at 149-151. See Defendant Signal's Memorandum in Opposition at pp.2-3 [Rec. Doc. No. 324].
11See Defendant Signal's Sur-Reply at p. 2 [Rec. Doc. No. 337]. 12In Egbuna v. Time-Life Libraries, 153 F.3d 184 (4th Cir. 1998), a Title VII failure to rehire case involving an undocumented worker, the Fourth Circuit determined that Egbuna's former employer had not violated Title VII as matter of law when it failed to rehire him because Egbuna, at the time he applied to be rehired, was not a documented worker, and therefore was not qualified for the position he sought. Id. at 186 ("Egbuna was unqualified for the position he sought by virtue of his failure to possess legal documentation authorizing him (an alien) to work
8

Defendants submit that the record is devoid of any factual basis for the allegations

regarding the in terrorem effect.13 Defendants argue that, in all of the cases in which protection

was granted, there was a clear factual basis supporting an order. Defendant's contend that there

is a dearth of authority warranting the extension of discovery limitations applicable to FLSA

wage and hour cases to each and every claim that plaintiffs have made, including civil RICO

based on fraud, civil RICO based on violations of the TVPA, discrete TVPA claims, §1981

claims, §1985 claims, discrete fraud claims and breach of contract claims. It is defendants'

position that, for the Court to grant plaintiff's motion and prevent inquiry into current

immigration status, current residence and post-termination employment history, the Court must

also find that such information is irrelevant as a matter of law to every one of the claims and

defenses in this proceeding.14

Defendants submit that the applicable law suggests numerous relations between this civil

proceeding and the current immigration status of a class representative including the following,

to wit:

›

"In pari delicto is a cognizable defense to civil RICO"15 and the basis of that

defense in this case is that some or all of the purported class representatives lied

in the United States").
13See Burnett Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition at p. 9 at nn. 9-10 (citing RecinosRecinos v. Express Forestry, Inc., 2006 WL 197030 *7 (E. D. La. 2006) for the proposition that plaintiffs must make a specific and particularized showing that the inquiry would generate an in terrorem effect and arguing that plaintiff's counsel's sworn declaration "rife with stereotyped and conclusory statement" falls far short of the mark necessary warrant the protection sought).
14Defendant Signal's Sur-Reply at p. 2 [Rec. Doc. 337].
15Rogers v. McDorman, 521 F.3d 381, 386 (5th Cir. 2008).
9

to government officials in order to obtain their visas.16

›

Standing of an illegal alien to bring non-wage and hour claims cannot be decided

in the abstract in the wake of Hoffman Plastic, supra, since it mandates that courts

be wary, as a matter of public policy, of actions that undermine the IRCA.17

›

A class representative may be inclined to present the importance of his presence

in the United States as a class representative as an equity supporting a T-visa

application suggesting both bias on the part of the witness and a conflict of

interests with putative class members.

›

Whether the plaintiff obtained resettlement benefits under the TVPA as part of

obtaining a T-visa or U-visa (or some other arrangement) is relevant to the

witnesses credibility as receipt of such benefits could be probative of whether a

witness fabricated his story to obtain benefits.18

Defendants contend that the purported "fear" is the subject of argument only and there is

no affidavit or other competent evidence supporting plaintiff's counsel's suggestion of any in

terrorem effect. In this regard, Signal submits that, long ago, USCIS was apprised of the

terminated workers immigration status and that there is nothing that Signal can learn about the

putative class representatives' current immigration status that the ICE and USCIS does not

already know.

In terms of relevance -- in addition to the issues of commonality, typicality and adequacy

-- defendants submit that inherent in every claim is the issue of damages. Defendants contend

that the non-disclosure of plaintiffs' current employment goes to the heart of any damages the

16For example, Signal cites the deposition of class representative, Hemant Khuttan, who raised the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer a question as to whether he lied during his consular interview to obtain a visa. See Defendant Signal's Memorandum in Opposition at pp. 6-7 (citing the Hemant Khuttan Deposition at pp. 222-224 (Signal's Exhibit "A")) [Rec. Doc. No. 324].
17Id.
18See Defendant Signal's Memorandum in Opposition at pp. 5-6 [Rec. Doc. No. 324].
10

putative class members may have incurred. Defendant argues that damages is a critical issue on class certification -- i.e., how and why the plaintiffs have been damaged and variances in the damage claims from one class member to another.
ANALYSIS A. Standard for Granting Protective Order According to Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party “may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.”19 Rule 26(c) authorizes courts, for good cause, to “make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including ... that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters ....”20 The burden is upon the party seeking non-disclosure or a protective order to show good cause.21
B. Good Cause Showing Plaintiffs argue that discovery related to current immigration status, post-termination employment status and current address are not relevant to his right to recover unpaid wages, typicality, commonality or adequacy, inter alia. Further, plaintiffs contend that the intimidating effect of requiring disclosure of immigration status is sufficient to establish “good cause” when the question of immigration status only goes to a collateral issue. Defendants argue that such information is relevant to those determinations, as well as standing and their in pari delicto
19Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 20Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 21See United States v. Garnett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1326 & n. 3 (5th Cir. 1978); Blanchard and Co., Inc. v. Barrick Gold Corp., 2004 WL 737485 (E. D. La. 2004).
11

defense, which is a central issue in this case particularly considering plaintiffs' RICO claims. Additionally, defendants argue that the inquiry is relevant to the putative class representatives' credibility and class certification issues.
Relevance of Immigration Status and Authorization to Work in the United States to an Action to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
for Work Actually Performed Defendants have addressed the relevance of the information sought and contend that plaintiffs must demonstrate that the issues are not relevant to any claim or issue in the case, including plaintiffs' civil rights or tort claims. Plaintiffs contend that the damage and prejudice which would result if discovery into their current immigration status were permitted far outweighs its probative value with respect to their discrimination and tort claims. This Court finds plaintiffs' argument persuasive. Even if current immigration status were relevant to plaintiffs race/national origin discrimination, contract and tort claims, discovery of such information would have an intimidating effect on an employee's willingness to assert his workplace rights.22 Plaintiffs' claims and allegations of fact supporting same in the case at bar find no parallel in reported federal decisions reviewed by the undersigned. As stated above, this is also an action for unpaid wages and overtime for work actually performed for Signal. Courts have recognized the in terrorem effect of inquiring into a party's immigration status and authorization to work in this country when irrelevant to any material claim because it presents a “danger of intimidation [that] would inhibit plaintiffs in pursuing
22See, e.g ., Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir.2004) ( “[W]ere we to direct district courts to grant discovery requests for information related to immigration status in every case involving national origin discrimination under Title VII, countless acts of illegal and reprehensible conduct would go unreported.”).
12

their rights.”23 Here, plaintiffs' current immigration status is a collateral issue. The protective
order becomes necessary as “[i]t is entirely likely that any undocumented [litigant] forced to
produce documents related to his or her immigration status will withdraw from the suit rather than produce such documents and face ... potential deportation.”24
Relevance, if any, of Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB
In Hoffman, the Supreme Court held that allowing the National Labor Relations Board
(“NLRB”) “to award backpay to illegal aliens would unduly trench upon explicit statutory
prohibitions critical to federal immigration policy, as expressed in IRCA. It would encourage the
successful evasion of apprehension by immigration authorities, condone prior violations of the
immigration laws and encourage future violations. However broad the Board's discretion to
fashion remedies when dealing only with the NLRA [National Labor Relations Act], it is not so unbounded as to authorize this sort of an award.”25 The court noted that awarding back pay26
ran counter to the policies underlying the IRCA because it was for “years of work not performed,
for wages that could not lawfully have been earned, and for a job obtained in the first instance by
23Liu v. Donna Karan International, Inc., 207 F.Supp.2d 191, 193 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (citations omitted).
24Topo v. Dhir, 210 F.R.D. 76, 78 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (quoting Flores v. Albertsons Inc., 2002 WL 1163623, *6 (C. D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2002)); see also EEOC v. First Wireless Group, Inc., 225 F.R.D. 404 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (good cause shown for protective order where disclosure of immigration status would cause embarrassment, potential criminal charges, or deportation if status was discovered to be illegal).
25Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. at pp. 151-152. 26 “Back pay” is an equitable remedy and commonly refers to the wages and other benefits that an employee would have been earned but for an unlawful firing; such awards are diminished by earnings in the interim. See Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177, 197 (1941)
13

a criminal fraud.”27 Nevertheless, the Hoffman court stated that the NLRB could impose other “significant sanctions” against an employer for its violation of the NLRA.28
The Hoffman case is inapposite. It concerned remedies available to undocumented workers under the NLRA and not their standing to file a claim before the NLRB. Indeed, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the portion of its earlier holding in Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984) that undocumented workers had standing to file claims under the NLRA.29
In Patel v. Quality Inn South, 846 F.2d 700, 704 (11th Cir.1988), the court held that the IRCA did not purport to limit remedies for unpaid wages available to undocumented aliens under the FLSA. The Eleventh Circuit explained that, if the FLSA did not cover undocumented aliens, employers would have an incentive to hire them. The court noted that minimum wage laws supported the IRCA policy of reducing illegal immigration because such laws offset the most “attractive feature” of such workers -- their willingness to work for less than the minimum wage.30 The court concluded that claims for wages for work already performed did not conflict with federal immigration policy.31 Other courts agree that the IRCA did not foreclose all remedies for undocumented workers under FLSA, NLRA, other federal labor statutes and state
27Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. at p. 149. 28Id., at p. 152. 29Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. at pp. 149-150, n. 4; see also I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1047 n. 4 (1984) (stating that Sure-Tan 's remedial holding permits retrospective sanctions against an employer even where the employee is an illegal alien). 30Patel v. Quality Inn South, 846 F.2d 700, 704 (11th Cir.1988),cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1011 (1989). 31Id., at pp. 705-706.
14

law remedies.32
In summary, Hoffman Plastics does not control plaintiffs' claims for unpaid minimum
and overtime wages for work already performed, inter alia. Plaintiffs highlight that they are not
claiming "back pay;" instead, their wage claim is for work already performed.
Credibility
Defendants assert that information as to current immigration status would allow them to
test plaintiff's credibility and thus their adequacy as putative class representatives, inter alia.
Credibility is always at issue. That, in and of itself, does not warrant an inquiry into the subject
32See Madeira v. Affordable Housing Foundation, Inc., 469 F.3d 219, 243 (2nd Cir. 2006) ; Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1067 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding Hoffman not as broadly applicable and specifically noting the differences between the NLRA and Title VII); Rios v. Enterprise Ass'n Steamfitters Local 638, 860 F.2d 1168, 1173 (2d Cir. 1988) ( holding that undocumented aliens were eligible to receive backpay under Title VII); Chellen v. John Pickle Co., 446 F.Supp.2d 1247 (D. C. Ok. 2006); Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 393 F.Supp.2d 295, 321-25 (D. N. J. 2005) (concluding that the FLSA did not preclude undocumented workers from obtaining relief for work already performed); Galaviz-Zamora v. Brady Farms, Inc., 230 F.R.D. 499, 501-03 (W. D. Mich.2005); Escobar v. Spartan Sec. Serv., 281 F.Supp.2d 895, 897 (S. D. Tex.2003) (holding that Hoffman “did not specifically foreclose all remedies for undocumented workers under either the National Labor Relations Act or other comparable federal labor statutes”); Cano v. Mallory Management, 760 N.Y.S.2d 816 (N.Y.Sup.,2003) (noting that every case citing Hoffman since it was rendered has either distinguished it or limited its application greatly); Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Guzman, 116 S.W.3d 233, 244 (2003) (rejecting Hoffman Plastic-based challenge to tort award to undocumented alien and noting that Hoffman Plastic “only applies to an undocumented alien worker's remedy for an employer's violation of the NLRA and does not apply to common-law personal injury damages”); Flores v. Amigon, 233 F. Supp.2d 462, 463-64 (E. D. N. Y.2002) (holding that Hoffman does not bar backpay under the FLSA and granting a protective order barring discovery into the plaintiff's immigration status); Liu v. Donna Karan Int'l, Inc., 207 F.Supp.2d 191, 192192-193 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (questioning the applicability of Hoffman to the FLSA and denying the defendant's request to discover the plaintiff's immigration status due to the danger of “intimidation, the danger of destroying the cause of action, [and the risk that the discovery would] inhibit plaintiffs in pursuing their rights” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Singh v. Jutla, 214 F.Supp.2d 1056, 1061 (N. D. Cal. 2002) (noting that Hoffman Plastic did not foreclose all NLRA remedies to undocumented workers).
15

of current immigration status when such examination would impose an undue burden on private enforcement of employment discrimination laws, inter alia.33 “While documented workers face the possibility of retaliatory discharge for an assertion of their labor and civil rights, undocumented workers confront the harsher reality that, in addition to possible discharge, their employer will likely report them to the INS and they will be subjected to deportation proceedings or criminal prosecution.”34 In Rivera, the court observed that granting employers the right to inquire into immigration status in employment cases would allow them to implicitly raise threats of such negative consequences when a worker reports illegal practices.35
This Court finds that defendants' opportunity to test the credibility of plaintiffs does not outweigh the public interest in allowing employees to enforce their rights.
Damages-Mitigation Plaintiffs assert that the issue of damages and mitigation are not relevant at this precertification discovery phase of the proceedings. Defendants espouse the opposite view and submit that the issue of damages is material to the issues of typicality, commonality and adequacy inquiries. The Court is not persuaded by the defendants' arguments. A number of courts have determined that requests that seek to discover the immigration status of plaintiffs are both irrelevant and prejudicial. These courts have denied defendants'
33See Avila-Blum v. Casa de Cambio Delgado, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 190, 192 (S. D. N. Y. 2006); Rengifro v. Erevos Enterprises, Inc. 2007 WL 894376 (S. D. N. Y. 2007) (concluding that the opportunity to test the credibility of a party based on representations made when seeking employment does not outweigh the chilling effect that disclosure of immigration status has on employees seeking to enforce their rights).
34Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir.2004). 35Id., at 1065.
16

requests to discover the addresses, social security numbers, and driver's license numbers of named plaintiffs and putative class members.
In Galaviz-Zamora, the court denied discovery requests similar to those in this case in an action in which plaintiffs sought both class certification under Rule 23 and collective action certification under FLSA.36 The court held that the plaintiffs' immigration status was irrelevant to their ability to represent other class members, class certification, and credibility, and thus denied discovery of the plaintiffs' tax returns, W-2 or 1099 forms, all identification documents and information regarding worker status, alien status, social security cards, visas, national origin, and alien identifications, each date and time that the plaintiffs have crossed the US/Mexico border, and any other document or information likely to lead to discovery of the plaintiffs' immigration status.37
This Court agrees with these other courts that the current immigration status of a class representative is irrelevant in wage and hour cases, in light of FLSA's coverage of all workers-undocumented or not. Courts have noted that such a position not only benefits the individual workers, but advances the goals of the FLSA. “Permitting an employer to circumvent the labor laws as to undocumented aliens ‘permits abusive exploitation of workers' and 'creates an unacceptable economic incentive to hire undocumented workers by permitting employers to underpay them.'"38 To allow the immigration status of a class representative to be investigated indeed to require a representative to enjoy legal immigration status - would seriously undermine
36Galaviz-Zamora, 230 F.R.D. at 502-03. 37Id. 38Flores, 233 F.Supp.2d at 464 (citing Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984)).
17

the effectiveness of the FLSA. The Court must balance the legitimate discovery needs of defendants to defend against
certification as a class action and collective action and the real in terrorem effect that identification and investigation of plaintiffs, putative class members, and witnesses of unclear immigration status has on the enforcement of FLSA and other federal statutes. The undersigned has concluded that the defendant can explore and challenge the class certification requirements of numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy of representation, Rule 23(a), and predominance of common issues of law and fact, Rule 23(b)(2), without identifying information of named plaintiffs, putative class members, or potential witnesses.
Defendants can sufficiently evaluate numerosity with only the names of the putative class members by comparing them to the names of its workers. As to commonality and typicality, the Court has also concluded that defendants do not need identifying information if it receives from counsel information on the work periods, claimed pay due, work or employment agreement of both plaintiffs and putative class members. Defendants can also evaluate how the situations of the named plaintiffs compare to the situations of the putative class.
As to the adequacy of representation, this is a question primarily dependent on the lack of conflict between the named plaintiff and putative class members and the resources and skills of counsel, not the characteristics of the representative plaintiff. The Court acknowledges that, in infrequent circumstances, the history or characteristics of a representative may be so noxious as to be disqualifying. Indeed, the defendants are free to (and apparently have) investigated this issue on their own outside of the bounds of discovery.
The FLSA, other federal labor statutes and state court causes of action afford relief
18

regardless of immigration status. Numerous cases cited herein above stand for the proposition that lack of INS documentation is not a bar to recovery or class representative status.
In Pari Delicto In light of the facts pled in the plaintiffs' complaint, defendant's argument regarding current status and its relevance to their in pari delicto defense is not convincing. This case is distinguishable from cases cited by the defendant. Specifically, Kurian David, et al, sought assistance from the Defendants not only to obtain employment in the United States but also to obtain the necessary documentation and authorization so that they could begin working in the United States. Thus, according to the allegations, both plaintiffs and defendants anticipated that as a result of their efforts, plaintiffs would be documented and qualified to work in the United States. Allowing inquiry into plaintiff's post-termination status under these circumstances is tantamount to a categorical ruling precluding foreign nationals from any protection against the type of abuses alleged. The allegations of the complaint are that plaintiffs were trafficked against their will (in some respects) into the United States by the defendants, who allegedly first robbed plaintiffs of any documentation they had, put them in insurmountable debt and shipped them to the United States for work, all the while promising that plaintiffs' INS documentation would follow and it never did. Allowing defendants' inquiry into current status under these circumstances has a potential to invite abuse by employers and to undermine the goals of the federal labor statutes, inter alia.
In Terrorem Effect Defendants contend that the record is devoid of competent evidence of a "chilling" or "in terrorem" effect that will follow defendants' inquiry into the plaintiffs' current status, current
19

addresses and post-termination employment history. The record is replete with competent
evidence (sworn testimony) bearing on the issue, including declarations of the named plaintiffs.39
For instance, Kechuru Dhananjaya attests as follows:
Like many workers, I cannot return to India with the massive debts that I face as I could not find work in India that would allow me to escape this debt. I would not be able to pay even interest on these loans. I would be indebted for life. In the camp, I talked to many other workers who faced the same situation. I worried that my reputation would be greatly damaged and that I would be financially devastated with so many outstanding loans. Many workers said to me that if the company sent them back to India, there would be no way to survive and to bear the shame, it would be better to commit suicide.40
Another plaintiff, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, similarly declares:
Even though the visa that was promised to us never came and the conditions I faced at Signal were horrendous I did not feel free to leave my job because I had gone into massive debt to work for Signal and would be considered "illegal" if I left the job. I felt trapped and scared. Because I had paid such a large amount of money, I couldn't go back to India....
A friend at the Signal Pascagoula camp told me by phone that on March 9, 2007, the company locked up a group of workers into a trailer and threatened them with deportation because they had spoken up regarding the terrible conditions at the facility. I was told there were armed guards who imprisoned the workers and that Sabulal, one of the workers, attempted suicide.41
Taking the aforesaid declarants at their word, it is difficult to imagine a predicament
more dire than that described in each of the above-referenced sworn declarations.42 Considering
the foregoing, this Court can only conclude that any inquiry into plaintiffs' current immigration
39See Declarations of Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Muruganantham Kandhasami, Hemant Khuttan, Padaveettiyi Isaac Andrews and Kechuru Dhananjaya. Exhibits 1-7 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification [Rec. Doc. No. 165].
40Declaration of Kechuru Dhananjaya [Rec. Doc. No. 165-12].
41Declaration of Muruganantham Kandhasamy [Rec. Doc. No. 165-9].
42See Note 41, supra.
20

status, current residence and/or post-termination employment history will most assuredly strike paralyzing fear in the plaintiffs sufficient to chill any inclination they may have had to prosecute their pending claims.
Feasibility of a Protective Order The Court has not ignored the defendants suggested compromise whereby discovery would be limited to the present litigation and not disclosed to any third party for any purpose beyond this litigation. Defendants, however, do not just seek information as to current status, they also seek plaintiffs' current addresses. This not only poses a threat to plaintiffs but to others with whom the putative class representatives may reside or friends or relatives who reside in close proximity to the plaintiffs. In addition, there are several unrepresented parties in this case, which is problematic at best. The undersigned is not convinced that, in this particular case, such a "protective" order would abate the chilling effect of inquiries into current status, current address and current employment. Even under the umbrella of a protective order, the danger of intimidation would inhibit plaintiffs in pursuing their rights in this case.
CONCLUSION For all of the above and foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiffs are entitled to protection from inquiry into their current immigration status, current addresses and employment history post-termination from Signal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order # 315 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel #319 is DISMISSED AS PREMATURE without prejudice as to plaintiffs right to reurge same after there is a
21

determination of counsel as to Indo-Ameri Soft LLC and Rao Defendants. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2nd day of April, 2009. ___________________________________ DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.

SECTION "A" (3)

ORDER

On December 16, 2009, and after oral hearing, this Court took under advisement Plaintiffs'

Motion to Com pel Production of Doc uments a nd Deposition Testim ony; or Alternatively for

Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel [Doc. #580]. For the

following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES the motion in part.

I. Background

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on behalf of a putative class that consists of over 500 Indian

men whom defendants allegedly trafficked intothe United States through the federal government's

H-2B guestworker1visa program in violation of putative class pl aintiffs’ rights to be free from

forced labor, involuntary servitude and peonageunder the Thirteenth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. §

1854. Additionally, plaintiffs claim violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003,

18 U.S.C. §§ 1589-90 ("TVPA") and violations of their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to be f ree

from a hostile work environment and discrimination based on race, national origin, and/or alienage

status, all of the foregoing in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,

18 U.S.C. § 1962( c)-(d) ("RICO"). [Doc. #1]. On October 1, 2008, putative class plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). [Doc. # 165].
The putative class of over 500 Indian m en secured visas to work in the United States for defendant Signal International, L.L.C. ("Signal") in the af termath of Hu rricane Katrina. Signal provides construction services to the Gulf Coast oialnd gas industry. Plaintfifs allege that beginning in late 2003, defendants Dewan Consultants and Sachin Dewan ("the Dewan defendants"), Global Resources, Inc. and Michael Pol ("the Global defnedants") and Dr. Kurella Rao and Indo-Amerisoft, L.L.C. ("IAS") placed advertisem ents in various newspapers across India and the United Arab Emirates, which advertisem ents sought welders, fitt ers and other m arine fabrication workers on behalf of various U.S.-based com panies. The advertisements promised that qualified candidates could obtain legal permanent residence (green cards) and thereby legally and permanently immigrate to the United States with their f amilies. Plain tiffs contend that they paid exorbitant f ees to defendants for recruitment, immigration processing and travel. Plaintiffs maintain that unbeknownst to them, they were never eligible to obtain the prom ised green cards and that, upon arrival in the United States, defendants subjected themto serious abuses and forced labor at Signal’s labor camps in Pascagoula, Mississippi and in Orange, Texas.
Putative class representative David Kurian’s factual assertions are representative of those of the other plaintiffs. [Doc. #174-3]. The allegatoins are as follows. According to David, a citizen of India, he saw a newspaper advertisement by Dewan Consultants while employed in Abu Dhabi. In May 2006, David attended a sem inar led by defendant Sachin Dewan with the assistance of
2

defendant Malvern Burnett of the Law Offi ces of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.L.C. ("the Burnett defendants"). David claims that, at the seminar, Dewan told the attendees that for 600,000 rupees (over $12,000.00) plus costs, he coudl obtain an employment-based green card in the United States. The attendees were told that t he money would be paid in three installm ents and that the m oney would cover Dewan’s fee as well asthe fees for Burnett and Michael Pol. Burnett is an attorney at law who specializes in immigration matters, and Pol owns Global Resources, Inc., a company that helps American companies find skilled labor to work at their facilities. David claims that Burnett spoke at the sem inar and explained to the potential recruitees how the green card proc ess would work.
David took and passed the pipe-fitter skills test. David then attended two additional group meetings, the second of which was led by De wan and Burnett. Burnett explained the green card process once again, and he and Dewan handed out contracts from Global Resources, Burnett, and Dewan Consultants and an em ployment form for Signal. A representative from Dewan’s office helped the group to fill out the forms.
In J une and August 2006, David m ade installm ent paym ents at Dewan’s office , whi ch included checks made payable to Burnett and Pol. In late August 2006, David attended a meeting in Dubai, where Dewan and Burnett told the workesr that before their visas would expire, the green cards would be approved. At a subsequent meeting, Dewan and Bur nett gave the workers instructions on how to answer questions from the American consular officers during their visa interviews. Dewan and Burnett allegedly instructed the workers not to reveal howumch money they had paid for the recruitment fees and not to mention the green cards.
3

The consulate officials took David’s passport and, at the behest of Dewan Consultants, the passport was returned directly to Dewan’s office. According to David, Dewan refused to return his passport until he made the final installment payment to Dewan and paid for medical testing to be performed by a physician chosen by Dewan.
In February 2007, David m ade the final paym ent with checks m ade payable to Dewan, Burnett and Pol. David claims that he was then rushed to sign forms written in English that he could not understand, and it was only upon signing these forms and making the final installment payment that Dewan finally returned his passport. Duringthis process, David saw other workers try to back out and have their money returned, but someone from Dewan Consultants would then threaten to destroy their passports in retaliation. David cont ends that he and hi s wi fe s old m any of their personal belongings to raise the money necessary to pay Dewan, Burnett and Pol.
On February 16, 2007, David arrived at Signal’s labor cam p in Orange, Texas where he signed a number of additional employment forms. David claims that he later learned that the forms allowed Signal to take deductions from his salary for food and accom modations and that Signal required the workers to open an account with a specific bank where t heir pa ychecks would be deposited. David charges that the living conditions and food at Signal were horrible and that the Indian workers were told that even if they left, they would be charged the daily rate of room and board.
David claims that the Indian workers were searched by guards when they would come and go from the camp and that guards would sometimes come into the living quarters at night to search workers’ belongings. According to Davi d, t he workers began to get sick because of the
4

overcrowded conditions. Signal also required the workers to purchase all of their own tools. David claims that the workers were relegated to performing all of the dangerous and dirty work inside of the ships and that the American workers were not required to do such work.
According to David, when the workers complained, Signal made more promises about the green cards and threatened that if the workers continued to complain, they would be deported and not receive the promised visas. David continued to work under conditions that he characterizes as horrible because he was afraid of the consequences of leaving, given that he had incurred so much debt to raise the money to come to the United States. II. The Instant Motion
The instant m otion concer ns de fendant Dr. Kurella Rao, who allegedly aided other defendants to recruit the Indian workers. Specfically, the motion addresses whether Rao has waived the attorney-client privilege as to communications between himself and the Burnett defendants, the immigration attorneys who allegedly f acilitated the recruitment of the putative class. Outlined below are the various parties' contentions.
1. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs argue that Rao seeks to reinstate aprivilege that he has already expressly waived. Specifically, plaintiffs ask the Court to (1) find that Rao has waived the attorney-client privilege, order the Burnett defendants to produce all docum ents reflecting com munications with Rao and order Rao to appear for a second deposition at his expense; or (2) if the Court determines that Rao did not waive the privilege, reconsider the Court’s earlier order denying as moot plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents improperly withheld under the attorney-client privilege.
5

Plaintiffs argue that on May 6, 2009, Rao expressl y stated to two of plaintiffs’ attorneys, Chandra Bhatnagar and Naomi Tsu, that he was expressly waiving the attorney-client privilege as to the Burnett def endants. At a June 24, 2009 hearing on plaintif fs' earlier m otion to com pel, plaintiffs’ counsel stated t hat t hey thought that all of the defendants had waived the privilege. Plaintiffs note tha t a t t hat h earing, Rao m ade no effort to disagree with plaintiffs’ counsel’s statement. Accordingly, this Court then deniedas moot plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents improperly withheld under the attorney-client privilege.
Plaintiffs then scheduled the deposition of Rao. At the Septem ber 2009 deposition, Rao indicated that he had never waived the attorney-clinet privilege and that he would continue to assert it during the deposition. Rao indicated that he had stated that he was not waiving the privilege at the June 2009 hearing, but pl aintiffs argue that the transcript belies this statem ent. Rao did not answer questions at the deposition concerning attorneys’ fees paid to the Burnett defendants.1 On the same day of the deposition, the Burnett defendants served a privilege log on plaintiffs, which listed seven documents withheld based on Rao’s assertion of privilege.
Plaintiffs argue that Rao waived the privilegeon the phone to Bhatnagar and Tsu. Plaintiffs also assert that Rao had every opportunity to enforce his privilege at the June 2009 hearing, and he failed to do so. Citing case law fromother circuits, plaintiffs maintain that it is axiomatic that once a party has waived the a ttorney-client privilege, he m ay not later re-assert it to block discovery. Accordingly, plaintiff asks this Court to find that Rao has waived the attorney-client privilege.

1

The Court notes that this information is not privileged in any event. Estate of J. Edgar

Monroe v. Bottle Rock Power Corp., Civ. A. No. 03-2682, 2004 WL 737463, at *11

(E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2004) (Knowles, M.J.).

6

Alternatively, plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its earlier order – denying as m oot plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents improperly withheld under the attorney-client privilege – in the event the Court finds that Rao did not waive the privilege. Citing Federal Rule of Ci vil Procedure 60(b)(1), plaintiffs assert that the Coutrmay reconsider its order when the order arose out of a mistake by a party or by theCourt. Believing that all defendants had waived the attorney-client privilege, according to plaintiffs, is just such a mistake.
Lastly, plaintiffs ask that the Burnett defendants produce all docum ents listed in their September 17, 2009 privilege log ( if t he Court determ ines that Rao waived the attorney-client privilege). Plaintiffs further ask the Court to odrer Rao to sit for a second deposition at his expense.
2. Signal Signal asserts that Rao waived the attorney-client privilege as well as the privilege of IAS (Rao’s now-defunct corporation) at his earlie r September 11, 2008 deposition when he testified about the content of conversations protected by theprivilege. Signal also contends that Rao further waived the privilege when he produced privileged communications through responses to plaintiffs’ initial and second discovery requests. Signal notes that at the September 11, 2008 deposition – when Rao was represented by counsel – Rao’s counsel explicitly explained t o Ra o that he did not have to testify as to any communication between him self and the Burnett de fendants. Rao indicated to counsel that he understood. Notwithstanding the warning, Rao testiifed about privileged communications with the Burnett defendants. Signal cites t hree instances at the Septem ber 2008 deposition when Rao testified as to privileged communications. Later, counsel for Rao withdrew. Rao has since indicated
7

to the Court and to all parties that he intends to represent himself. Signal notes that after counsel's withdrawal, Rao produced e-mail communications sent to him and the Dewan defendants by the Burnett defendants.
During the Septem ber 2009 deposition, the parties discussed this Court’s June 24, 2009 hearing. Rao stated that he had inform ed the Court that he did not intend to waive the attorneyclient privilege. Signal asserts that the transcriptspeaks for itself and that Rao said little to nothing at the hearing.
At the Septem ber 2009 deposition, Rao asserted the privilege for som e – but not a ll – testimony. Signal notes that counsel for the Burnett defendants – Ralph Alexis – indicated that he had telephoned Rao the night before the deposition, duirng which call Rao had indicated that he had never waived the privilege. As questioning continued at the deposition, however, Rao continued to disclose confidential communications that he had had with the Burnett defendants. The parties then contacted this Court, and this Court ordered the parties to steer clear of any privileged communications and fully brief the issue. Still, nad even though they attempted to steer clear of any questions that might educe a privileged answer, Rao testified as to confidential com munications between himself and the Burnett defendants – even after other counsel attempted to stop him.
Signal first argues that Rao has wholly failed to meet his burden in demonstrating that the communications that he seeks to protect are ev en privileged. Accordingly, Signal argues, all relevant information should be produced. Even were the Court to determine that the attorney-client privilege applies, however, Signal asserts that Ra o has waived it. Citing Fifth Circui t case law, Signal maintains that courts have consistently found the privilege waived after a party publicizes
8

evidence of the communications to the attorney or when the party fails to assert it. Signal argues that Rao cannot use the privilege as a sword rather than a shield, disclosing information only when he thinks that it m ay dam age another defendant and claim ing privilege whe n he t hinks the information may harm him.
Signal also claim s that Rao waived IAS’s privilege. 2 Si gnal notes that a corporate representative may waive the privilege of the co rporation on the sam e grounds as if it w ere an individual. Signal notes that Rao is an intelligent man who is incredibly proficient in the English language and that, considering his duties as chairperson of I AS a nd his education and work experience, the Court should discredit his argument that he is unaware of the privilege and its extent.
Addressing any possible “inadvertent disclosure” argument, Signal maintains that Rao has failed to meet his burden under Federal Rule ofEvidence 502 and the case law because he has never sought to remedy the error (i.e., he has never sought return of the e-mails).
Lastly, Signal addresses Rao’s self-representatoi n. While Signal notes that Rao has the right to represent him self, it also notes that the local rules of this Court and the case law are unsympathetic to pro se plaintiffs when they are required to understand the rules of the Court.
3. The Burnett Defendants The Burnett defendants take no position on the alleged waiver by Rao ofthe attorney-client privilege. They seek only to confirmto the Court that they have withheld documents in a good faith reliance on Rao’s position that he did not waive it.

2

IAS is currently unrepresented, and the District Court has struck all of its defenses as it

failed to obtain counsel per that Court's earlier order.

9

Hearkening back to the earlier motion to compel and their opposition (the subject of the June 24, 2009 hearing), the Burnett defendants incorporatteheir arguments that the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege does not apply here.
4. Dr. Rao's Opposition Rao argues that at the September 2009 deposition, counsel for plaintiffs saked very confusing and broad questions. Inadvertently, he adm its that he offered privileged inform ation because he does not understand the boundaries of the attorney-client privilege. He adm its that he m ade mistakes in the absence of an attorney. He also admits that he sent a few documents to counsel for plaintiffs that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. After the production, counsel for plaintiffs called and asked him if he was waiving the privilege. Rao states that he told them that he was not waiving the privilege. Counsel for plaintiffs sent him a document to sign that would indicate the waiver, and he did not sign it. Rao asserts that no one has ever explained the attorney-client privilege to him. Rao argues that, at the June 2009 hearing, he was only a passive list ener and did not participate. Accordingly, he neither waived nor re-asserted the privilege. He asks the Court to pardon him for his ignorance and to protect his rights. 5. Signal's Reply Signal notes that Rao fails to challenge any legal argum ent advanced by it or pl aintiffs. Signal argues that Rao’s opposition is a thinly-disguised attempt to seek sympathy from the Court. Signal states that if the questions at the September 2009 deposition were confusing and broad, he should have sought clarification. In any event, Signal notes that he fails to provide any examples
10

of such confusing and broad questions to the Court. Signal also reiterates the fact that Rao’s counsel had earlier explained the parameters of the
privilege to him at the September 2008 deposition. Signal maintains that Rao’s argument that he knows nothing of the privilege lacks merit. Signalargues that Rao had a dutyas chairperson of IAS to educate himself about the privilege.
As to Rao’s claim of mistakes at the depositions, Signal reiterates its argument that he took no reasonable steps to rectify the error, as required under the federal rules and case law. III. Analysis
The attorney-client privilege exists to encourage clients to be candid with their attorneys. United States v. El Paso Co. , 682 F.2d 530, 538 (5th Cir. 1982). The privilege protects only confidential communications of the client to the attorney. Id. at 538 nn. 8, 9. “‘[D]isclosure of any significant portion of a confidential communication waives the privilege as to the whole.’” Id. at 538 (quoting United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028, 1043 n. 18 (5th Cir1. 981)). The confidentiality of a client's communications may be compromised either through the publication of evidence of the communications them selves or through the publica tion of evidence of attorney statem ents or documents that disclose the clients' confidential communications. In re Sealed Case, 877 F.2d 976, 979 (D.C. Cir. 1989). In addition, a party may waive the attorney-client privilege when it fails to assert the privilege when privileged information is sought. Nguyen v. Excel Corp., 197 F.3d 200, 206 (5th Cir. 1999).
Nguyen is on all fours with the factual circum stances here. There, Excel Corporation (“Excel”) both (1) f ailed to assert the attorney-client privilege when privileged inf ormation was
11

sought, and (2) selectively disclosed confidential communications. Id. at 206-07. Because Excel failed to assert the privilege when opposing counsel asked questions that went to the substance of confidential communications, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s finding of waiver. Id. at 206. Even though Excel raised some privilege-based objections, it failed to do so in the face of all questions designed to elicit inform ation about privileged com munications. Id. at 206-07. In addition, the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court on the alternative ground that Excel had selectively disclosed confidential com munications. Id. at 207. W hen relaye d t o a third party that is not rendering legal services on the client's behalf, a communication is no longer confidential, and thus it falls outside of the reaches of the privilege. Id. Theref ore, a client im plicitly waives the attorney-client privilege by testifying about portions of the attorney-client comunication. Id. The Fifth Circuit rejected as “too little, too late” counsel’s later objections. Id. at 208.
The Court finds thatNguyen supports the conclusion that Raohas waived the privilege here. (For these same reasons, Rao has waived IAS’s privilege as well.) Rao has both (1) failed to assert the attorney-client privilege when privileged information was sought, and (2) selectively disclosed confidential communications. The Court finds thaton at least two occasions during his September 2008 deposition, Rao seel ctively disclosed the substance of ocnfidential communications that he had had with the Burnett defendants. (Exs. F & G, attached to Signal's Mem. Concerning the Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege by Defendant, Dr. Kurella Rao.) In addition, the Court finds that Rao produced confide ntial e-mail communications between him self and the Burnett defendants. (Ex. L & G, attached to Signal's Mem. Concerning the Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege by Defendant, Dr. Kurella Rao.) All of this disclosure occurred after Rao's former counsel explained
12

to him that he did not have to testify to anything that he had told his attorney. (Ex. D, attached to Signal's Mem. Concerning the Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege by Defendant, Dr. Kurella Rao.) Moreover, Rao selectively invoked the attorney-client privilege at hi s Se ptember 2009 deposition, testifying at tim es to confidential co mmunications between him self and the Burnett defendants. (Ex. Q, attached to Signal' s Mem . Concerning the W aiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege by Defendant, Dr. Kurella Rao.) Under the facts and the holding of Nguyen, Rao has waived the attorney-client privilege.
Rao’s argument that he made “mistakes” at the depositions and the production of the e-mail communications (that amount to “inadvertent disclosures”) is of little aid to him. InAlldread v. City of Granada , 988 F.2d 1425, 1434 (5th Cir. 1993), the Fi fth Circuit adopted a five-part test to determine whether the inadvertent disclosure of confidential communications will lead to waiver. The court instructed this Court to analyze: (1) the reasonableness of precautions taken to prevent disclosure; (2) the am ount of time taken to rem edy the error; (3) the scope of discovery; (4) the extent of the disclosure; and (5) the overriding issueof fairness. Rao has never moved to rectify his error. He has never sought the return of theconfidential e-mail communications, and he has never tried to rectify or to withdraw any of the sel ective disclosures that occurred at his deposition. In addition, both Rao’s counsel of record at his first deposition and several other counsel at his second deposition warned him about answering questions about his com munications wi th the Burnett defendants, yet he continued to selectively disclose some of the confidential communications. In other words, precautions – in the form of his own counsel and other counsel of recor d – we re reasonable and designed not to elicit such testim ony. Y et R ao f ailed to f ollow their advice.
13

Accordingly, any argument by Rao that he inadvertently disclosed confidential communications and did not thereby waive the attorney-client privilege lacks merit. IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Deposition Testimony; or Alternatively for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel [Doc. #580], in that the Court finds that Dr. Kurella Rao has waived the attorney-client privilege as to the Burnett defendants . The Court has reviewed in camera the documents that are at issue here and O RDERS the Burnett defendants to produce to plaintiffs the following: Documents Bates-stamped Burnett_Rao 00001 through 00008 and 00011, 00012, 00013 and 00014. While not all of these documents are explicit communications between the Burnett defendants and Rao, they are docum ents that concern Rao and/or IAS that are in the Burnett defendants' possession and a llegedly protected by the privilege between the Burnett defendants and Rao. The Court's in camera review reveals that documents Bates-stamped 00009 and 00010 are privileged on the ground that such documents appear to be communications between another attorney and a wholly different party.
The Court DENIES the motion to the extent plaintiffs seek reconsideration of this Court's June 24, 2009 Minute Entry. The Court also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiffs' request that Rao attend another deposition at his expense. The Court finds that pl aintiffs may propound further interrogatories, requests for production and requests for adm ission on Rao to obtain the information that they seek. If, at a later date, plaintiffs are unable to obtain all of the information that they seek, and it appears t o t he Cour t th at another deposition is necessary, the Court will
14

reconsider plaintiffs' request on proper motion. New Orleans, Louisiana, this ___ day of December, 2009. _____________________________________ DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.

SECTION "A" (3)

ORDER

On June 30, 2010, and after oral hearing, thiCsourt took under advisement Plaintiffs’ Motion

for a Finding of Contempt Against Signal International, L.L.C., for an Order Compelling Immediate

Full Production of Documents and for an Order Requiring Signal International, L.L.C. to Remove

Improper Redactions from Produced Documents [Doc. #723]. For the following reasons, the Court

GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES the motion in part.

I. Background

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on behalf of a putative class that consists of over 500 Indian

men whom defendants allegedly trafficked intothe United States through the federal government's

H-2B guestworker1visa program in violation of putative c lass plaintiffs’ rights to be free from

forced labor, involuntary servitude and peonageunder the Thirteenth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. §

1854. Additionally, plaintiffs claim violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003,

18 U.S.C. §§ 1589-90 ("TVPA") and violations of their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to be free

from a hostile work environment and discrimination based on race, national origin, and/or alienage

status, all of the foregoing in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962( c)-(d) ("RICO"). [Doc. #1]. On October 1, 2008, putative class plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). [Doc. # 165].
The putative class of over 500 Indian me n secured visas to work in the United States for defendant Signal International, L.L.C. ("Signal ") in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Signal provides construction services to the Gulf Coast oialnd gas industry. Plaintiffs allege that beginning in late 2003, defendants Dewan Consultants and Sachin Dewan ("the Dewan defendants"), Global Resources, Inc. and Michael Pol ("the Global defnedants") and Dr. Kurella Rao and Indo-Amerisoft, L.L.C. ("IAS" ) placed advertisem ents in various newspapers across India and the United Arab Emirates, which advertisem ents sought welders, fitters and other m arine fabrication workers on behalf of various U.S.-based com panies. The advertisements promised that qualified candidates could obtain legal permanent residence (green cards) and thereby legally and permanently immigrate to the United States with their fam ilies. Plain tiffs contend that they paid exorbitant f ees to defendants for recruitment, immigration processingand travel. Plaintiffs maintain that unbeknownst to them, they were never eligible to obtain the prom ised green cards and that, upon arrival in the United States, defendants subjected themto serious abuses and forced labor at Signal’s labor camps in Pascagoula, Mississippi and in Orange, Texas.
Putative class representative David Kurian’s factual assertions are representative of those of the other plaintiffs. [Doc. #174-3]. The allegations are as follows. According to David, a citizen of India, he saw a newspaper advertisement by Dewan Consultants while employed in Abu Dhabi.
2

In May 2006, David attended a sem inar led by defendant Sachin Dewan with the assistance of defendant Malvern Burnett of the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.L.C. ("the Burnett defendants"). David claims that, at the seminar, Dewan told the attendees that for 600,000 rupees (over $12,000.00) plus costs, he could obtain an employment-based green card in the United States. The attendees were told that th e money would be paid in three installments and that the m oney would cover Dewan’s fee as well as the fees for Burnett and Michael Pol. Burnett is an attorney at law who specializes in immigration matters, and Pol owns Global Resources, Inc., a company that helps American companies find skilled labor to work at their facilities. David claims that Burnett spoke at the sem inar and explained to the potentia l recruitees how the green c ard process would work.
David took and passed the pipe-fitter skills test. David then attended two additional group meetings, the second of which was led by De wan and Burnett. Burnett explained the green card process once again, and he and Dewan handed out contracts from Global Resources, Burnett, and Dewan Consultants and an em ployment form for Signal. A representat ive from Dewan’s office helped the group to fill out the forms.
In June and August 2006, David m ade installm ent paym ents a t De wan’s office, which included checks made payable to Burnett and Pol. In late August 2006, David attended a meeting in Dubai, where Dewan and Burnett told the workesr that before their visas would expire, the green cards would be appr oved. At a subsequent m eeting, Dewan and Burnett gave the workers instructions on how to answer questions from the American consular officers during their visa interviews. Dewan and Burnett allegedly instructed the workers not to reveal howumch money they
3

had paid for the recruitment fees and not to mention the green cards. The consulate officials took David’s passport and, at the behest of Dewan Consultants, the
passport was returned directly to Dewan’s office. According to David, Dewan refused to return his passport until he made the final installment payment to Dewan and paid for medical testing to be performed by a physician chosen by Dewan.
In February 2007, David m ade the final paym ent with checks m ade payable to Dewan, Burnett and Pol. David claims that he was then rushed to sign forms written in English that he could not understand, and it was only upon signing these forms and making the final installment payment that Dewan finally returned his passport. Duringthis process, David saw other workers try to back out and have their money returned, but someone from Dewan Consultants would then threaten to destroy their passports in retaliation. David cont ends tha t he a nd hi s wi fe sold m any of their personal belongings to raise the money necessary to pay Dewan, Burnett and Pol.
On February 16, 2007, David arrived at Signal ’s labor camp in Orange, Texas where he signed a number of additional employment forms. David claims that he later learned that the of rms allowed Signal to take deductions from his salary for food and accom modations and that Signal required the workers to open an account with a specific bank where their payche cks woul d be deposited. David charges that the living conditions and food at Signal were horrible and that the Indian workers were told that even if they left, they would be charged the daily rate of room and board.
David claims that the Indian workers were searched by guards when they would come and go from the camp and that guards would sometimes come into the living quarters at night to search
4

workers’ belongings. A ccording to D avid, the w orkers began to get sick because of the overcrowded conditions. Signal also required the workers to purchase all of their own tools. David claims that the workers were relegated to performing all of the dangerous and dirty work inside of the ships and that the American workers were not required to do such work.
According to David, when the workers complained, Signal made more promises about the green cards and threatened that if the workers continued to complain, they would be deported and not receive the promised visas. David continued to work under conditions that he characterizes as horrible because he was afraid of the consequences of leaving, given that he had incurred so much debt to raise the money to come to the United States. II. The Parties' Contentions
1. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order ( 1) sanctioning Signal f or failing to m eet the latest discovery deadline set by this Court (March 22, 2010); (2) com pelling Signal to com plete immediately its production; and (3) to produce its redacted documents in unredacted form. Signal redacted approximately 11,956 documents, only 80 of which are redacted on the ground of attorneyclient privilege. Plaintiffs correctly argue that Signal bears theburden here. Plaintiffs contend that Signal’s principal failing is that most of the underlying bases for redaction do not exist by law or without a protective order, which Signal has not sought. Plaintiffs first argue that Signal may not redact on the ground of a proprietary/confidential privilege because it has no protective order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(g); Occidental Chem. Corp.
5

v. La. Pub. Serv. C omm’n, No. 06-894, 2008 U.S. Dis. LEXIS, at *7 (M.D. La. Feb. 29, 2008). Signal has noted that confidentiality agreements with third parties do not allow it to disclose some documents. Plaintiffs argue that for such an argum ent to succeed, Signal m ust demonstrate that disclosure will cause an identifiable and significant harm to its competitive and financial position. Id. at *7-8. Signal allegedly has not done so.
Signal redacted over 11,000 documents on the groundof personal information. Plaintiffs do not take issue with the docum ents redacted on the ground of identifying inform ation: Signal employee passport numbers, social security numbers, dates and places of birth, spousal information, visa e xpiry dates, hom e addresses, telephone num bers, drivers’ license num bers and fam ilial information. Pointing to e-m ails that Signal produced in redacted form and then accide ntally in unredacted form, plaintiffs note that Signal has redacted words like “Puerto Ricans,” “NGC” and “modules.” Accidents like this, plaintif fs contend, dem onstrate Signal’s haphazard redactions. Many of these redactions are in Signal’s responsive business records. Plaintiffs argue that that is another sign that Signal is redacting improperly.
Plaintiffs argue that to redact on the ground of relevancy, Signal must obtain a protective order from the Court. Plaintiffs note that Signal has argued that som e of the docum ents that it redacted on the ground of personal information may have been redacted on the ground of relevancy. But plaintiffs contend that Signal can not change a privilege claim once it realizes that it needs a protective order.
To rem edy m any of these issues, e specially those concerning the proprietary/business confidentiality privilege, plaintiffs have of fered to enter a conf identiality order, but Signal has
6

steadfastly refused on the ground that som eone on plaintiffs’ s ide has already produced som e documents to the media.
Plaintiffs allege that Signal has violated thisCourt’s order and failed to finish production and therefore seek sanctions.
In their supplemental memorandum filed pursuant toOrder of this Court, plaintiffs note that many of the redactions reveal past and present Signal executives’ and managers’ personal reflections on the H-2B program, the Man Camp where the putative class was housed and Signal’s labor needs. Plaintiffs submit one set of documents to the Court to reflect a sampling of documents that they do not contend were improperly redacted. These are documents – Exhibit A – that clearly reflect that the redacted lines are personal and identifying in formation. Exhibit B is a set of docum ents that plaintiffs argue cast serious doubt over the cont ention that the redacted lines are personal information. For the most part, these are e-mail exchanges between Signal personnel as well as email exchanges between Signal and co-defendants. Som e of these document s ar e also Excel spreadsheets and, in one case, the di ary of personal reflections by a cam p manager. Exhibit C consists of sam ples of docum ents for whi ch Signal has asserted a proprietary or business confidentiality privilege.
2. Signal Signal first argues that plaintiffs’ motion is profoundly dilatory. Allegedly, plaintiffs have never raised the issue of Signal’s redactions before, after 21 months of rolling production. Signal argues that should the C ourt grant the m otion now, it would take approximately eight months to review the documents again to gauge whether some were improperly redacted.
7

Signal notes that when it first received t he discovery requests, it com pleted two separate electronic data sweeps in Mississippi, Alabama and Texas, which culled all potentially responsive e-mails. Plaintiffs then consented t o a rolli ng production of the docum ents. Signal has since completed 19 rolling productions, the first occurring only four days after service of the discovery requests. During this rolling production, plaintiffs occasionally sought clarification of certain redactions. In some instances, Signal even restoredthe document to its original condition. Plaintiffs never asked Signal to stop redacting.
Signal initially withheld approximately 30,000documents on the ground of privilege. Signal then decided to conduct a second-tier review. The review revealed that some documents that had initially been withheld needed to be produced. All documents produced after this Court’s March 22, 2010 deadline, Signal contends, were subject to the second-tier review.
Signal argues that it is entitled to its fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 because plaintiffs’ argument that Signal needed aprotective order to assert a proprietary privilege is meritless. Signal first notes that under Rule 26a, party “may” move for a protective order. Signal also argues that under Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 U.S. 241 (2004), the Supreme Court intimated that protection for confidential information, including information of a bus iness nature, is available under Rule 26(b)(2) in addition to Rule 26( c). Signal argues that Intel thus supports its view that Rule 26( b)(2)(C) is powerf ul enough to shield business secrets and other confidential information from discovery without prior judicial intervention, contrary to the view of Rule 26(c) advanced by plaintiffs.
During discovery, Signal notes that it oft en delivered evidence to plaintiffs to support an
8

objection or redaction. Signal notes that the 2000 Advisory Committee notes state that discovery is initially a “par ty-controlled” process. Plaintiffs should thus not reproach Signal for failing to obtain prior judicial sanction to assert a valid privile ge. Signal notes that even plaintiffs, in their memorandum, noted that Signal produced m any e-m ails that were c learly r esponsive to the discovery requests.
Signal contends that the present motion is the product of a change in the nature of discovery, one that has frequently caused federal courts profound concern. The 2006 Advisory Com mittee notes fully recognize the risks surrounding the “inform ation explosion” with e-discovery. The Committee stated that courts should caution against undue intrusiveness. Signal argues that the motion to compel should be denied because it has been judicious and proportional in its production.
Signal notes that the case law on which plaintiffsrely is out-dated and invalid in that it was decided before the 2006 amendments to the federalrules. The new rules, Signal contends, are more concerned with a balance between a plaintiff’s requriements and a defendant’s rights. Indeed, iSgnal points to a leading federal treatis e that notes that the 2000 amendments had already significantly narrowed the scope of discovery. Signal contends that under the new rules, m otions to com pel might not be granted even i f the moving party s hows that the m aterial sought is relevant. The proportionality and good faith requirements are nowsignificant restrictions on the enforceability of discovery probes. M otions to com pel m ay now be denied if the party opposing discovery demonstrates that the burden of the discovery outweighs its benefits under the cri teria of Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Signal contends that plaintif fs wholly f ail to explai n the nexus between the evidence of which they were allegedly deprived and their claims.
9

Signal argues that its production was judiciousand proportional rather than slanted. Signal also notes that it has lessened the burden on thiCs ourt by redacting the documents instead of asking the Court to review 12,000 documents.
Signal also contends that plaintiffs have waived the pending motion given that they have never objected to the redactionsuntil now. Under Fifth Circuit caes law, waiver may be found when the delay is prejudicial. Signal contends that the prejudice is self-evident given that 21 months of production have passed. Signal argues that no prtay demanding over 12,000 documents sight unseen can argue that this is not a wild goose chase and fsihing expedition. Signal notes that this Court has held that discovery has lim its, especially here, when the Court has lim ited the discovery to class certification. Signal notes that there may be isolated instances of error but that is to be expected in a project this massive.
Lastly, Signal argues that the Court should dney the motion for contempt because Signal has never violated outright an express order of this Court. Signal again notes that only production subjected to the second-tier review occurred after the Court’s deadline of March 22, 2010. Signal argues that plaintiffs have not genuinely been aggrieved, and that any violation was technical and de minimis.
3. Plaintiffs' Reply Plaintiffs reply that the y only filed the instant m otion in June due to Signal’s alleged misrepresentations as to when it would ultimately complete production. Plaintiffs argue that they needed to wait until Signal completed production before challenging all redactions. Plaintiffs argue that there is no right to unilaterally redact documents without a court order.
10

Plaintiffs contend that Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) only authorizes a court to allow a party to redact. Plaintiff contend that Signal’s reliance on Intel and Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) is m isplaced given that neither the opinion nor the rule contemplates giving parties the power to unilaterally redact.
Plaintiffs assert that Signal’s discussion of the 2006 e-discovery amendments is irrelevant because the am endments do not discuss the issue here: whether Signal m ay unilaterally r edact documents. Plaintiffs dispute Signal’s claim of prejudice. Plaintiffs assert that they will be able to narrow their request to less than 3,000 documents, not including the 19th wave of production that has only recently arrived. III. Analysis
After oral argument and a review of the documents submitted for in camera inspection and given the massive scope of the production in this lawsuit, the Court finds that the only solution here is an equitable one. Given plaintiffs'representation that they can reduce the disputed documents to less than 3,000 documents, the Court finds that the motion may be granted in part. The Court thus orders plaintiffs to cull the appr oximately 3,000 docum ents, send them to Signal, and the Court orders Signal to verify that those documents were properly redacted based on the identifying factors mentioned above (i.e., social security numbers, address information and the like). The Court also specifically finds that the identifying factors mentioned above includes any personal information on behalf of any party or non-party.1
Given plaintiffs’ example and the Court's own review of the documents, Signal has over-

1

At the oral hearing, the parties discussed an e-mail exchange in which a non-party

discussed his marital problems. This Order specifically finds such information to be

properly redacted.

11

redacted at times. The Court finds that redaction based on words such as “Puerto Ricans,” “NGC” and “modules” are not proper redactions. The class certification hearing is August 18, 2010, and Signal should be able to complete such a task before then. The Court makes no finding of contempt against Signal, however, and specifically finds that Signal has ethically and judiciously performed what can only be deemed a hugely-massive production of documents.
With regard to those documents redacted and/or withheld on the ground of a proprietary or business confidentiality privilege, the Court orders the parties to again meet and confer to fashion an appropriate protective order. Given Signals' representation -- and the Courtis aware that this fact is hotly contested -- that an opposing party may have released documents to the media, the Court reminds the parties of the severe sanctions that it will impose for violations of such an order. IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Finding of Contempt Against Signal International, L.L.C., for an Order Com pelling Immediate Full Production of Documents and for an Order Requiring Signal International, L.L.C. to Remove Improper Redactions from Produced Documents [Doc. #723]. The Court denies any requests for fees associated with the filing of the instant motion.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of July, 2010.
_____________________________________ DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 797 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

***********************************************

KURIAN DAVID, et al,

*

Plaintiffs

*

*

v.

*

*

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al, *

*

Defendants

*

************************************************

CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv-01220
SECTION "A" JUDGE ZAINEY
MAGISTRATE 3 MAG. JUDGE KNOWLES

CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Knowles’ Order issued July 6, 2010 (Doc. # 747) and with the consent of the parties who jointly m ove, as i ndicated below, therefor, the Court enters th e following Protective Order (“Protective Order” or “Order”): 1. This Protective Order applies only to certain documents produced pursuant to Magistrate Judge Knowles’ Order of July 6, 2010 (Doc # 747) . This Protective Order has no application to documents produced prior to July 6, 2010. 2. The documents that this Order applies to are t hose that were redacted and/or withheld by Signal, on the ground of proprieta ry or business confidential priv ilege, in the privilege logs it

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 797 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 8
provided in waves 10 – 19 of its docum ent production spanning from August 20, 2009 to June 25, 2010, and that have been subsequently unredacted and produced.
3. To protect docum ents described in paragraph 2, and the confidential inform ation therein from uncontrolled publication and dissem ination, Signal m ay designate as “confidential” hereunder such docum ents. In so designating a ny document, Signal shall label said docum ent with the wo rds “Conf idential,” “Pr oprietary,” “S ubject to Protective Orde r” or o ther words to that effect.
4. Thereafter, the term , “Confidential Inform ation,” in this Order shall refer to any document s o designated and produced pursuant to this Order and to th e information contained therein that Signal has unredacted or produced for the first time since Magistrate Judge Knowles’ Order of July 6, 2010.
5. Except as may otherwise be provided by furthe r order of the Court or stipulation of the producing party, previously withheld docum ents produced by Signal pursu ant to this Order bearing the aforesaid Confidentia l designation and/or portions of docum ents covered by Doc. # 747 un-redacted pursuant to this Order, as well as extracts and summ aries thereof, shall be used for no purpose other than prosecuting or defendi ng the above captioned action. P arties to this agreement f urther spec ifically af firm that they will no t tr ansmit, or c ause to be transm itted, Confidential Information as defined herein to any media outlet worldwide.
6. This Protective Order governs only the pr oduction of infor mation and documents identified as “confidential” hereunder.

CaCsaese2:20:80-8c-vc-v0-10212202-0J-CSZM-D-DEEKK DDooccuummeennt t779927-2 FiFleilded070/72/92/81/010PaPgaege3 3ofo8f 8
7. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 8 and 9 below, access and use of any Confidential Information as defined in Paragraph 1 above shall be limited to: (a) the Court, the Court's support staff and any Court-appointed m ediators, arbitrators or expert witn esses; (b) the parties and their officers, employees and agents who are providing assistance to counsel in this action (including in-house counsel participating in the defense of th is action); (c) th e parties' attorneys of record and those attorneys' associates, paralegals, employees and vendors (hereinafter, collectively, “counsel”); (d) potential technical experts, potential expert witnesses and potential fact witnesses involved in the preparation of this action; (e) insurers or represen tatives of the parties; and (f) court reporters, their transcribers, assistants, and employees.
8. In producing docum ents marked confidential for inspection, no further m arking need be made by the producing party in advance of the in spection. Thereafter, when the inspecting party selects such confidential documents for transmission to others, it shall e xercise due dilig ence in endeavoring to ensure that a ll docu ments so transmitted ar e tr ansmitted with the conf idential designation provided for by this Or der. Upon transm ission of doc uments marked confidential, the transmitting party shall ensu re that the rec eiving party h as signed a docum ent reflecting its agreement to abide by the terms of this Protective Order.
9. Inspecting parties or their counsel to whom confidential documents as described herein are produced who m ake copies of the said confidential documents for their expert and/or fact witnesses must first obtain the written agreem ent of each such person to be bound by the term s of this Protective Order. The requirem ent of obt aining such written agreem ent shall be satisf ied by having each such person ackno wledge and agree in writing to be bound by this Protective

CaCsaese2:20:80-8c-vc-v0-10212202-0J-CSZM-D-DEEKK DDooccuummeennt t779927-2 FiFleilded070/72/92/81/010PaPgaege4 4ofo8f 8
Order. A file of all such written acknowledgments shall be m aintained by inspecting parties or their counsel. By signing such written agreem ent and agreeing to be bound by this Protective Order, each such person subm its himself or hersel f to the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of enforcement of this Protective Order.
10. No person other than the persons described a bove in ¶ 7 shall have access to Confidential Information as herein described.
11. Individuals or entities permitted access to Confidential Information, including counsel, as herein defined, are hereby orde red not to show, convey or reproduce any inform ation or documents so designated, or parts thereof, or copies th ereof, or any m atters o r inf ormation contained therein, or any extracts or summaries thereof, to any individual or to any entity who is not expressly authorized to ha ve access to said docum ents unde r the provisions of this Order without the prior, express, written consent of the party producing the docum ent m arked, “Confidential.”
12. Each person given access to Confidential Information shall segregate such material, keep it secur e, tr eat it as co nfidential, and take al l reasonable actions nece ssary to preserv e the confidentiality of the information and ensure that access is limited to the persons and for the uses authorized by this Protective Order.
13. If any party files with the Court a document designated as subject to the provisions of this Protective Order, or if any party subm its to th e Court a brief referring to any such docum ent or any Confidential Information, the Clerk shall keep such docum ent or information under seal and shall make it available o nly to the Court and pe rsons authorized by the term s of this Protective

CaCsaese2:20:80-8c-vc-v0-10212202-0J-CSZM-D-DEEKK DDooccuummeennt t779927-2 FiFleilded070/72/92/81/010PaPgaege5 5ofo8f 8
Order to have access thereto. The person filing any such Conf idential Inf ormation sha ll b e responsible for designating to the Clerk that the inform ation is s ubject to this Protective Order and is to be kept under seal. At the conclusi on of this case, including any appeals, such Confidential Information which has been filed w ith the Court under seal shall be returned, upon reasonable request, to the party which designated it as confidential.
14. If a deponent refuses to agree to the non-disclosure provisions of this Order, disclosure of Confidential Information during the deposition shall not constitute a waiver of confidentiality. Under such cir cumstances, th e witness sh all si gn th e or iginal d eposition tr anscript in th e presence of the court reporter and no copy of th e transcript or exhibits containing Confidential Information shall be given to the deponent.
15. Should any Confidential Inform ation be in advertently disclosed to any person not allowed access under the term s and provisions of th is Order, then the disclosing party, prom ptly upon becoming aware of such disclosure, shall (a) identify such person to the producing party; (b) inform s uch person of all the provisions of this Order; (c) request that such person sign a document agreeing to be bound by the term s of this Or der; and (d) use its best efforts to retrieve all Confidential Information that the person was not authorized to receive.
16. Counsel for any producing party shall have th e right to exclude from depositions any person (other than a party, counsel, the deponent, the reporter and any videographer), who is not allowed access by this Order to Confidential In formation. Such right to exclude shall be applicable only during those pe riods of examination or testim ony discussing, disclosing or directed to Confidential Information.

CaCsaese2:20:80-8c-vc-v0-10212202-0J-CSZM-D-DEEKK DDooccuummeennt t779927-2 FiFleilded070/72/92/81/010PaPgaege6 6ofo8f 8
17. Any party m ay challenge the propriety of the designation of a give n docum ent or information as Confidential Info rmation. If any party elects to challenge the designation of confidentiality of any document or information pursuant to this Protective Order, the challenging party shall notify the producing party of its challenge in writing. Counsel shall comply with local rules p ertaining to d isputes r elating to dis covery. The prod ucing par ty will e ither volunta rily remove the challenged designa tion or advise th e challenging party tha t it will no t rem ove the designation. If the parties cannot resolve such dispute am ong themselves, the challenging party or parties m ay then s eek appropriate relief fr om the Court. If such a m otion is m ade, the producing party shall have the burd en to establish that the desi gnation is proper. All docum ents, testimony or other m aterials designated by th e producing party as C onfidential Inform ation, however, sh all retain th eir status as confidenti al until su ch tim e as the Court en ters an ord er otherwise. Parties to th is Order co nsent to th e applic ation of Rule 37 of the Federal Rule s of Civil Procedure in relation to discovery disputes related to this Order.
18. Nothing herein shall restrict a recipient, fo r use in connection with this action only, f rom making wor king copies, abstracts, digests and analyses o f Conf idential Inform ation or from preparing documents for filing, disclosing such inform ation. However, all such working copies, abstracts, digests, analy ses and /or filings shall be deem ed to ha ve the sam e level of protection under the term s of this Order as the original discovery m aterial. Further, nothing herein shall restrict an authorized recipien t from converting or translati ng Confidential Inform ation into electronic o r m achine-readable form for incorpor ation into a data re trieval sy stem used in connection with this action, prov ided that u se of and access to such c onverted inform ation, in

CaCsaese2:20:80-8c-vc-v0-10212202-0J-CSZM-D-DEEKK DDooccuummeennt t779927-2 FiFleilded070/72/92/81/010PaPgaege7 7ofo8f 8
whatever form stored or reproduced, shall be subj ect to the same terms and restrictions provided in this Order as is the original Confidential Information.
19. In the event any entity, person or party bound by this Order having possession, custody or control of any Confide ntial Info rmation receiv es a subpoena, other process or co urt order to produce such Confidential Inform ation in any case, proceeding or forum, such entity, person or party shall tim ely notify the atto rneys of record of the produci ng party herein (or the producing party itself if not represented by counsel), and shall timely furnish such attorneys or party with a copy of said subpoena, other process or order. The producing party shall have the burden of opposing such subpoena, process or order if it wishes to prevent disclosure of the Confidential Information. The Confidential Inform ation will be maintained and not disclos ed until any final judgment by a court of com petent jurisdiction, including appeals, on any m otion to quash or for protective order that is filed.
20. The provisions of this Order sh all govern discovery and all pre- trial, trial, and post-trial proceedings related to this action insofar as C onfidential Inform ation as herein describ ed is concerned subject to further orders of the Court.
21. This Prote ctive Order s hall rem ain in ef fect after the conclusion of this case, and this Court shall retain concurrent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Protective Order.
22. This Order is entered for the purpose of fac ilitating the exchange of docum ents and other materials without involving the Court unnecessarily in the process. Nothing in this Order, nor the production of any docum ent or other m aterials under the term s of this Order, nor any

CaCsaese2:20:80-8c-vc-v0-10212202-0J-CSZM-D-DEEKK DDooccuummeennt t779927-2 FiFleilded070/72/92/81/010PaPgaege8 8ofo8f 8

proceedings pursuant to this Order shall be deem ed to have the effect of a waiver of attorneyclient or work product privilege by any party or third party.
23. Inspecting parties represent and certify that, at th e conclusion of this ca se (including any appeals th erefrom), all Confidential Infor mation produced by Signal and subject to this Order, whether or not filed or identified as an exhibit in this proceedi ng, including all copies, extracts and summaries thereof, and any attorney work product containing Confidential Information, will be destroyed. One copy of the documents shall be maintained by the Signal.
24. Notwithstanding anything in this Protective Order, any party m ay make an application to this Court seeking leave to show Confidential Information to a third party.

Hello This is a Test

7/29/10
2/15/05

______________________________ UnitedMStagteistMrataegJisutdragtee Judge

So agreed as to substance and form: Etc.
ND: 4824-0976-8198, v. 1

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., ET AL.

SECTION "A" (3)

ORDER

After oral hearing, this Court took under advsiement Signal’s Motion to Compel Production

of T-Visa Applications [Doc. #778]. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion in

part and DENIES the motion in part.

I. Background

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on behalf of a putative class that consists of over 500 Indian

men whom defendants allegedly trafficked intothe United States through the federal government's

H-2B guestworker program in violation of putativ e class plaintiffs’ rights to be free from forced

labor, involuntary servitude and peonage under the Thirteenth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 1854.

Additionally, plaintiffs claim violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1589-90 ("TVPA") and violations of their righst under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to be free froma hostile

work environment and discrimination based on race, national origin, and/or alienage status, all of

the foregoing in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §

1962( c)-(d) ("RICO"). [Doc. #1]. On October 1, 2008, putative class plaintiffs filed their motion

for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). [Doc. # 165]. The putative class of over 500 Indian m en secured visas to work in the United States for
defendant Signal International, L.L.C. ("Signal") in the af termath of Hurricane Katrina. Signal provides construction services to the Gulf Coast oialnd gas industry. Plaintfifs allege that beginning in late 2003, defendants Dewan Consultants and Sachin Dewan ("the Dewan defendants"), Global Resources, Inc. and Michael Pol ("the Global defnedants") and Dr. Kurella Rao and Indo-Amerisoft, L.L.C. ("IAS") placed advertisem ents in various newspapers across Indi a and the United Arab Emirates, which advertisem ents sought welders, fitters and other m arine fabrication workers on behalf of various U.S.-based com panies. The advertisements promised that qualified candidates could obtain legal permanent residence (green cards) and thereby legally and permanently immigrate to the United States with their f amilies. Plaintif fs contend that they paid exorbitant f ees to defendants for recruitment, immigration processingand travel. Plaintiffs maintain that unbeknownst to them, they were never eligible to obtain the prom ised green cards and that, upon arrival in the United States, defendants subjected themto serious abuses and forced labor at Signal’s labor camps in Pascagoula, Mississippi and in Orange, Texas.
Putative class representative David Kurian’s factual assertions are representat ive of those of the other plaintiffs. [Doc. #174-3]. The allegations are as follows. According to David, a citizen of India, he saw a newspaper advertisement by Dewan Consultants while employed in Abu Dhabi. In May 2006, David attended a sem inar led by defendant Sa chin Dewan with the assistance of defendant Malvern Burnett of the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.L.C. ("the Burnett defendants"). David claims that, at the seminar, Dewan told the attendees that for 600,000 rupees
2

(over $12,000.00) plus costs, he could obtain an employment-based green card in the United States. The attendees were told that the money would be paid in three installm ents and that the m oney would cover Dewan’s fee as well as the fees for Burnett and Michael Pol. Burnett is an attorney at law who specializes in immigration matters, and Pol owns Global Resources, Inc., a company that helps American companies find skilled labor to work at their facilities. David claims that Burnett spoke at the seminar and explained to the poten tial recruitees how the green card process would work.
David took and passed the pipe-fitter skills test. David then attended two additional group meetings, the second of which was l ed by Dewan and Burnett. Burnett explained the green card process once again, and he and Dewan handed out contracts from Global Resources, Burnett, and Dewan Consultants a nd an em ployment form for Signal. A representative from Dewan’s office helped the group to fill out the forms.
In June and August 2006, David m ade i nstallment paym ents at Dewan’s office, which included checks made payable to Burnett and Pol. In late August 2006, David attended a meeting in Dubai, where Dewan and Burnett told the workesr that before their visas would expire, the green cards would be approved. At a subsequent meeting, Dewan and Bur nett ga ve the workers instructions on how to answer questions from the American consular officers during their visa interviews. Dewan and Burnett allegedly instructed the workers not to reveal howumch money they had paid for the recruitment fees and not to mention the green cards.
The consulate officials took David’s passport and, at the behest of Dewan Consultants, the passport was returned directly to Dewan’s office. According to David, Dewan refused to return his
3

passport until he made the final installment payment to Dewan and paid for medical testing to be performed by a physician chosen by Dewan.
In February 2007, David m ade the final paym ent with checks m ade payable to Dewan, Burnett and Pol. David claims that he was then rushed to sign forms written in English that he could not understand, and it was only upon signing these forms and making the final installment payment that Dewan finally returned his passport. Duringthis process, David saw other workers try to back out and have their money returned, but someone from Dewan Consultants would then threaten to destroy their passports in retaliation. David conte nds that he and his wife sold m any of t heir personal belongings to raise the money necessary to pay Dewan, Burnett and Pol.
On February 16, 2007, David arrived at Signa l’s labor cam p in Orange, Texas where he signed a number of additional employment forms. David claims that he later learned that the forms allowed Signal to take deductions from hi s salary for food and accom modations and that Signal required the workers to open an account with a s pecific bank where their paychecks would be deposited. David charges that the living conditions and food at Signal were horrible and that the Indian workers were told that even if they left, they would be charged the daily rate of room and board.
David claims that the Indian workers were searched by guards when they would come and go from the camp and that guards would sometimes come into the living quarters at night to search workers’ belongings. According to David, the workers be gan t o get sick because of the overcrowded conditions. Signal also required the workers to purchase all of their own tools. David claims that the workers were relegated to performing all of the dangerous and dirty work inside of
4

the ships and that the American workers were not required to do such work. According to David, when the workers complained, Signal made more promises about the
green cards and threatened that if the workers continued to complain, they would be deported and not receive the promised visas. David continued to work under conditions that he characterizes as horrible because he was afraid of the consequences of leaving, given that he had incurred so much debt to raise the money to come to the United States. II. The Parties' Contentions
1. Signal’s Motion to Compel Production of T-Visa Applications Signal notes that a recentNew York Timesarticle dated June 29, 2010 reported that an agency of the federal government has determined that the trafficking claims against Signal are valid1. Three weeks before the article, Signal had served discovery requests on plaintiffs that sought plaintiffs’ applications for T- and/or U-visas (visas granted to victims of human trafficking and other crimes that allow the victims and their families to remain in the United States). Signal notes plaintiffs' objections to production of the visa applications as follows: Plaintiffs first objected on the ground that the docum ents fall under t he protection of the current protective order. [Doc. #367]. Signal agreetshat some of the information in the applications may be protected by the protective order but arguesthat the applications may be redacted pursuant to such order. Plaintiffs also objected to production of any documents concerning family members on the

1

Editorial, They Pushed Back, N.Y. Times, June 29, 2010, at A30 (reprinted at

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/opinion/29tue3.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Signal%20I

nternational&st=cse).

5

ground that it would expose themto harassment and intimidation. This is a repeat of thein terrorem argument that this Court has accepted before.
Plaintiffs also objected on the ground that the inform ation is not relevant to class certification. Signal argues that the documents are relevant to prove credibility. Signal contends that federal law acknowledges that inquiries into credibility illum inate adequacy of the class representatives.
Lastly, plaintiffs objected on the ground of attorney-client/work-product privileges. At the Rule 37.1 conf erence, plaintif fs raised another objection: The production of the documents would violate 8 U.S.C. § 1367, which provides that the Attorney General, any official or employee of the Departm ent of Justice, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, or any employees or officials of these departments may not disclose any information relating to an alien who is the beneficiary of a T- or aU-visa. Subsection (b)(3) provides that Section 1367 shall not be construed as preventing disclosure ofinformation in connection with judicial review of a determ ination in a m anner that protect s the confidentiality of the inform ation. 8 U.S.C. § 1367(b)(3). Signal argues that this is the perfect case for judcial review of the allegations reported in the New York Tim es. Noting that plaintiffs cited Hawke v. United States Department of Homeland Security, No. C-07-03456 RMW, 2008 WL 4460241 (N.D. Cal.Sept. 29, 2008), as support for their Section 1367 argument, Signal distinguishes the case, arguing that no agency is involved here and no agency has asserted the Section 1367 privilege. Signal also argues that Hawke concerned only the protection of battered women. Signal further contends that no law forbids the applicant fr om
6

sharing the inf ormation with others when a f ederal court deem s disclosure appropriate. Citing United States v . Re ynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1953), Signal argues that the Suprem e Court has emphasized that a privilege like that in Section 1367 belongs to the government alone and not to a private litigant.
Signal contends that it is engaged in a two-frontwar, one in this forumand one in the press. Citing another article in theHigh Plains Reader, Signal asserts that the article was explicitly based on T-visa applications.2 [Ex. 3, attached to Signals' Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel]. Signal argues that the cite to the T-visa application in theHigh Plains Reader article proves that plaintiffs have shared such applications with the media. Signal argues that plaintiffs have thus waived any privilege by opening the door. Citing case law fromthis Court andthe Fifth Circuit, Signal contends that the law underlying the waiver of the attorney-client a nd/or work-product privileges applies equally to Section 1367, and, given that plaintiffs produced the applications to the press, all privileges have been waived.
Signal argues that it is entitled to the documents on the ground of fairness and that Signal’s due process rights to a fair hearing require that the documents be produced. Signal contends that plaintiffs will use the documents to burnish theirclaims. Signal argues that bias and prejudice taint the applications in that plaintiffs will exaggerate their claims to allow their wives and children to remain in the country.
Signal asserts that the applications are rifewith misstatements and inaccuracies. Signal then

2

Bruce Vaughn, When Freedom Turns Its Back, High Plains Reader (reprinted at

http://hpr1.com/feature/article/when_freedom_turns_its_back/).

7

quotes statements from the initial sworn statem ents of several putative class represe ntatives and notes that the deposition testimony of the same putative class representatives later conflicted with the earlier statements.
Lastly, Signal contends that t he Court can not deny it access to im peachment evidence. Signal argues that it has dem onstrated the bias and corruption rooted in the self-evident, overwhelming temptation to fabricate or to exagge rate evidence to gain entry to this country for oneself and one’s wife and children.
2. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition Plaintiffs note that on April 2, 2009, this Courgtranted plaintiffs’ motion for protective order and denied Signal discovery into plaintiff’s current immigration status. [Doc. #367]. Citing case law, plaintiffs argue that courts have not hesitated to block discovery into immigration applications and other immigration-related documents because the chilling orin terrorem effect of the inquiries outweighs the probative value of discovery. Poin ting to the T-visa application filed under seal, plaintiffs note that the application itself seeks the grounds f or inadmissibility, information about cooperation with law enforcement, information about crimes the applicant may have committed and specific information about family members. Plaintiffs note that Congress amended the law pertaining to T- and U-visa holders in 2006 to protect the confidentiality of the applications. Plaintif fs argue that the prim ary purpose of the amendment was to prevent disclosure of the app lications to the allege d hum an tr affickers and criminals. Disclosure would allow defendants, l ike Signal, to interfere with or to underm ine plaintiffs’ immigrations cases and encourage immigration enforcement to pursue removal actions
8

against them. Because Signal has steadfastly refused to enter a protective order except by order of this Court, plaintiffs assert that Signal could contact United States Citizenship and Im migration Services ("USCIS") to seek revocation of visas.
Plaintiffs also contend that disclosure would underm ine law enforcem ent effor ts to investigate human trafficking and other crim es. Plaintiffs argue that disclosure would have the perverse result of turning a progr am designed to allow immigrants to assist a law enforcem ent investigation into a program that necessarily di scloses the existence of the investigation itself . Plaintiffs assert that disclosure would have achilling effect on plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to organize and to participate in workers’ rights campaigns and government reform work.
Plaintiffs further argue that Section 1367 preventsdisclosure of the applications. Plaintiffs first contend that the j udicial review secti on does not apply because “judicial review of a determination” refers to judicial review of theunderlying T- or U-visa application and not a separate civil or crim inal proceeding. Hawke, 2008 W L 4460241, at *6. Second, plaintiffs note that subsection (b)(4) states that “[s]ubsection (a)(2) shallnot apply if all the . .. individuals in the case are adults and they have all waived the restric tions of such subsection.” 8 U.S.C. § 1367(b)(4). Thus, plaintiffs contend, an individual must be able to assert theprivilege because he can waive it; if not, the language in subsection (b)(4) is superfluous.
Any disclosure of the applications, plaintiffs next argue, would violate the protective order in this lawsuit, which order bars any “inquiry intoplaintiffs’ current immigration status.” Plaintiffs note that the Court’s order did not just order theprotection of plaintiffs’ current immigration status but also any inquiry into such status. Plaintiffs note that Signal and other defendant s in this suit
9

opposed plaintiffs’ earlier m otion for a protective order bec ause they wanted to obtain m ore information regarding plaintiffs’ T- and Uv-isa applications. This Court rejected defendants’ request and held that any inquiry into plaintiffs’ current immigration status, including the existence of Tor U-visa applications, is bar red. Plaintiffs note that production of the applications would necessarily reveal their current immigration status.
Plaintiffs further note that this Court earlier concluded that Signal’s opportunity to test the credibility of plaintiffs does not outweigh the publicinterest in allowing employees to enforce their rights. David v. Signal Int’l, L.L.C., 257 F.R.D. 114, 121 (E.D. La. 2009) (“Credibility is always at issue. That, in and of itself, does not warrant an inquiry into the subject of current immigration status when such exam ination would im pose an undue burden on private enforcem ent of employment discrim ination l aws, inter alia.”) Plaintiffs argue that the exam ples of alleged misstatements in Signal’s m emorandum am ply de monstrate that Signal already has m ore than enough evidence to challenge plaintiffs’ credibility.
Plaintiffs contend that Signal’s due process ri ghts are not at issue because plaintiffs have never intimated that they will use the applications to burnish their claims. Plaintiffs contend that the applications are irrele vant here and relate only to an adm inistrative process separate and independent from this proceeding.
In response to Signal’s argument that it is waging a war on two fronts, plaintiffs respond that any party that calls plaintiffs and t heir counsel “liars” in the m edia is hardly in a position to complain about negative m edia attention that it r eceives. Plaintiffs note that counsel for Signal called plaintiffs’ allegations “lies” in theHigh Plains Reader. Indeed, plaintiffs note, Signal’s desire
10

to use the information in the applications to counter its negative image in the media is an additional reason to deny Signal’s motion.
Plaintiffs further contend that they were not at all involved in the article in theHigh Plains Reader, so any argument that they waived any privilege as to that article is specious. With regard to the New York Times article, plaintiff note that over their objection, the New Orleans W orkers’ Center for Racial Justice ("Workers' Center") disclosed that a number of T-visas had been granted. Plaintiffs see this as a blunder but also note that the article does not report that its author had ever actually seen an application. Plaintiffs argue that a statement that approximately 150 putative class members had received T-visas does not mean that 500 class members have waived their privileges.
Lastly, plaintiffs argue that Signal rejected theri offer to disclose the applications with many redactions. Plaintiffs redacted all personal and family information, the legal arguments in support of the application, the evidence of coopera tion wi th law enforcem ent and the grounds for inadmissibility and prior crimes.
Should the Court grant Signal’s motion, plaintiffs ask the Court to include these documents under the protective order recently approved in this suit. [Doc. #797].
3. Signal’s Reply Signal argues that plaintiffs can not com plain about the tim ing of the m otion to com pel. Signal contends that it a sked plaintiffs to im mediately object to production of the applications if plaintiffs thought that the protective order prevented the disclosure of such applications. Si gnal asserts that plaintiffs waited until the end ofthe discovery period to do so and now can not complain that Signal has filed the motion to compel.
11

Signal also argues tha t pl aintiffs were i nvolved in the “Cass 23," the group of putative plaintiffs referenced in the High Plains Reader . Citing to a Bismarck Tribune article dated November 13, 2008, Signal notes that the article referenced Jennifer Rosenbaum, counsel here as well. [Ex. C, attached to Signal's Reply]. Evidently, the article notes that Rosenbaum nodded to several men as they left the courtroom and referred reporters to Jacob Horowitz, who stated that Signal was a “criminal.”
4. Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply Plaintiffs argue that Signal’s discovery requests were late, simply too late. Plaintiffs note that Signal propounded the requests 20 days before theNew York Times article so it can not rely on the publication of the article to excuse its delay. Plaintiffs also contend that while Rosenbaum is an attorney in this suit, she has not participated in the suit since January and is nota part of the present opposition. Plaintiffs note that none of the class representatives here we re pa rt of the “Cass 23" and therefore could not have waived any privilege. III. Analysis On April 2, 2009, this Court granted plaintiff's motion for a protective order. [Doc. #367]. In that order, the Court found that any inquiry in to the plaintiffs' current immigration status was irrelevant to the claims asserted in this suit and that "discovery of such information would have an intimidating effect on an employee's willingness to assert his workplace rights." [Doc. #367 at p. 12 (citing Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004)]. Citing the declarations of several of the named plaintiffs, the Court recognized thein terrorem effect on plaintiffs that would
12

result were the Court to allow discovery on plaintiffs' current immigration status. [Doc. #367 at p. 20]. The Court concluded: "Considering the foregoing, this Court can only conclude that any inquiry into plaintiffs' current immigrations status . . . will most assuredly strike paralyzing fear in the plaintiffs sufficient to chill any inclination they may have had to prosecute their pending claims." [Id. at pp. 20-21].
Also in that order, and as noted by plaintiffs, the Court held that thecredibility of the named class representatives as it relates to their adequacoyf representation did not, in and of itself, "warrant inquiry into the subject current immigration status when such examination would impose an undue burden on private enforcement of employment discrimination laws, inter alia." [Id. at pp. 15-16]. The Court ultimately concluded that "defendants'opportunity to test the credibility of plaintiffs does not outweigh the public interest in allowing employees to enforce their rights." [Id. at p. 16].
The Court's order was upheld on appeal. [Doc . #476]. The Court finds that nothing has occurred in this suit or in the relevant case law taht would change the Courts' earlier findings of fact and conclusions of law. Productoi n of the T- and U-visa applications themselves would necessarily result in an inquiry into plaintiffs'current immigration status, an inquiry that this Court has already barred.
The publication of the articles in the New York Times , the High Plains Reader and the Bismarck Tribune would potentially affect only one new argum ent advanced by Signal: That the individually-named putative class representatives herehave waived any privilege with regard to the T- and U-vi sa applications when an unrelated putative absent class m ember -- or his counsel -allegedly turned over his T-visa application to theHigh Plains Reader. In short, Signal argues that
13

because one putative absent cl ass member has allegedly waived any claim to privilege -- be it attorney-client, work-product or the privile ge under 8 U.S.C. § 1367 -- all putative class representatives have waived any claim to privilege.
The Court rejects this argument. Despite its superficial allure, Signal has cited this Court to no case law -- and this Court has found none -- on point. In any event, the argument proceeds from a faulty premise. The argument fails simply because no class yet exists here. The District Court has continued the class certification hearing to January 11, 2001. At the present time, then, only individual litigants sue defendants herein. Evenwere the Court to find that an alleged putative absent class member -- who may or may not be partof the class here -- waived any claimto privilege by revealing his T-visa application to a third party, such actions would not affect the individuallynamed putative class representatives here. 3 Accordingly, t he Court denies production of the Tand/or U-visa applications.
At the oral hearing on the motion, however, plaintiffs suggested a compromise. Plaintiffs

3

In similar circumstances that relate to conflicts of interest and the existence of an

attorney-client relationship, courts have unanimously held that pre-certification, absent

class members do not even possess the traditional attorney-client relationship with

putative class counsel. See, e.g., In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 418 F.3d 277, 313 (3d Cir.

2005) (“courts have recognized that class counsel do not possess a traditional

attorney-client relationship with absent class members.”); Morisky v. Public Service

Elec. and Gas Co., 191 F.R.D. 419, 424 (D.N.J. 2000) (“at this juncture, this is only a

putative class action and not a certified class action. The employees who have filed

notices seeking to join this lawsuit as class members, therefore, cannot be considered

clients of the Tomar firm. . . . [O]nly the named plaintiffs are clients of the Tomar firm at

this stage. . . . Therefore, Tomar cannot assert the attorney-client privilege with respect to

the employees who submitted the questionnaires but are not named plaintiffs because

only clients can claim this privilege.”). This line of case law supports the finding that

absent class members are not part of the class until certification and do not -- pre-

certification -- possess the traditional attorney-client privilege nor, by extension, can they

waive it.

14

have offered to produce the sworn statements of the putative class representatives that are attached to the T- and/or U-visa applications. The Court finds that this compromise is the most productive way to resolve the instant dispute. IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Signal’s Motion to Compel Production of T-Visa Applications [Doc. #778]. Plaintiffs need not produce the T- and/or U-vias applications themselves to Signal, but plaintiffs shall produce the sworn statements attached to such applications. The Court denies any requestsfor fees associated withthe filing of the instant motion.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _2_6_t_hday of August, 2010.
_____________________________________ DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., ET AL.

SECTION "A" (3)

ORDER

On October 20, 2010, the Motion for New Trial nad/or Reconsideration of Discovery Order

Pursuant to FRCP 59(e) Filed on Behalf of Signal International, L.L.C. [Doc. #863], the Motion to

Enforce Order of the Court Pursuant to Rule37 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. #868a]nd

the Motion for a Protective Order [Doc. #869] came on for oral hearing before the undersigned.

Present were Daniel Werner on behalf of plaintiffs, Alan Weinberger, Erin Hangartner, Hal Ungar

and Patricia Bollman on behalf of defendant Signal International L.L.C. (“Signal”), Ralph Alexis

on behalf of the Burnett defendants and Stephe n Sha piro on behalf of the Dewan defendants.

Having reviewed the motion, the memoranda, the caselaw and the parties’ oral argument, the Court

rules as follows.

I. Background

This Court has detailed the factual background ofthis lawsuit in numerous opinions and will

not repeat it here. [Doc. #854].

II. Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration of Discovery Order Pursuant to FRCP 59(e) Filed on Behalf of Signal International, L.L.C. [Doc. #863]

Signal asks the Court to reconsider its earlier order in which the Court granted in part Signal’s motion to compel and ordered plaintiffsto produce the sworn statements/affidavits attached to their T- and U-visa applications but not thepaplications themselves. [Doc. #854]. Signal asks the Court to reconsider its order and to order plaintiffs to produce the entire unredacted visa applications. Signal repeats its arguments from its earlier motion to compel [Doc. #778], which are generally reiterated below:
At a Rule 37.1 conference, plaintiffs objected to the production of the visa applications on the ground that such production would violate 8 U.S.C. § 1367, which provides that the Attorney General, any official or employee of the Department of Justice, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, or any em ployees or offi cials of these depar tments may not disclose any information relating to an alien who is the benef iciary of a T- or a U-vi sa. Subs ection (b)(3) provides that Section 1367 shall not be c onstrued as preventing disclosure of inform ation in connection with judicial review of a determination in a manner that protects the confidentiality of the information.
Signal argues that this is the perfect case for judcial review of the allegations reported in the New York Times.1 Noting that plaintiffs cited Hawke v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87603, *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008), as support for their Section 1367 argument, Signal distinguishes the case, arguing that no agency is involved here and no agency has asserted the Section 1367 privilege. Signal also argue s t hat Hawke concerned only the

1

Signal refers to a recent New York Times article that intimated that an agency of the

federal government had determined that the trafficking claims against Signal are valid.

2

protection of battered women. Signal further contends that no law ofrbids the applicant from sharing the information with others when a federal court deems disclosure appropriate. CitingUnited States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1953), Si gnal argues that the Supreme Court has emphasized that a privilege like that in Section 1367 belongs only to the government and not to private parties such as plaintiffs.
Signal contends that it is engaged in a two-frontwar, one in this forumand one in the press. Citing another article in theHigh Plains Reader, Signal asserts that the article was explicitly based on T-visa applications. Signal argues that the citatoin in the article to the T-visa application proves that plaintiffs have shared such applications withthe media. Signal argues that plaintiffs have thus waived any privilege by opening the door. Citing case law from this Court and the Fifth Circuit, Signal contends that the law underlying the waiver of the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges applies equally to Section 1367, and, given that plaintiffs produced the applications to the press, all privileges have been waived.
Signal argues that it is entitled to the unredacted applications on the ground of fairness and that Signal’s due process rights to a fair heari ng require that the documents be produced. Signal contends that plaintiffs will use the documents to burnish their claims and further argues that bias and prejudice taint the applications in that plaintfifs have allegedly exaggerated their claims to allow their wives and children to also remain in this country.
Signal asserts that the applications are rifewith misstatements and inaccuracies. Signal then quotes several statements from the initial sworn statements of several putative class representatives and notes that the later deposition testimony of thesame putative class representatives conflicts with
3

the earlier statements. Lastly, Signal contends that the Court can not deny it access to the applications as
impeachment evidence. Signal argues that it has demonstrated the bias and corruption rooted in the self-evident, overwhelming temptation to fabricate or to exaggerate evidence to gain entry to this country for oneself and one’s wife and children.
In opposition, plaintiffs note that this Court has already twice rejected Signal’s arguments [Doc. #324 & #854], and the District Court has ocne upheld this Court’s earlier finding [Doc. #476]. Citing case law, plaintiffs assert that Signal haswholly failed to meet its burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59 for reconsideration of this Court’s earlier order because Signal can not demonstrate an intervening change in the controlnlig law, the availability ofevidence not previously available, the need to correct a clearerror of law or fact or to prevent a manifest injustice. Plaintiffs contend that Signal merely reiterates its earlier arguments in the motion for reconsideration and that courts routinely deny m otions to reconside r wh en the party sim ply repeats earlier argum ents. Indeed, plaintiffs cite one case in which the court ordered a party to show cause why a m otion to reconsider that simply repeated earlier arguments was not a sanctionable violation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). See Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co,. 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990).
Plaintiffs note that this Court has already reejcted Signal’s due process argument. Plaintiffs also argue that Signal’s contention that T-visa applications do not indicate the immigration status of a particular im migrant is logically flawed. Plaintiffs stress t hat the applications necessarily disclose the person’s im migration status because the im migrant m ust disclose the grounds for
4

inadmissibility. Plaintiffs also contend that Signal’s accusations that plaintiffs committed perjury here are
baseless. They argue that if Signal had evidence of the falsity of which it accuses them, it could have and should have produced the evidence to this Court under seal. Plai ntiffs c ontend that Signal’s accusations are flagrant attempts to intimidate plaintiffs. They argue that the in terrorem effect of putting confidential information in Signal’s hands is all too evident here.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) do not form ally recognize a m otion to reconsider. Pryor v. United States Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 285 (5th Cir. 1985). However, the Fifth Circuit treats motions to reconsider as either motions to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) or motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60, depending on when the motion is filed. Lavespere v. Niagra Machine & Tools Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990). A motion for reconsideration is analyzed under Rule 59(e)if it is served within 28 days of the court's ruling; otherwise, it is analyzed under Rule60(b) if it is served after that time. Id. Here, Signal filed its motion for reconsideration within 28 days of the Court's order, and the motion is thus properly considered under Rule 59(e).
Courts in this district apply Rule 59(e) to m otions to reconsider non-disposit ive pre-trial rulings. See Harveston v. Falcon Workover Co., Inc,. Civ. A. 96-4172, 1998 WL 166209, (E.D. La. Apr. 8, 1998) (analyzing m otion to recons ider t rial continuance under Rule 59(e)); Freeport-McMoran Sulphur, L.L.C. v. Mike Mullen Energy Equip. Res,.Civ. A. 03-1496, 2004 WL 1488665 (E.D. La. June 30, 2004) (analyzing under Rule59(e) motion to reconsider court’s ruling as to privileged documents).
5

Under Rule 59(e), a court's reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy that should be used only sparingly and not to re-litig ate old matters, raise new arguments, or present evidence that should have been raised in the earlier motion. See Karim v. Finch Shipping Co., 111 F. Supp. 2d 783, 784 (E.D. La. 2000). A court m ay entertain a motion for reconsideration if the moving party demonstrates (1) newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, (2) that the motion is necessary to correct a m anifest error of fact or law, (3) that t he motion is necessary to prevent m anifest injustice, or (4) that the m otion is justif ied by an intervening change in the controlling law. Gregg v. Weeks Marine, Inc., Civ. A. 99-1586, 2000 WL 802865, at * 2 (E.D. La. May 26, 2000).
Here, Signal has not demonstrated (1) newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, (2) that the m otion is necessar y to correct a m anifest error of fact or law, (3) that the m otion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice, or (4) that the motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law. Indeed, and as plaintiffs correctly note, Signal merely re-hashes its earlier arguments, which is not proper in a motion to reconsider. Signal seeks to re-litigate the arguments that it raised in its earlier motion to compel and that this Court has already rejected. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion. III. Motion to Enforce Order of the Court Pursua nt to Rule 37 of Federal Rul es of Civil
Procedure [Doc. #868] and the Motion for a Protective Order [Doc. #869] These two motions are basically mirror images of each other, and theCourt will accordingly address them in tandem. Signal asks the Court to enforce its Order dated August 26, 2010 [Doc. #854], in which this
6

Court or dered plaintiffs to produce the sworn st atements attached to their T- and/or U-visa applications. After the 14 days to object to the order had run, Signal contacted plaintiffs to seek a date certain by which plaintiffswould produce the statements. Plaintiffs informed Signal that they would request a protective order fromthe Court. Signal asks the Court to order production no later than seven days from the date of the oral hearing on this motion.
Signal argues that plaintiffs have waived their right to object to the order because they did not object within 14 days and they did not file a m otion to reconsider within 28 days pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and 59, rsepectively. In the earlier order, the Court noted in the “Parties’ Contentions” section that plaintiffsasked the Court to includethe T- and/or U- visa applications under the protective order currentlyin place if the Court ordered production. Because the Court did not explicitly hold so, Signal contends that this Court has already rejected plaintiffs’ request to include the docum ents under the current protective order. Signal asks the Court to sanction plaintiffs for failure to comply with this Court’s order.
Plaintiffs note that the compromise that they suggested at the oral hearing on the motion to compel was to produce redacted versions of the sworn affidavits attached to their T- and/or U-visa applications and that the affidavits be included under the current protective order. Citing language from the Court’s order, in which the Court reject ed disclosure of plaint iffs’ current immigration status, plaintiffs argue that they may redact any information that may disclose such status.
Plaintiffs assert that this Court did not address whe ther the sworn statem ents should be subject to a protective order. Thus, they contend,there was nothing to appeal to the District Court. Plaintiffs do not oppose production of t he affidavits but merely seek to redact information that is
7

irrelevant to this action and production of which would have an in terrorem effect on plaintiffs. They also seek protection from disclosure to anyone outside the litigation.
In their m otion for a prot ective order, plaintiffs seek to redact the affidavits to exclude information identifying family members, residences before em ployment at Signal, residences of plaintiffs’ family members, any address or employment information protected from disclosure by the Court’s April 2, 2009 protective order, cooperation with law enforcem ent, grounds for inadmissibility and prior crimes. Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter the protective order attached to their motion.
Plaintiffs note that the Court was quiet on whethrethe affidavits are subject to the protective order because the earlier motion addressed only the T- and/or U-visa applications. Plaintiffs contend that it is axiomatic that sub-parts of the visa applications – the affidavits – should not be disclosed outside of this litigation because such disclosure would strike paralyzi ng fear in the plaintiffs sufficient to chill any inclination that they m ay have to prosecute their claim s. Plaintif fs also contend that federal law m andates that T- and/or U-visa applications rem ain confidential. See 8 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiffs assert that subjecting the information to civil discovery discourages the candor that is critical for the government’s adjudication of the applications. For example, plaintiffs contend, discovery of prior crimes hands the alleged human traffickers the perfect tool for retaliation against plaintiffs. They remind the Court that Signal noted at the oral hearing that it was ethically obligated to turn such information over to the government.
Plaintiffs contend that Signal has all but admitted that it will turn such information over to the media. They note that the proposed protective order allows Signal to apply to the Court to order
8

the release of such information. Plaintiffs do notsimply want Signal turning over such information to the media “with wild abandon.”
Signal argues that plaintiffs have not shown good cause under Rule 26(c) for a protective order. Signal contends that plaintiffs can not show good cause because issuance of the protective order that they seek conflicts with the government’s responsibility to police fraud in conjunction with the visa applications. Citing the regulations that govern T- and U-visas, Signal notes that the government may revoke the visas if they are obtained by fraud. Signal asserts that this im plies a federal policy interest in discovering inform ation that relates potentially to a decision to revoke. Signal thus contends that this Court can not proetct falsehoods. Signal argues that it has assembled an impressive record of false and greatly exaggerated statements.
Signal asserts that requiring it to seek perm ission to provide these statem ents to the government flies in the face of federal policy, the “pillars” of statutory construction and Supreme Court precedent. Signal also argues that such a process would be expensive, given that plaintiffs would oppose any such motion. Lastly, Signal contends that plaintiffs have made no showing of how revelation of their own m isstatements to the governm ent will cause them annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expenes as required under Rule 26(c). Signal argues that general in terrorem assertions are not particular and specfiic demonstrations of fact as required under Rule 26.
Signal contends that Federal Rule of Eviden ce 803( 8) a lso requires denial of plaintiffs’ motion. Rule 803(8) creates an exception to the hearsay rule by allowing into evidence factual findings resulting froman investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the source
9

of the inform ation or other circum stances indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Signal asserts that plaintiffs will use this exception to introduce at tiral the government’s findings as to their T- and/or U-visa applications. Because Signal bears theburden to demonstrate untrustworthiness under Rule 803(8), Signal argues that it is entitled to the unred acted copies of the visa applications. Signal contends that the sworn statem ents will dem onstrate that the applicant knowingly lied to the government.
Lastly, Signal reasserts its argum ent that only the governm ent has a right to assert the privilege in 8 U.S.C. § 1367. Signal asserts that this Court’s earlier order created a new federal privilege under Section 1367. Signal contends that this Court’s earlier order im plicitly held that Section 1367 creates a privilege that protects T- and U-visa applications from disclosure.2
In reply, plaintiffs stress that Signal overtly seeks to turn the government’s visa application process into an adversarial proceeding where the alleged trafficker has full right to review a trafficking victim’s visa application and seek revocation or even criminal sanctions simply because the trafficker disagrees with the victim’s statement. Plaintiffs contend that Signal’s only motivation here is retaliation. They argue that no due process issue exists here because Signal will have all it needs when it receives the redacted affidavits. Plaintiffs assert that Signal has now acknowledged that it will use these affidavits to initiate an extrajudicial process to punish the class representatives.
Plaintiffs argue that Signal’s assertion thatit is entitled to the government’s factual findings is irrelevant. First, plaintiffs claimthat the government issues no findings as to the visa applications.

2

Signal raised this argument in its motion for reconsideration as well, but the Court

addresses it here.

10

The applicant allegedly simply receives notice that he has received a visa. Second, plaintiffs will not use any such findings at the class-certification hearing and will stipulate to such. With regard to the merits hearing, plaintiffs contend that th ey can not now – e ven before class certification – stipulate that they will not use any potential ifndings in the trial of this matter. Plaintiffs allege that the parties can re-visit the issue at that time.
Contrary to Signal’s argument, plaintiffs contend that this Court created no new privilege under 8 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiffs assert that the Court merely entered a protective order to prevent harassment, oppression and undue burden. Citing a litnay of case law, plaintiffs note that numerous federal courts have prevented disclosure of immigration status outside the context of cases under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Lastly, plaintiffs note that as to alleged crim es that they m ay have com mitted, they are completely within their rights to have invoked theFifth Amendment. Plaintiffs contend that Signal may not make an end-run around the Fifth Amendment by seeking details of alleged crimes in the visa applications.
For the following reasons, the C ourt grants in part the m otion to enforce and grants the motion for a protective order. Plaintiffs have certainly demonstrated good cause under Rule 26(c) for a protective order and to redact the requestedinformation. This Court has already held twice – and been upheld once in holding – that the disclosure of the inform ation that Signal seeks would create an in terrorem effect on plaintiffs. Courts frequen tly grant protective orders to protect an immigrant’s current immigration status. In Topo v. Dhir, for example, the court noted:
Plaintiff asserts that by seeking information on her immigration status, defendants
11

are attempting to exploit the discovery process in an attempt to threaten plaintiff's continued prosecution of her claim s. The court need not find such om inous undertones in defendant' s discovery requests. Plaintiff's fears of her immi gration status deterring further prosecution of her claim s are well-founded. Courts have generally recognized the in terrorem effect of inquiring into a party' s immigration status when irrelevant to any m aterial claim. In particul ar, courts have noted that allowing parties to inquire about the im migration status of other parties, when not relevant, would present a “danger of intim idation [that] would inhibit plaintiffs in pursuing their rights.” Liu v. Donna Karan International, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 191, 193 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citations omitted). Were plaintiff's immigration status relevant to prove a material aspect of the defense, a protective order would not be appropriate. However, when the question of a partys' immigration status only goes to a collateral issue, as in this case, the protective ordebr ecomes necessary as “[i]t is entirely likely that any undocumented [litigant] forced to produce documents related to his or her immigration status will withdraw from the suit rather than produce such documents and face ... potential deportation.” Flores v. Albertsons Inc., 2002 WL 1163623, *5 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Although the cases addressing this issue typically relate to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the underlying principle is still the same. When the potential for abuse of procedure is high, the Court can and should act within its discretion to limit the discovery proces s, e ven i f relevancy is determ ined. The court finds, however, for the reasons listed below that, atbest, plaintiff's immigration status is a collateral issue not relevant to any material aspect of the case.
210 F.R.D. 76, 78 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Here, plaintif f’s immigration status is a collateral issue and
does not go the merits of Signal’s defense. For example, this Court can not fathomin what way any
of plaintiffs’ alleged prior crimes would be relevant to the issues in this suit. Plaintiffs have so far
given Signal no statements as to alleged prior crimes so there can be no inconsistency between what
plaintiffs have told Signal and what they have told the governm ent. Given that plaintiffs have
invoked the Fifth Am endment before, Signal will not be able to use e vidence of pr ior crimes to
impeach plaintiffs at the class-certification hearing. In addition, the grounds for inadmissibility are
irrelevant to any claim or defense here. The reasons why a particular plaintiff may be inadmissible
to this country will not impact any evidence submitted at the hearing. Further, any information on
12

family members who are not parties to this lawsuit is clearly irrelevant. Signal seeks to compare the statements that plaintiffs have made to it to the statements that
plaintiffs have made to the government. The Court finds that Signal will be able to do so with the redacted statements. Signal will have all of the factual underpinnings of the statements necessary to m ount any potential defense. The redacted statem ents will reveal what plaintiffs t old t he government concerning their alleged detention at the alleged labor camps. Signal is entitled to no more.
The Court rejects Signal’s argum ent that the Court has created a new privilege under 8 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court never addressed Section 1367 in its earlier order and neve r created a privilege therein. As plaintifs correctly note, thisCourt, as it does today, simply issued a protective order to prevent harassment and oppression of plaintiffs under Rule 26.3
This Court also finds that plaintiffs did not ened to object to this Court’s earlier Order within 14 days or to file a motion for reconsideration within 28 days. This Court never explicitly addressed whether the production of the affidavits were covreed by the protective order in place here. Because this Court did not address it, there was nothing forplaintiffs to appeal. Signal reads too much into this Court’s earlier Order, presuming that the Court’s silence meant rejection ofplaintiffs’ argument. While this Court recognizes that on appeal, an appellate court may generally conclude that silence

3

This Court also rejects any reliance on United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1953),

to support the argument that the government may only assert the alleged privilege under

Section 1367. The Reynolds Court never addressed Section 1367.

13

is an implicit rejection of an argument,4 this Court’s order is not yet on appeal, and this Court did not reject plaintiffs’ argument. In initially ruling on the motion to compel, the Court simply failed to clarify whether the protective order -- or a similar one -- prevents the disclosure of the affidavits and permits their redaction.5 IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDEREDthat the Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration of Discovery Odr er Pursuant to FRCP 59(e) Filed on Behalf of Signal International, L.L.C. [Doc. #863] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Enforce Order of the Court Pursuant to Rule 37 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. #868] is GRANTEDIN PART, in that plaintiffs shall produce to Signal the redacted affidavits attached to their T- and U-visa applications no later than ten (10) days from the date of this order. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that t he M otion for a Protective Order [Doc. #869] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to file into the record the protective order attached to plaintiffs’ motion. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of November, 2010.

4

See, e.g., Davis v. Barber, 853 F.2d 1418 (7th Cir. 1988) (noting that the appellate court

could recognize the state court’s silence as a sub silentio rejection of petitioner’s

argument).

5

With regard to Signal’s argument that Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) will allow

plaintiffs to introduce any alleged governmental factual findings at the hearing, the Court

finds the argument moot. Plaintiffs have stipulated that they will not use any such

alleged findings at the hearing on class certification. As to whether Rule 803(8) will

allow any such admissibility at the potential trial of this matter, the argument is

premature and better addressed by the Court that tries the suit.

14

____________________________________ DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 982 Filed 01/20/11 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

_______________________________________

KURIAN DAVID, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

)

)

)

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., )

Defendants.

)

______________________________________ )

Case No. 2:08-cv-1220
Section “A” Judge Zainey Magistrate Judge Knowles
Class Action— Collective Action

ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed a motion requesting that the Court order the tolling of the statute of limitations for absentee putative class members on two claims for relief: Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), 5th Claim for Relief) and Breach of

1

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 982 Filed 01/20/11 Page 2 of 2
Contract (SAC, 6th Claim for Relief). Plaintiffs pled these claims as class claims in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs have determined, however, that they will not seek class certification for these two claims for relief. To ensure that the rights of absentee putative class members are preserved in the event that the Court denies class certification, or if the Court grants class certification and any class members opt out of the class action to pursue individual claims, Plaintiffs seek to toll the statute of limitations on these claims until 120 days following the Court’s final ruling on class certification.
Having considered Plaintiffs’ motion and finding Plaintiffs’ arguments persuasive; upon the consent of Defendant Signal International, LLC, the Dewan Defendants, the Burnett Defendants, and the J&M Defendants; and with no objection stated by Defendants Michael Pol, Global Resources, Inc., Kurella Rao, or Indo-Ameri Soft, LLC, Plaintiffs’ Motion is hereby GRANTED. Therefore, the statute of limitations for any claims absentee class members may bring for Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation (SAC, 5th Claim for Relief) and Breach of Contract (SAC, 6th Claim for Relief) are tolled until the completion of 120 days from the Court’s final ruling on class certification.
SO ORDERED this 1_9__th_ day of January, 2011.
______________________________ Jay C. Zainey United States District Judge
2

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 991 Filed 01/28/11 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO:

08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.

SECTION: "A" (3)

ORDER Before the Court is a Motion Objecting to Magistrate’s November 5, 2010, Order Concerning Discovery of T-Visa Applications (Rec. Doc. 941) filed by defendant Signal International, LLC. Plaintiffs, Kurian David, et al., oppose the motion. The motion, set for hearing on December 8, 2010, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument. Plaintiffs are citizens of India who secured visas to work in the United States for defendant Signal International, LLC in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Plaintiffs claim that they were subjected to forced labor as welders, pipefitters, and other marine fabrication workers at Signal operations in Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Orange, Texas. Plaintiffs assert class action claims against Defendants arising from violations of their rights under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), the Civil Rights Act, and a host of other statutes. Plaintiffs’

1

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 991 Filed 01/28/11 Page 2 of 4
motion for class certification will be submitted for hearing early this spring.
The instant motion brings before the Court the issue of whether Signal is entitled to Plaintiffs’ T- & U-visa applications.1 On June 2, 2009 and again on February 26, 2010, this Court upheld Magistrate Judge Knowles’ rulings with respect to whether Defendants would be able to probe into certain aspects of Plaintiffs’ current immigration status. (Rec. Docs. 476 & 650). Subsequently, Magistrate Judge Knowles granted in part Signal’s motion to compel production of T-visa applications ordering that Plaintiffs need not produce the T- and U-visa applications themselves but would instead produce the sworn statements attached to the applications, after redaction. (Rec. Doc. 854). These sworn statements were made by Plaintiffs to the USCIS2 in support of their T-visa applications with respect to human trafficking.
1 T- and U-visas are a form of relief reserved for allegedly battered immigrants. The T-visa is designed specifically for those who have been subjected to sex trafficking or other severe forms of trafficking in persons (e.g., involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery). European Connections & Tours, Inc. v. Gonzales, 480 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1365 (N.D. Ga. 2007). The U-visa permits certain noncitizen crime victims who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse as a result of the crime to be in the United States. Id.
2 United States Citizenship and Immigration Service. 2

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 991 Filed 01/28/11 Page 3 of 4
Signal filed a motion to reconsider based on Rule 59(e) (Rec. Doc. 863) and on November 5, 2010, Judge Knowles denied that motion (Rec. Doc. 912). Judge Knowles concluded that the sworn redacted statements were sufficient to provide Signal with the information that Plaintiffs provided the government with respect to their alleged detention at Signal’s living quarters. (Rec. Doc. 912 at 13). Signal now files its objection with this Court contending that due process requires that it receive the complete T-visa and U-visa applications as opposed to the redacted affidavits.
The Court denies Signal’s motion because Signal’s most persuasive arguments do not pertain to how the applications impact the issues that the Court will consider for purposes of class certification. But assuming that a class is certified, Plaintiffs might very well be required to produce the complete applications in conjunction with the merits portion of the case. The Court cannot envision a greater waste of the parties’ and the Court’s resources than if the plaintiffs upon whose testimony a class is certified elect to withdraw from the case in lieu of producing their applications. On the other hand, certification on the trafficking claims is by no means a foregone conclusion and if the Court declines to certify a class based on the showing made without the applications then this issue will be moot.
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 991 Filed 01/28/11 Page 4 of 4 Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons; IT IS ORDERED that the Motion Objecting to Magistrate’s November 5, 2010, Order Concerning Discovery of T-Visa Applications (Rec. Doc. 941) filed by defendant Signal International, LLC is DENIED. January 28, 2011
JAY C. ZAINEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO:

08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.

SECTION: "A" (3)

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a Motion for Partial Stay of Class Certification Proceedings (Rec. Doc. 1013) filed by defendant Signal International, LLC. Plaintiffs Kurian David, et al. oppose the motion. The motion, submitted for expedited consideration on February 28, 2011 (Rec. Doc. 1019), is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument. Signal’s Motion for Partial Stay is a companion motion to its Motion to Strike Evidence Not Within Issues Raised in Plaintiffs’ Pleadings (Rec. Doc. 1012), which is set for submission on March 16, 2011.1 The substance of the Motion to Strike is that Plaintiffs argue for certification of a thirdparty fraud claim that was never pled with the required specificity in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Signal contends that it never expressly nor impliedly consented to an amendment of the FAC to add this new third-party fraud
1 The Burnett defendants have moved to join Signal’s Motion to Strike. (Rec. Doc. 1037).
1

claim and that the Court should not permit an amendment of the pleadings at this time to assert this new claim because of the severe prejudice the amendment would cause Signal.
According to Signal, Plaintiffs’ contention that Signal defrauded the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1546 is a new one not raised in the FAC, and consequently not pled with particularity pursuant to Rule 9(b). Plaintiffs rely on the crime proscribed by § 1546 as one of the predicated offenses supporting their RICO claims. But according to Signal, Plaintiffs have only alleged first-party reliance in support of their RICO predicate offenses, i.e., that Plaintiffs were the parties who had relied on fraudulent statements made by Signal or its agents, whereas in their certification memorandum, Plaintiffs’ argue third-party reliance by the United States, i.e., that the United States relied on allegedly fraudulent statements made to the government on behalf of Signal during the H-2B visa process, thereby injuring Plaintiffs.
Because rebuttal memoranda on class certification had been due on March 11, 2001,2 several days prior to the submission date set for the Motion to Strike, Signal moved to stay the certification proceedings solely with respect to Plaintiffs’ RICO claims predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 1546 so as to allow the Court
2 The deadline for rebuttal memoranda was recently moved to March 21, 2011, by consent. (Rec. Doc 1026).
2

time to rule on the Motion to Strike. Signal argues that it should not be required to oppose a certification claim that Plaintiffs never pled, and that if the Court grants the Motion to Strike then the whole issue will be moot. Therefore, Signal urges that the claims predicated on § 1546 should be stayed pending the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Strike. If the Court denies Signal’s Motion to Strike and permits Plaintiffs to amend the FAC to bring the new claim, then according to Signal the need to stay the claims predicated on § 1546 will be even greater because then Signal must at a minimum be permitted to 1) file a formal answer, and 2) conduct formal discovery on the claim which may include: i) issuing supplemental requests for production on all parties, ii) re-noticing the depositions of all class representatives, iii) re-noticing the depositions of other witnesses already deposed, and perhaps, iv) conducting wholly new depositions.
In opposition, Plaintiffs argue inter alia that the arguments that Signal presents in its Motion to Strike are appropriately raised in opposition to the motion to certify and that Plaintiffs did in fact adequately plead the claim that Signal now characterizes as “new.”3 Further, Plaintiffs have now
3 Plaintiffs also remind the Court that at numerous times it has advised the Defendants that no new motions would be entertained. But Signal’s Motion to Strike is best characterized as an objection at trial made pursuant to Rule 15(b)(1) so as to foreclose the argument that Signal impliedly consented to an
3

filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 1031).
The Court will GRANT Signal’s Motion for Partial Stay of Class Certification Proceedings insofar as Defendants will not be required to address the merits of § 1546 claims in their rebuttal memoranda. If the Court is inclined to deny the Motion to Strike and/or grant the Motion to Amend, and if the § 1546 claims are otherwise certifiable, then the Court will issue an order inviting Defendants to respond to the § 1546 claims on the merits.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons; IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Stay of Class Certification Proceedings (Rec. Doc. 1013) filed by defendant Signal International, LLC. is GRANTED as explained above. March 14, 2011
JAY C. ZAINEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
amendment pursuant to Rule 15(b)(2). 4

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 1 of 100

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO:

08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL.

SECTION: "A" (3)

ORDER AND REASONS The following motions are before the Court: Motion to Certify Class (Rec. Doc. 165) and Supplemental Motion to Certify Class (Rec. Doc. 994) filed by plaintiffs Kurian David, et al.; Motion to Strike Evidence Not Within Issues Raised in Plaintiffs’ Pleadings (Rec. Doc. 1012) filed by defendant Signal International, LLC;1 Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 1031) filed by plaintiffs Kurian David, et al.; Motion to Strike Evidence Not Within Issues Raised in Plaintiffs’ Pleadings (Rec. Doc. 1082) filed by defendant Signal International, LLC. All motions are opposed.2

1 Defendants Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC, and the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants, Pvt. Ltd. have formally moved to join in the Motion to Strike-1012. (Rec. Docs. 1039 & 1053).
2 Defendants J & M Associates Inc. of Mississippi, J & M Marine & Industrial, LLC, and Billy Wilks adopt Signal’s and the Burnett Defendants’ arguments in opposition to class
1

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 2 of 100
The Motion to Strike-1012 was taken under submission on
March 16, 2011, and the Motion for Leave was taken under
submission on March 23, 2011, but the Court elected to take up
those motions in conjunction with the issue of class
certification. The motion(s) for class certification were taken
under submission on April 29, 2011 (Rec. Doc. 1076), upon receipt of the parties’ rebuttal submissions.3 The Motion to Strike-1082
was taken under submission on June 22, 2011.
For the reasons that follow, the Motions to Certify are
DENIED, the Motion to Strike-1012 is DENIED, the Motion for Leave
to File a Third Amended Complaint is DENIED AS MOOT, and the
Motion to Strike-1082 is DENIED.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs are seven (7) citizens of India who secured H-2B
guest-worker visas to work in the United States for defendant
certification. (Rec. Doc. 992). Defendant Kurella Rao has indicated that he will be a “passive” defendant. (Rec. Doc. 897).
3 In this case, all parties consented to waive a live evidentiary hearing and to submit the issue of certification to the Court on the briefs. (Rec. Docs. 907 & 926). Rule 23 does not itself require an evidentiary hearing on the question of class certification. Merrill v. So. Methodist Univ., 806 F.2d 600, 608 (5th Cir. 1986). However, any factual uncertainties trigger the necessity for a hearing. Id. at 609.
Signal has requested oral argument on its Motion to Strike1012 and Plaintiffs have requested oral argument on their Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. The Court finds that the parties’ memoranda more than adequately expound upon the issues presented and that oral argument would not be helpful to the Court.
2

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 3 of 100
Signal International, LLC. These seven plaintiffs, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Padaveettiyil Issac Andrews, and Kechuru Dhananjaya, seek to represent a putative class of approximately 500 ship and rig workers to pursue federal class claims against the defendants under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (forced labor) & § 1590 (trafficking); the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c)-(d); the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985.4
Defendants are immigration attorney Malvern C. Burnett and his business Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (collectively “Burnett”); labor recruiter/broker Michael Pol and his company Global Resources, Inc. (collectively “Pol”); labor broker Billy Wilks and the two companies through which he operated, J & M Associates Inc. of Mississippi and J & M Marine & Industrial, LLC; Kurella Rao and his company Indo-Ameri Soft, LLC (“IAS”); Indian labor recruiter Sachin Dewan and his company Dewan Consultants Pvt., Ltd. (collectively “Dewan”); and American employer Signal
4 Plaintiffs also assert claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Plaintiffs are not seeking certification to pursue these claims as a class so those claims are not before the Court at this time.
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 4 of 100
International, LLC.5 Plaintiffs’ claims are numerous and at times complex but the
gist of their claims is that Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme built around the fictitious promise of employment-based green cards to obtain permanent residence in the United States.6 Plaintiffs assert that they relied on this core false promise, as well as other misrepresentations by Defendants, when deciding to pay exorbitant labor recruiting fees to travel to the United States to work at Signal’s marine fabrication facilities in Mississippi and Texas. Once there, Plaintiffs allege that they were subjected to segregated housing, severe discrimination, and adverse working and living conditions--that given their debts-reasonable persons in their position would have felt compelled to endure. Plaintiffs contend that the scheme yielded Dewan, Pol, and Burnett millions of dollars in fees, and procured for Signal a compliant and expendable labor pool that saved the company millions of dollars in wages that it would otherwise have had to pay to contract laborers and American direct hires.
Plaintiffs seek to have a class certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) consisting of
5 Defendants Pol and Rao and their associated companies are not represented by counsel at this time.
6 The term “green card” is used colloquially for an alien registration receipt card, which denotes legal permanent resident status in the United States. See Ascencio-Guzman v. Chertoff, No. B-94-215, 2009 WL 1064962, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2009).
4

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 5 of 100
All Indian guest-workers who were recruited by one or more Defendants and who traveled and/or were transported to the United States at any time through September 30, 2007, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(B) (“H2B”) visas assigned to Defendant Signal International.
Plaintiffs contend that the core facts of the case as well as Defendants’ main defenses are equally applicable to the claims of all class members, and that the “pernicious scheme” underlying this case had no individualized dimensions. According to Plaintiffs, they satisfy Rule 23's legal requirements for certification and equity militates in favor of Defendants having to answer for their conduct in the same fashion that they treated Plaintiffs in their prior dealings with them: As a nameless and faceless class of fungible migrant workers who could be misled and exploited without regard to individual rights or interests. II. BACKGROUND
The factual background for this case separates well into two phases. The Phase 1 events began in 2004 and did not involve defendant Signal or the H-2B visa process. But the Phase 1 events, and the pre-existing relationships between the various other defendants, laid the ground work for much of the Phase 2 events. The Phase 2 events began in 2006 when Signal’s domestic labor pool was adversely affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It was in the aftermath of the hurricanes that Signal sought to supplement its labor pool with foreign workers via the H-2B visa process. Thus, many of the plaintiffs in this case were
5

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 6 of 100
originally recruited for employers other than Signal, although all of the plaintiffs eventually came to the United States to work for Signal under the auspices of the H-2B guest-worker program.7
A. Factual Background–-Phase 1 At all material times, defendant Global was a Mississippi corporation engaged in the business of recruiting foreign workers for employment in the United States. Defendant Michael Pol was Global’s president. Pol had an existing business relationship with defendant Billy R. Wilks, defendant J & M’s corporate principal. (Pla. Exhs. 520(Pol); 521(Pol)). J & M is in the business of recruiting laborers to then subcontract them out to other companies for a profit. Together Pol and Wilks were supplying labor to a shipyard client in California. Pol also had a prior business relationship with defendant Sachin Dewan. Dewan is a businessman and he resides in India. As far back as 1996, Pol and Dewan had worked together, along with defendant Malvern Burnett, to bring Indian H-2B welders and pipe fitters into the United States for Avondale Shipyards. (Signal Exh. C).
7 At least 38 putative class members were denied employment at Signal even though they paid the recruiting fees and came to the United States. (Rec. Doc. 994-1, at 4). Plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for discriminatory conditions at Signal does not apply to these 38 plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suggest that a sub-class as to these plaintiffs might be appropriate.
6

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 7 of 100
According to Pol, Dewan contacted him in early 2004 to see if Pol was interested in placing foreign workers with his customers.8 Pol then presented Billy Wilks with a plan to recruit foreign workers through the green card program that he and Dewan had discussed. Global and J & M executed a contract whereby Global would find qualified foreign workers to be acquired for employment with J & M under the I-140 “permanent resident” process. (Pla. Exh. 522(Pol)). Under the agreement Global was to provide the services of an immigration attorney to facilitate bringing workers into the country legally–-that attorney was Malvern Burnett. Wilks sent Pol a demand letter for 300 workers. (Pla. Exh. 520(Pol)).
To facilitate the J & M/Global deal, in March 2004, Global, Sachin Dewan (for Dewan Consultants), and Malvern C. Burnett (for Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, Inc.) executed a contract, the Multi-Lateral Business Agreement, pursuant to which Dewan would recruit suitable foreign workers, Burnett would handle the immigration legal work, and Global would provide suitable employment in the United States. (Pla. Exh. 455). Each applicant-employee was to be charged a fee of roughly $10,000$12,000 USD. The Multilateral Agreement states that the workers would be coming to the United States under the “‘permanent residence’ process for migration.” Id.
8 Dewan asserts that it was Pol who contacted him. 7

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 8 of 100
In early 2004 defendant Kurella Rao (for IAS) also entered the picture. Rao and his company IAS had been in the business of recruiting foreign information technology personnel since 1997 and Rao wanted to branch out into shipyard workers. Rao and Dewan executed a contract, the Bilateral Business Agreement, to memorialize their business arrangement.9 (Pla. Exh. 756). Dewan was to recruit the foreign workers and Rao (via his company IAS) was to sponsor them for employment in the United States.
Burnett acted as immigration counsel for the J & M and IAS recruits. But the workers recruited by IAS had no direct contact with Burnett. Rather, Rao retained Burnett for legal services in connection with IAS’s recruitment of workers and IAS made payments to Burnett for legal services provided.
Thus, as of 2004 Dewan was recruiting foreign workers on behalf of Global, for the ultimate benefit of J & M and its clients, and for IAS. Dewan recruited 232 workers for the benefit of J & M. Dewan recruited around 130 workers for the benefit of IAS. According to Dewan, he used the same recruitment process for the Global/J & M and IAS contracts. (Dewan depo at 216). Dewan was the lead recruiter but Pol, Burnett, and Rao each participated in some recruiting seminars overseas in order to assist Dewan with the process. It is undisputed that all of
9 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 746 is an unsigned copy of the agreement.
8

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 9 of 100
the recruitment and placement was done with permanent residence
in the United States as part of the program and the workers were
told that this would take about two years. At this stage, H-2B
visas were not part of the arrangement.10
As of February 2006 none of the green card promises to the J
& M and IAS recruits had come to fruition.11 The workers had paid
10 At this point it bears noting that an H-2B guest-worker visa is fundamentally different than an employment-based green card. H-2B visas are temporary, non-immigrant visas. Under the H-2B program, a worker may come to the United States temporarily to work for an employer who has petitioned for the right to employ H-2B guest-workers and whose petition has been approved by the Department of Labor. Castellanos-Contreras v. Decatur Hotels, LLC, 622 F.3d 393, 405 n.2 (5th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (Dennis, J., dissenting) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(1)(i)). Once admitted, the guest-worker’s legal status is tied to performing labor for the specific employer who petitioned for the visa. Id. (citing § 214.2). If at any point the H-2B visa expires or the worker is dismissed from his job, then he is required to immediately leave the country. Id. (citing § 214.2(h)(6)(vi)(E), (h)(17)(iii)(C)). Under no circumstances can the worker remain in the country longer than three years. Id. (citing § 214.2(h)(15)(ii)(C)).
An employment-based green card, on the other hand, is given to someone who has obtained an immigrant visa to enter the United States on a permanent basis and to reside here indefinitely. Green card holders are permanent resident aliens and they have nearly all of the rights of a citizen. Generally speaking, a permanent resident alien can live and work in the United States without restriction.
Thus, as a practical matter, H-2B employees cannot simultaneously be sponsored for an H-2B visa and a green card, given the fundamental difference in the temporal aspects of the two types of visas.
11 According to Burnett, in 2003-2004 the process of obtaining labor certifications was extremely long–-in some cases in excess of three years. (Burnett memo at 6). It was anticipated that the Department of Labor was going to institute a streamlined process for granting labor certifications or PERMs. Burnett contends that he delayed the filing of any PERMs to take
9

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 10 of 100
significant fees up front and were naturally becoming frustrated
with the process and irate with the lack of progress toward their
legal, permanent immigration to the United States. By this point
some of the workers had been waiting for over two years to come
to the United States with green cards. Some workers even
demanded refunds, which none of the recruiter/broker defendants
were interested in providing.12
Those Plaintiffs who were originally recruited during the
advantage of the new system, which itself was delayed for nearly a year.
The employment based green card process is a three step process. The first step requires that an ETA 9089 (“PERM”) be filed with the Department of Labor and certified. The second step requires the filing of an I-140 with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The third step depends on a “window of opportunity” opening and this can take a matter of months or even years depending on the allocation of immigrant visas by the State Department. The third step differs depending on whether the beneficiary of the PERM and the I-140 is in the United States or a foreign country when a green card becomes available for him in the quota. If the beneficiary is in a foreign country then he processes through the consulate and receives his green card. If the beneficiary is already lawfully in the United States then he files an I-485 for adjustment of status. Once the I-485 is approved then the applicant receives permanent resident status in the United States. (Signal memo at 3 n.8; Burnett memo at 9).
12 As of the end of 2006 IAS was no longer a functional company and Burnett had filed no I-140 petitions on behalf of the IAS recruits. The filing of an I-140 petition with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is the second step of three for obtaining a green card. Rao knew by January 2006 that IAS was no longer financially viable and that no green cards would be processed for his recruits. (Signal Exhs. K, L). He nonetheless continued to accept installment payments from the recruits. (Id.).
10

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 11 of 100
Phase 1 events are referred to as “Group I Plaintiffs.” Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (Rec. Doc. 944). Named plaintiffs Issac Andrews Padaveettiyil and Kechuru Dhananjaya are in this group. (Id. at 5).
1. Issac Andrews Padaveettiyil Padaveettiyil was working in Dubai in 2004 when he was recruited for employment with J & M. According to Padaveettiyil, Dewan advertised in the paper in Dubai for jobs in America and permanent residence in this country. Padaveettiyil recalls attending an information seminar in Dubai with Dewan, Burnett, and Pol present. Padaveettiyil sold his land to finance his way in the program and he asserts that he was promised a permanent job and permanent residency in the United States. Padaveettiyil claims that in 2006, still with no green card, Dewan told him that he would be going to the United States on an H-2B visa to work for Signal, to forget about the current green card processing, and that Signal would file for a green card on his behalf. According to Padaveettiyil, he had no choice but to go because he had already paid his money. After arriving in the United States in 2007 Padaveettiyil worked at Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.
2. Kechuru Dhananjaya Dhananjaya was recruited as part of the IAS employment program. In December 2003, Dhananjaya was working in Dubai when
11

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 12 of 100
he saw one of Dewan’s advertisements in the newspaper. Dhananjaya went to the office listed in the advertisement and spoke to Dewan about the recruiting program. Dewan told Dhananjaya about an upcoming meeting where Dhananjaya could learn more about the program and pay his first installment for green card processing if he was interested. Defendants Rao, Burnett, and Dewan were present at the meeting. Dhananjaya borrowed money from his brother and some of his friends to finance his way in the program. Dhananjaya and IAS executed an Agreement for U.S. Permanent Residency/Green Card on January 18, 2004. (Pla. Exh. 578). In the following two years Rao sent Dhananjaya encouraging correspondence about the status of his green card. (Signal Exhs. I, J). Dhananjaya had worked at Avondale Shipyards in 1997 under the H-2B guest-worker program. (Signal Exh. D). When Dhananjaya entered the IAS program he had never heard of a company called Signal. After arriving in the United States in 2007 Dhananjaya worked at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility.
Plaintiffs do not suggest that Signal was involved in recruiting the foreign workers during the 2004 time frame. But by 2006 when the Indian recruits were becoming disgruntled with the green card program that Pol, Dewan, Burnett, and Rao had concocted, Signal was experiencing its own labor problems in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Signal had a legitimate and immediate need for laborers like those that Pol,
12

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 13 of 100
Dewan, Burnett, and Rao had recruited beginning in 2004 and who were now clamoring for results on the promised green cards. Thus, Signal’s labor shortage in 2006 and its willingness to employ foreign workers, which it viewed as a cheap source of labor, created a seemingly perfect opportunity for Pol, Dewan, Burnett, and Rao to temporarily mollify the original J & M/IAS green card recruits by offloading them to Signal. According to Dewan, some of the workers jumped at the opportunity to go to the United States sooner rather than later, even if that meant traveling on an H-2B visa to the detriment of the green card process. (Signal Exh. AA). But Plaintiffs contend that Dewan persuaded them to go to the United States on the H-2B visas and that they were told that Signal would take care of getting them their green cards once they arrived in the United States.
B. Factual Background–-Phase 2–-Enter Signal Signal is a marine and fabrication company with its home office in Pascagoula, Mississippi and an additional shipyard in Orange, Texas. Signal is in the business of providing offshore drilling rig overhaul, repair, upgrade, and conversion. Signal also offers services to the general marine and heavy fabrication markets. In 2006-2007 Signal had a substantial amount of work after hurricanes Katrina and Rita because of damages to rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane-related housing shortages around Signal’s shipyards had depleted its work force.
13

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 14 of 100
Sometime in the first quarter of 2006, Pol called Ron Schnoor (Sr. VP & General Mgr.) with Signal to talk to him about the possibility of Global providing Signal with foreign workers under the “permanent resident process.” Schnoor called contacts with Avondale Shipyards to inquire about how the H-2B program had worked at that company. (Signal Exh. W). Bill Bingle (VP of Production) with Signal called Pol to set up a meeting. Bingle and Pol discussed bringing workers to the United States under the H-2B program for employment with Signal and Bingle eventually accompanied Pol to India on a recruiting trip. According to Pol, the plan was to get permanent residence visas for welders and fabricators to work at Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi and Orange, Texas facilities. Using H-2B visas was an “afterthought” because Signal wanted the workers to arrive quickly, certainly more quickly than what green card processing could provide. Signal would not be required to pay any of the workers’ fees and travel expenses–-everything was to be paid by the workers themselves so Signal considered this to be a good deal.13 Pol told Signal that the workers would be paying about $2,000 each to participate in the program, which was of course not accurate. Signal was adamant that it incur none of the costs of the
13 Indian workers in particular were considered to be a cheap source of labor. (Pla. Exh. 517). Signal intended to use the Indian workers to displace subcontracted labor that was costing the company $100,000 to $200,000 per day.
14

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 15 of 100
program. On April 18, 2006, Global and Signal executed a Skilled
Worker Recruitment Agreement (Pla. Exh. 423) to establish the framework for their arrangement to bring foreign workers into the United States under the H-2B temporary program and/or the I-140 “permanent residence” process. (Id. at 1). The agreement clearly delineates the temporary nature of an H-2B visa versus the long-term nature of an I-140 permanent residence visa. The agreement also expressly notes that H-2B visas are not always issued in a timely manner but that “[i]n any case, the permanent resident (I-140) process will continue as agreed upon.” (Id. at 3). With the Multi-Lateral Business Agreement between Pol, Burnett, and Dewan already in place, Pol contacted Dewan and Burnett about the Signal deal.
Signal executed a document appointing Dewan as its representative in India to facilitate the recruitment of skilled workers to the United States for employment under “the temporary and permanent resident program.” (Pla. Exhs. 463 & 665). In that same document Signal granted Dewan a limited power of attorney to sign any legal document or letter which may be required to obtain permission from the government/immigration agencies in India for advertising, conducting seminars, and trade tests to further “our efforts.” Id. On June 19, 2006, Signal sent Dewan a demand letter for 600 skilled workers for a 10-24
15

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 16 of 100
month period. (Pla. Exh. 461). Accommodations, transportation, and food were all to be paid via salary deduction and travel expenses to Pascagoula, Mississippi were to be paid by the individual worker. Id. The workers were to be skills tested in India prior to any employment offer and the salary range would be $14 to $18 USD per hour depending on experience and skill level. Id.
On August 3, 2006, Signal executed yet another power of attorney in favor of Dewan making him the company’s agent and giving him full authority to act on behalf of Signal, whether filing documents with the U.S. immigration authorities or executing contracts, in the process of bringing migrant workers to the United States for employment at Signal. (Pla. Exh. 512). Signal retained Burnett and his law firm to represent the company in legally bringing the workers into the United States. (Pla. Exhs. 563 & 574). The terms of the agreement between Signal and Burnett dictated that all of the legal fees were to be paid by the workers, with Signal owing Burnett nothing for legal fees.
Dewan went to work recruiting workers for Signal. Dewan placed advertisements in newspapers throughout India and the United Arab Emirates in 2006 offering opportunities for welders and pipe fitters to immigrate to the United States under the auspices of Signal’s guest-worker program. (Pla. Exh. 460). Dewan and Pol held six recruitment seminars using a PowerPoint
16

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 17 of 100
presentation that Pol had prepared. (Pla. Exh. 684). Green
cards were expressly touted as part of the program but a second
set of advertisements only mentioned H-2B visas. Nonetheless,
Dewan asserts that he believed that Signal was going to request
green cards for these workers too. The average fee that each
worker paid was about $10,00014 (split between Dewan, Pol, and
Burnett) which in some cases might exceed the worker’s annual
salary in his home country.15 Plaintiffs contend that Dewan, Pol,
and Burnett used the Signal contract as a way to extract more
money from the existing and eager J & M and IAS recruits and to
generate fees from a whole new group of Signal recruits. To be
sure, maximizing profits from importing foreign workers into the
14 Plaintiffs contend that Rao, J & M, Pol, Dewan, and Burnett eventually charged the recruits anywhere from $17,600 to $20,000 for an “expedited option” when the H-2B program with Signal came along. Plaintiffs were charged more for H-2B visa processing after the first set of H-2B visas were approved by the consulate.
15 The workers executed separate contracts with Global, Burnett, and Dewan, agreeing to pay each of them separately for their services in three installment payments. Global was to be paid $3750, (Pla. Exhs. 327, 345, 354, 500), Burnett was to be paid $3750, (Pla. Exhs. 342, 350)and Dewan was to be paid Rs.33,500 (Pla. Exhs. 344, 351, 502, 505). Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 59 indicates that Global and Burnett were to be paid $5373 USD each. Burnett was particularly adamant about receiving his fee. (Pla. Exhs. 468 (“Mafiaso: Tell them to pay up . . .”, 572, 834 (“Please see if you can’t get Ramesh to ‘persuade’ him to pay me . . . . If he does not pay, I will see to it that his visa gets mysteriously revoked.”)). Plaintiffs estimate that Dewan, Pol, and Burnett collected about $7 million dollars from all of the putative class members. (Pla. Exhs. 865, 866, 867, 868 (repeated recitation of “Cha Ching”)).
17

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 18 of 100
United States was of the utmost importance to Dewan, Pol, and Burnett. (Signal Exhs. Z, CC, FF).
In late May and early June 2006, Signal filed paperwork with the United States Department of Homeland Security–Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of Labor seeking permission to import and hire 590 foreign guest-workers pursuant to the government’s H-2B guest-worker program. Bingle, on behalf of Signal’s Mississippi operation, and Thomas Rigolo (Sr. VP & General Mgr., Texas Operations), on behalf of Signal’s Texas operation, executed the paperwork. In the filings Bingle explained that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had caused a tremendous but temporary shortage of labor in the Gulf region and that Signal sought to hire temporary H-2B workers until the labor force would return to normal. (Pla. Exh. 516). Bingle explained that the need for current workers reflected a peak load and would be a one-time occurrence. Bingle also stated that the peak load temporary workers would not become part of Signal’s permanent workforce–-they would work for the length of time prescribed and then return to their home countries at the end of the employment period. (Pla. Exh. 516). In Signal’s Application(s) for Alien Employment Certification to the Department of Labor, Bingle and Rigolo declared under penalty of perjury that the exact dates that the workers would be employed were 10/01/06 to 07/31/07. (Pla. Exhs. 515, 595, 863, 864).
18

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 19 of 100
According to Bingle, Signal had always intended to file for green cards for the foreign workers, or at least those workers who proved to meet Signal’s expectations. When questioned at his deposition about the certifications of temporary employment made to the government, Bingle explained that he did have concerns about signing those documents and making those representations but that Malvern Burnett had told him that this was just the way the H-2B visa process worked. Rigolo testified that Signal actually needed workers for about a two-year time frame but that he had no reservations about submitting forms to the government that cited the ten month time frame dictated by the H-2B program. Burnett’s explanation was that the workers coming over on temporary visas were not going to be part of Signal’s permanent workforce, at least in the beginning, and that it might be a year or two before they might return to Signal as permanent workers. (Burnett depo at 457-48).
Signal sent employees to India to personally test the workers’ skills. Therefore, everyone who was given an offer of employment with Signal had passed a test to the satisfaction of Signal’s employees and no one with Signal told the workers that there would be further testing when they arrived at Signal and that their hourly pay would be subject to reduction or their employment subject to termination if they failed to pass. Signal’s form letter offer of employment simply offers
19

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 20 of 100
congratulations for passing the skills test in India and the worker is told that “[a]s agreed, [his] salary will be $18.00 per hour.” (Pla. Exh. 381). Nothing in the offer of employment from Signal alluded to a second round of testing once the worker arrived in the United States. The Signal employment agreement itself, however, specifically states that the worker would be subject to skills testing upon arrival at Signal and that his hourly rate might be reduced based on skill level. (Pla. Exhs. 64, 179, 201, 294, 300, 348, 808, 854).16 But the Signal employment agreement was presented to the workers after they had already traveled to the United States from India and arrived at Signal. (Signal Exhs. SSS, SSS-A).
In addition to the workers that Dewan, Pol, and Burnett actively recruited anew for Signal, Pol agreed to use Rao’s IAS recruits to fill some of the employment slots at Signal, (Pla. Exh. 808 [Dhananjaya/Signal agreement]), even though Pol would receive significantly less of a fee for each of these recruits who had already paid their fees over to Rao, Dewan, and Burnett. Global’s agreement with Signal also provided a U.S. employer onto which Dewan, Pol, and Burnett could offload the J & M green card recruits. Nearly half of the Indian workers whom Burnett, Dewan, and Pol provided to Signal had been recruited for other
16 The Memorandum of Understanding that each worker executed with Dewan also references the second round of testing. (Pla. Exhs. 344, 351, 502, 505, at ¶¶ 5 & 9).
20

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 21 of 100
companies. Dewan, Pol, and Burnett were well aware that U.S.
immigration officials would not approve an H-2B visa for any worker who communicated to the consulate officials that he was participating in the Signal program with the intent of receiving a green card. (Pla. Exhs. 519, 550). The recruits were therefore escorted to their consulate interviews by a Dewan Consultants employee to ensure that all went well. The recruits were warned about not disclosing anything about green cards to the consulate officials. Dewan also warned them not to mention the amount of money that they had paid to participate in the Signal program. Several plaintiffs also contend that after their visas were issued Dewan (and perhaps on one occasion Burnett)17 withheld their passports pending the final installment payment for the program. Plaintiffs contend that with their passports being held they feared that they must either pay the rest of the money to Dewan to go to Signal or forfeit all of the money that they had already paid. Plaintiffs claim that they were assured by Dewan that participation in the H-2B program would allow them to stay in the United States while their green card applications were being processed.
Those Plaintiffs who were recruited specifically for Signal
17 Sony Sulekha testified that Burnett took custody of his passport after his H-2B visa was approved. (Sulekha depo at 182).
21

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 22 of 100
during the Phase 2 events are referred to as “Group II Plaintiffs.” SAC at 6. Named plaintiffs Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, and Hemant Khuttan are in this group. Id.
1. Kurian David David was working in Abu Dhabi as a high-level senior foreman when he saw one of Dewan’s advertisements in a newspaper. David attended an information seminar in Dubai where employment opportunities at Signal were discussed. He asserts that the attendees were told that they would receive green cards within 24 months but that the company needed workers immediately so they would be going on H-2B visas. David says that Burnett explained that David would first go on an H-2B temporary visa which would eventually be extended two times. During the 24 month waiting period and with the two extensions of the original H-2B visa, David would get the green card. David says that he was assured that Signal was a good company with good accommodations and that the workers would be treated well. David asserts that he came to Signal only because he expected a green card and that he would not have left his otherwise lucrative position at home to come to the United S tates solely for temporary employment. David borrowed money from his brother-in-law to finance his participation in the program. David stayed with Signal through March 2008. (Signal Exh. FFF).
22

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 23 of 100
After arriving in the United States in 2007 David worked at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility.
2. Sony Vasudevan Sulekha Sulekha decided to participate in the program because of an ad that he saw in a Malayalam newspaper. Sulekha attended a seminar at the Hilton Hotel in Cochin in May 2006. Dewan, Pol, and Salimon (another Dewan employee) were present. Sulekha was told that Signal needed workers, the company would give permanent residence, that Signal was a good company, and that this would be a very good opportunity for him. Dewan and Pol explained that at first the workers would be sent on an H-2B temporary visa, which would be extended, and a green card would follow within 24 months. Sulekha pawned his ornaments and wife’s jewelry and borrowed money from a distant relative in order to finance his participation in the program. Sulekha contends that he was promised a green card and that he would be able to bring his family to the United States but those promises never materialized. After arriving in the United States in 2006 Sulekha worked at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility.
3. Palanyandi Thangamani Thangamani testified that he went to Signal expecting a green card. Thangamani pledged his sister’s ornaments and jewelry in order to finance his participation in the program. After arriving in the United States in 2006 Thangamani worked at
23

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 24 of 100
Signal’s Orange, Texas facility. 4. Muruganantham Kandhasamy
Kandhasamy saw an advertisement in a paper called Dhinethandi that advised that workers were needed to work in the United States and would receive green cards. Kandhasamy attended an interview with Pol, Dewan, Burnett, and representatives from Signal–-everyone present spoke. Kandhasamy was told that he would get a green card. Kandhasamy contends that just a few days before he was to leave for the United States he was told by Dewan that he would be going on an H-2B visa instead of a green card. Kandhasamy contends that Dewan told him, in the presence of Pol, Burnett, and a Signal representative, that once he arrived in the United States his H-2B visa would become a green card. After arriving in the United States in 2007 Kandhasamy worked at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility.
5. Hemant Khuttan Khuttan responded to an advertisement in the Hindustan Time newspaper in Delhi. The advertisement did not mention Signal by name. Khuttan attended an information meeting in Delhi where he first met Dewan. Khuttan traveled from Delhi to Mumbai to speak with Dewan Consultants about the program and this is when he first heard about Signal. Khuttan paid Dewan about $20,000 USD up front to participate in the employment program with Signal and he borrowed the money from a friend. Khuttan contends that he
24

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 25 of 100
really didn’t know which kind of visa he was supposed to get but that Dewan later informed him that he would be going to Signal on an H-2B visa and that once he arrived in the United States Signal would take care of him and get him a green card. After arriving in the United States in 2007 Khuttan worked at Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.
All of the named plaintiffs, whether recruited for J & M, IAS, or Signal contend that they were promised green cards and that this is what their contracts with Defendants guaranteed to them. Plaintiffs contend that it was in reasonable reliance on Defendants’ assertions that they undertook such considerable personal, financial, and familial sacrifices in order to participate in the recruiting program, and they assert that they would not have made such sacrifices had they known that Defendants’ assertions regarding permanent residence in the United States were false.
C. Factual Background--Phase 2--Employment/Life at Signal From the beginning, it was understood that housing and meals would be provided by Signal with the cost of these “accommodations” to be paid by the workers out of their paychecks.18 Originally, Global was going to provide the accommodations with Signal then reimbursing Global out of the
18 Plaintiff Thangamani testified that someone told him that room and board would be free. (Thangamani depo at 56).
25

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 26 of 100
workers’ paychecks. (Pla. Exh. 517). But Signal opted to construct man camp housing facilities onsite in Texas and Mississippi to house the workers. The decision was prompted in large part by housing shortages after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Meals would also be prepared and served onsite. These preparations did require capital and expense outlays by Signal but it was always Signal’s intention to recoup these expenditures by deducting fees from the workers’ pay. Signal invested millions of dollars building the camps and decided to charge the workers $35 dollars per day (7 days a week) for room and board so that the company could recoup its investment over a five year period.19 At the $35/day rate Signal anticipated realizing a profit from the man camps.20 (Pla. Exh. 871). For this reason it would eventually become important to Signal to ensure that the man camps were filled to maximum capacity. (Pla. Exhs. 528, 449, 850). Signal implemented a policy that required each foreign worker to pay the $35/day accommodations charge even if the worker elected to live offsite and even if the worker earned no
19 Signal also envisioned charging the workers for enlarging its welder testing and training facilities. (Pla. Exh. 846).
20 One member of Signal’s management proposed charging the workers $53.50 per day for accommodations, reasoning that the workers had only been making about $10 per day in India and that even after the deduction they would still be making about 11 times more per day than what they were making at home. (Pla. Exh. 671). Signal did not recoup its expenditures for the man camps and in the end Signal spent about $6.5 million dollars more than it recovered. (Cunningham depo at 136).
26

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 27 of 100
pay for a given day. Only the Indian H-2B workers were allowed to live at the man camps. And only the Indian H-2B workers were charged the $35 per day accommodations fee regardless of whether they chose to live in the man camp or elsewhere.
By August 2006 Signal was eager to have the workers arrive given its increased workload and manpower shortage in that year and given the soaring costs that the company was incurring for subcontracted labor. (Pla. Exh. 550). The first workers began arriving at Signal in November 2006. Each H-2B worker was given a second skills test--some workers had their wages reduced from the $18 per hour rate by as much as 30 percent to an amount commensurate with their skills and some were terminated. Each worker also executed a Man Camp Housing Rules Agreement (Pla. Exhs. 48, 76, 811, 858, 859),21 an H2B Resident Housing Agreement (Pla. Exhs. 63, 181, 779, 860,22 and an Authorization Agreement for Payroll Deduction (Pla. Exhs. 75, 812, 845, 861, 862).23 Once arrived the workers were presented with new employment contracts
21 The Rules prohibited alcohol, smoking, visitors/guests, and horse-playing in the man camp. Also, all employees were required to enter the facility through security.
22 The Housing Agreement expounds upon some of the rules contained in the Man Camp Rules, imposes the $35/day charge for room and board, and imposes stiff fines for violations of camp rules.
23 Via this document each worker authorized Signal to deduct the $35/day “accommodations” or room/board charge from his paycheck.
27

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 28 of 100
terminable at will. (Signal Exhs. SSS, SSS-A). Perhaps Signal understood even before the first workers
arrived that they expected to receive green cards at some point.24 (Pla. Exhs. 550, 817). But without question Signal knew of the workers’ green card expectations once they arrived on site because the workers questioned Bill Bingle about green cards on their first day at the camp. According to Bingle, it was only later in the process that Signal learned that the H-2B process would not support the filing of green cards for the workers. Signal maintains that it had believed early on that there was an avenue available to convert the temporary visas to green cards and that it intended to apply for green cards for those workers who proved to be good employees. (Pla. Exh. 817). But green cards would only be considered once the allowable H-2B extensions were exhausted and only for valued workers. Prior to the expiration of the first H-2B visas in July 2007, Signal began using a “yes/no” evaluation protocol for identifying potential candidates for long term employment.
Signal concedes that its intention was never to seek green cards for all H-2B workers without considering factors like skill
24 Less clear, however, and perhaps ultimately more important, is whether Signal understood the significance of the references to green cards in the various emails and correspondence that were exchanged before the workers arrived at Signal. See Rigolo depo at 72 (“[V]ery early in the process [] there was probably some misunderstanding and [the terms] visa and green card were used synonymously.”).
28

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 29 of 100
level, work ethic, attitude, etc. Signal maintains that it never agreed to seek green cards on behalf of every worker without considering job performance and that it never felt obligated to do that. According to Signal, if such broad promises pertaining to green cards were made to the workers then they were not authorized by Signal and were not true. After all, green cards are issued by the government and with the government involved no employer could guarantee any worker a green card.
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ green card scheme was grounded in part upon false representations about the living conditions at Signal. Upon arriving at Signal, Plaintiffs were sorely disappointed in the man camp accommodations, including the food. According to Plaintiffs, their $35 per day bought them life in overcrowded and cramped labor camps,25 with insufficient bathroom and shower facilities for the number of men housed in each bunkhouse. Plaintiffs assert that the facilities lacked privacy and were not conducive to regular sleep. Signal believes that the facilities conformed to all applicable city codes but not necessarily to OSHA requirements. (Pla. Exh. 940). Plaintiffs contend that the squalid conditions in the man camp were conducive to the spread of disease and illness. At one of
25 Plaintiffs submitted numerous photographs and a video of the man camp living areas while they were occupied. (Pla. Exhs. 838, 839). Plaintiffs’ assertions about overcrowded conditions are not exaggerated.
29

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 30 of 100
the camps water would leak and stagnate due to shoddy plumbing. (Pla. Exh. 621). One kitchen facility was described by Signal’s own staff as “disgusting.” (Pla. Exh. 828 (“I pray that the TX Health Dept doesn’t show up. They will shut this place down immediately.”).
Plaintiffs also resented the man camp housing rules. In practice, Plaintiffs did not appreciate having to pass through security to enter to the camps, and the attendant searches of their parcels and requisite presentation of identification. Alcohol and visitors were strictly prohibited in the camps, and Plaintiffs contend that they often felt like prisoners while living in the camps, and isolated or marginalized from the rest of the workforce and the community. Of course, no worker could be forced to live at the man camp so long as he was willing to pay room and board elsewhere on top of the $35 per day (approximately $1050 per month) accommodations fee that Signal would continue to charge him in light of his H-2B status. Thus, some of the workers felt financially compelled to live in the man camps despite how miserable any particular worker might have felt about that prospect.
Plaintiffs characterize the man camp as a “racialized ghetto,” (Pla. memo at 20), and they point to the man camp as strong evidence of the discriminatory treatment that they claim to have received at Signal. Plaintiffs point out that they were
30

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 31 of 100
the only members of Signal’s workforce who were allowed or required to live in the man camp, with its attendant security rules and hefty daily rates, and that they were required to pack their lunches from the food available at the man camp cafeteria, which often spoiled in the heat before they could eat it. Plaintiffs point out that only the migrant workers at Signal were subjected to these conditions.26 Plaintiffs also complain that they were given the most undesirable and dangerous work that Signal’s non-foreign workers did not want to perform. Plaintiffs contend that they were left with no choice but to endure the unpleasant and abysmal conditions at Signal or go back to India financially bankrupt and socially scarred. Plaintiffs contend that Signal exploited their precarious financial situation and their vulnerable immigration status.
John Sanders was Signal’s point man for the Global/Signal contract and he took what appears to be a genuine interest in the day to day concerns and welfare of the H-2B workers.27 In November 2006 Sanders learned from the workers about the onerous fees charged by Dewan, Pol, and Burnett. Several workers told
26 Plaintiffs have also submitted various emails from Signal personnel which they contend exemplifies the company’s discriminatory attitude toward the Indian H-2B workers. (Pla. memo at 23 n.25).
27 Sanders kept a personal diary in which he recorded his dealings with the Indian workers and Signal management and his personal impressions of many of the events at issue in this case.
31

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 32 of 100
Sanders personal stories about pawning private possessions in order to raise the fees required to participate in the H-2B program, and of the significant debts that they had incurred in the process. The workers also complained about the $35 per day accommodations fee, pointing out that after this fee was deducted from their pay, and in light of the debts already incurred, it was not economically advantageous to be at Signal. Sanders relayed this information to upper management and noted how these issues were affecting morale amongst the workers. (Pla. Exh. 618).
On November 20, 2006, a meeting took place to discuss the clear contradiction in the workers’ assertions about the fees that they were claiming that they had paid to participate in the H-2B/green card program and Pol’s statements to Signal that the workers had paid $2000 to participate. (Pla. Exh. 521(Bingle)). Pol, Ron Schnoor, and John Sanders were present. Signal maintains that it was during this meeting that it learned with certainty about the exorbitant fees that the workers had paid to Global, Burnett, and Dewan. Ron Schnoor followed up with a letter to Pol demanding an accounting of the workers’ payments and demanding that Pol refund 50 percent of the fees paid by the workers and reimburse them for airfare. (Pla. Exh. 520(Bingle)). Schnoor copied Dewan and Burnett on the letter. Pol replied via letter defending the fees charged and explaining why he could not
32

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 33 of 100
refund any of the money. (Pla. Exh. 559). Signal was convinced that Pol had misrepresented to Signal the amount of money that each worker would be paying to participate. Signal terminated its relationship with Pol and requested that Dewan and Burnett do the same. (Pla. Exh. 669).
Thus, as of November 2006, Signal knew about the significant fees that the workers had paid and about the workers’ green card expectations. Around this time Signal also became concerned that perhaps Dewan was not being honest with the testing in India because the actual skill level of the workers who were arriving at Signal was not commensurate with the tests that they were passing in India. Signal noticed that the workers coming over were not the best and that perhaps the ability to pay hefty recruiting fees was being given more weight than actual skill. Plaintiffs assert that November 2006 presents a watershed moment in the case because from this point onward Signal clearly knew what was going on but nevertheless continued for months thereafter to accept hundreds more workers into the program-workers who were relying on false promises. And while Signal terminated its dealings with Pol, it nonetheless continued to work with Dewan and Burnett. (Pla. Exh. 522(Bingle)). Plaintiffs contend that Signal took no corrective action because it needed the workers to continue to save on labor costs and to continue to pay for the man camp. Plaintiffs contend that
33

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 34 of 100
Signal’s decision to continue to bring in workers via Dewan and Burnett, all the while knowing the truth, makes the company liable in the scheme.
On March 9, 2007, Signal decided to terminate eight of the workers-–six who were allegedly unproductive and two, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally and Sabulal Vijayan, who might be characterized as “rabblerousers.” (Pla. Exh. 646). Jacob and Sabulal had a reputation in Mississippi for creating unrest among the foreign workers even though they were otherwise skilled workers. By this time Signal also knew that some of the workers had contacted a lawyer about their rights, and that two of the workers in particular had been wheedling other workers to also speak to the lawyer. (Pla. Exh. 443). Signal undertook to terminate Jacob and Sabulal on the morning of March 9, 2007, in the presence of the other foreign workers, which Plaintiffs contend was a calculated decision in order to make an example of Jacob and Sabulal so that everyone would understand what happens to troublemakers. Signal called in Swetman security guards in advance of the terminations in the event that things got out of hand–-which they did as the situation deteriorated into mayhem. The security guards allegedly detained the terminated workers unlawfully in one of the bunkhouses, and Plaintiffs contend that this was done at Signal’s direction. Sabulal attempted suicide and the Pascagoula Police Department arrived on the scene after
34

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 35 of 100
someone called to report a kidnaping. (Pla. Exh. 444). The Mississippi Immigrant Relief Association was present outside the camp and so was the media. (Pla. Exh. 646). The Mississippi debacle of March 9, 2007, became known as “Black Friday.” Plaintiffs contend that word of the Black Friday events in Mississippi quickly spread to the workers in the Texas camp.
Dewan flew from India to Mississippi on March 9, 2007, to help settle some of the unrest amongst the foreign workers but he was not present for the Black Friday events. Dewan believed that he might be able to calm the workers in light of the troublemakers who were trying to create problems for everyone. (Pla. Exh. 446). Dewan suggested that the workers who had initiated the problems should be deported first. Burnett later traveled to the Texas facility to similarly calm the workers.
On March 12, 2007, Schnoor and Burnett addressed the workers in Mississippi to reassure them that they were part of Signal’s long term solution for supplementing its labor force. Schnoor advised the workers to think very carefully about suing Signal because Signal would vigorously fight any such efforts and that a bunch of frivolous lawsuits would mean no visa extensions for the foreign workers so that they would all have to return to India when the first H-2B visas expired on July 31, 2007. Plaintiffs contend that the events and aftermath of Black Friday emphasized to the Indian workers the importance of being compliant while at
35

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 36 of 100
Signal because even good workers would be terminated and deported if they complained. Plaintiffs assert that Signal made false assurances about the status of their green cards thereby continuing the deception. Plaintiffs characterize the working and living conditions at Signal as psychologically coercive.
By April 25, 2007, Dewan, Burnett, and Pol were at odds when Pol and Burnett came to suspect that Dewan had lied to them about giving a refund to a candidate while he in fact took the candidate’s money. (Pla. Exh. 469). Signal’s first H-2B authorization was scheduled to expire on July 31, 2007, but on the advice of Burnett Signal requested the first extension for all of the workers because it was just easier that way. By March 2008 when this lawsuit was filed more than three quarters of the putative class had left Signal. At present, none of the putative plaintiff class members remain at Signal.
D. Procedural Background Plaintiffs filed this proposed class action on March 7, 2008, and amended their complaint twice. Plaintiffs originally moved for class certification on October 1, 2008. (Rec. Doc. 165). Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 944) on November 23, 2010. The Court allowed discovery on class issues and that discovery proceeded for over two years. Plaintiffs successfully defeated numerous dispositive motions but on November 10, 2010, the Court granted Signal’s
36

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 37 of 100
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class for injunctive relief.28 (Rec. Doc. 926).
Plaintiffs filed their Supplemental Motion to Certify (Rec. Doc. 994) on February 1, 2011, and Defendants filed their submissions in opposition to certification (Rec. Docs. 997, 998, 992, & 1000). Signal then filed its Motion to Strike Evidence Not Within Issues Raised in Plaintiffs’ Pleadings (Rec. Doc. 1012) and Motion for Partial Stay of Class Certification Proceedings (Rec. Doc. 1013), in response to Plaintiffs’ argument that certification of RICO claims predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 1546, insofar as Plaintiffs were urging that Signal defrauded the United States government, were never pled with the required specificity. Plaintiffs then filed their Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 1031). The Court granted Signal’s Motion for Partial Stay such that Defendants would not be required to address the merits of the § 1546 claims in their rebuttal memoranda. (Rec. Doc. 1043). The Court
28 When dismissing the (b)(2) claims the Court specifically noted that the ruling did not constitute a final adjudication of the class certification issue so as to trigger any party’s right to seek an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f). (Rec. Doc. 926). In order to avoid the inefficiency of a piecemeal appeal process, all parties expressly agreed on the record to waive any subsequent argument that Plaintiffs’ failure to seek immediate review in the Fifth Circuit would constitute a waiver of their rights under Rule 23(f). Accordingly, the Court will incorporate its ruling on the (b)(2) claims as part of this Order and Reasons so that the parties can seek review of all certification claims at one time.
37

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 38 of 100
advised that it would issue an order inviting Defendants to respond to the § 1546 claims on the merits if the Court were inclined to deny the Motion to Strike-1012 and/or to grant the Motion for Leave, and if the § 1546 claims were otherwise certifiable. (Rec. Doc. 1043).
The parties filed their rebuttal memoranda (Rec. Docs. 1073, 1070, 1074, $ 1071) on April 29, 2011, at which time the issue of class certification was taken under submission, along with the Motion to Strike-1012 and Motion for Leave to File, the latter two relating solely to the issue of RICO claims predicated on § 1546 insofar as Plaintiffs argue third-party reliance by the United States government.
After the rebuttal memoranda were filed, Signal filed its second motion to strike, Motion to Strike-1082, which was taken under submission on June 22, 2011. This motion to strike, as with the first motion to strike, pertains solely to the RICO claims. III. CLASS CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 23(b)(3)
Plaintiffs move to have a class certified pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)29 and (b)(3) consisting of
29 The Court has already rejected the (b)(2) injunctive relief class claims. See note 28, supra. The Court will therefore limit the substance of its analysis to the Rule 23(b)(3) class claims.
38

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 39 of 100
All Indian guest-workers who were recruited by one or more Defendants and who traveled and/or were transported to the United States at any time through September 30, 2007, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(B) (“H2B”) visas assigned to Defendant Signal International.
Plaintiffs seek certification with respect to their claims for violations of 1) the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (forced labor) & § 1590 (trafficking); 2) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c)-(d); 3) the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and 4) the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class actions. The rule provides in relevant part:
(a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
(b) Types of Class Actions. A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if:
39

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 40 of 100

(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or

(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include:

(A) the class members' interests in individually contr olling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;

(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members;

(C)

the desirability or

undesirability of concentrating the

litigation of the claims in the

particular forum; and

(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(a), (b)(2)-(3). To obtain certification a party must satisfy Rule 23(a)’s four threshold requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation), as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3). Gene & Gene, LLC v. Biopay, LLC, 541 F.3d 318, 325

40

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 41 of 100
(5th Cir. 2008) (citing Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S.
591 (1997)). District courts have discretion as to whether a
class will be certified. Stirman v. Exxon Corp., 280 F.3d 554,
561 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d
734, 740 (5th Cir. 1996)). However, that discretion must be
exercised within the framework of Rule 23. Id. The district
court must “conduct a rigorous analysis of the Rule 23
prerequisites before certifying a class.” Gene & Gene, 541 F.3d
at 325 (quoting O’Sullivan v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 319
F.3d 732, 737-38 (5th Cir. 2003)). The party seeking
certification bears the burden of demonstrating that the Rule 23
requirements have been met.30 Id. (citing Berger v. Compaq Comp.
Corp., 257 F.3d 475, 479 (5th Cir. 2001)).
Rule 23(b)(3) is “[f]ramed for situations in which ‘class-
action treatment is not as clearly called for’ as it is in Rule
30 Plaintiffs suggest that courts in the Fifth Circuit are urged to err on the side of certifying class actions because the order is always subject to modification in light of later developments. (Rec. Doc. 994-1, at 35). The Court has reviewed numerous class action decisions from this circuit and the Court does not glean such an urging. To the contrary, the Fifth Circuit has specifically noted how certification can dramatically affect the litigation stakes for defendants by magnifying and strengthening the number of unmeritorious claims, Castano, 84 F.3d at 746 (citing In re Agent Orange Prods. Liab. Litig., 818 F.2d 145, 165-66 (2d Cir. 1987)), and that certification cannot follow from mere instinct and a “figure-it-out-as-we-go-along approach,” Madison v. Chalmette Refining, LLC, 637 F.3d 551, 557 (5th Cir. 2011). The “rigorous” Rule 23 analysis required by this circuit’s precedent does not comport well with a policy of erring on the side of certifying class actions when there is any uncertainty as to whether Rule 23's standards are met.
41

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 42 of 100
23(b)(1) and (b)(2) situations. Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 615 (quoting Adv. Comm. Notes, 28 U.S.C. App., p. 697). A party seeking certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class must demonstrate inter alia that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Gene & Gene, 541 F.3d at 325 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(b)(3)). Considering whether “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate“ begins with the elements of the underlying cause of action. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 131 S. Ct. 2179, 2184 (2011).
The predominance inquiry requires a court to consider “how a trial on the merits would be conducted if a class were certified.” Gene & Gene, 541 F.3d at 325 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 339 F.3d 294, 302 (5th Cir. 2003)). This in turn means that the court must identify the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing which issues will predominate, and then determine whether the issues are common to the class-–a process that ultimately prevents the class from degenerating into a series of individual trials. Id. The court must go beyond the pleadings to understand the claims, defenses, relevant facts, and applicable substantive law in order to make a meaningful determination of the certification issues. Castano, 84 F.3d at 744 (citing Manual for Complex Litigation § 30.11 (3d ed. 1995)). The predominance requirement tests whether proposed
42

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 43 of 100
classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. Id. (quoting Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 623-24). The predominance of individual issues necessary to decide an affirmative defense may preclude class certification. Gene & Gene, 541 F.3d at 327 (quoting In re Monumental Life Ins. Co., 365 F.3d 408, 420 (5th Cir. 2004)).
Generally, the strength of the plaintiff’s claim on the merits should not affect the certification decision. See Castano, 84 F.3d at 744. Nonetheless, the determination of class action questions is often intimately involved with the merits of the underlying claims. Id. at 744 n. 17 (quoting Cooper & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 469 n.12 (1978)). Frequently the “rigorous analysis” required for Rule 23 certification will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551-52 (2011). “The class determination generally involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Id. (quoting Gen. Tele. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160 (1982)). This is particularly true with the more complex determinations required for certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Castano, 84 F.3d at 744 n.17. “[I]n some cases there will be overlap between the demands of 23(a) and (b) and the question of whether plaintiff can succeed on the merits.” Huff v. N.D. Cass Co., 485 F.2d 710, 714
43

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 44 of 100
(5th Cir. 1973) (en banc). In this case all aspects of the Rule 23 certification
inquiry are contested except the numerosity requirement31 and the adequacy of Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Rec. Doc. 994-1, at 40 n.42). All of the Rule 23(a) requirements are important and must be satisfied but the (b)(3) requirements usually present a far more challenging obstacle for certification than the Rule 23(a) requirements. Therefore, for the various causes of action, the Court can appropriately begin its Rule 23 analysis by assuming arguendo that the Rule 23(a) requirements are satisfied and turning its attention to the more “exacting demands” of Rule 23(b)(3), in particular the predominance requirement. Gene, 541 F.3d at 325. If the predominance requirement is satisfied then the Court will necessarily address Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirement, and if necessary, Rule 23(a)’s requirements. Id. at 326.
1. Trafficking Victims Protection Act The first set of claims that Plaintiffs seek to certify for class-wide treatment are their forced labor and trafficking claims brought under the auspices of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003. These claims derive from alleged violations of two criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1589
31 The proposed class numbers about 500 members. 44

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 45 of 100
(forced labor) and 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor). 18 U.S.C. § 1595 allows Plaintiffs to seek civil recovery for violations of the forced labor and trafficking criminal statutes, §§ 1589 and 1590.32 Plaintiffs’ forced labor and trafficking claims are brought against defendants Signal, Pol, and Dewan.
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ § 1589 claims cannot be tried on a representative basis and are therefore not amenable to certification because the claims are fundamentally about individual consent. According to Defendants, the legislative history of § 1589, and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Kozminski, which actually predates the enactment of § 1589, demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ forced labor claims cannot be certified as a matter of law under the facts of this case. In other words, the very nature of a forced labor claim precludes Plaintiffs from meeting their burden of demonstrating that the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied.
32 “An individual who is a victim of a violation of section 1589, 1590, or 1591 of this chapter may bring a civil action against the perpetrator in an appropriate district court of the United States and may recover damages and reasonable attorney’s fees.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 1595(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2004). The civil remedies provision was enacted as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108193, 117 Stat. 2875 (2003). In 2008 Congress broadened the scope of the civil remedy statute but that amendment, which came subsequent to the events giving rise to this lawsuit, is not at issue in this case.
45

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 46 of 100
Plaintiffs argue that the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”) does not require a showing of individualized consent because the TVPA focuses on the actions of the defendant, not the plaintiff. Therefore, liability under the TVPA can be proven regardless of the number of plaintiffs bringing a claim. Plaintiffs point out that the TVPA introduced the concept of “serious harm” into the forced labor realm and that “serious harm” is assessed objectively on a reasonable person standard. Therefore, according to Plaintiffs, no one plaintiff’s perspective, subjective position, or consent is legally relevant. The only question that need be answered is whether a reasonable person in Plaintiffs’ shoes would feel compelled to provide his labor against his will–-a question that can be answered on a class-wide basis.
The question of whether to certify a class for a TVPA claim is a question of first impression in the Fifth Circuit. To determine whether issues of fact common to the class predominate over individual issues the Court turns its attention to the elements of the forced labor cause of action and the substantive issues that will control the outcome of the claims.
A. Forced Labor, 18 U.S.C. § 1589 Section 1589 of Title 18, pertaining to Forced Labor, provides:
46

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 47 of 100
Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person--
(1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person;
(2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or
(3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process,
shall be [subject to criminal penalties].
18 U.S.C.A. § 1589 (West 2000 & Supp. 2001).33 The coercive means described in subsections (1)-(3) supra are taken nearly verbatim from the definition of “coercion” found at 22 U.S.C. § 7102(2), which is part of the civil provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
Section 1589 became law on October 28, 2000, when President Clinton signed into law the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. The purposes of the Act were “to combat trafficking in persons, a contemporary manifestation of slavery whose victims are predominantly women and children, to ensure just and effective punishment of traffickers, and to protect
33 Congress amended § 1589 in 2008 to make it even broader. That amendment was signed into law on December 23, 2008, and is not applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims.
47

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 48 of 100
their victims.” 22 U.S.C.A. § 7101 (West 2004). It is widely recognized that Congress crafted § 1589
pertaining to forced labor to fill a significant gap in the scheme of involuntary servitude criminal laws that the Supreme Court had identified in United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988). In Kozminski, the government prosecuted the defendants for criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1584, which criminalized involuntary servitude. The victims were two mentally retarded men who had been found laboring on the defendants’ farm in poor health, in squalid conditions, and in relative isolation from society. During the criminal prosecutions the government offered some evidence of physical abuse but also relied on various other methods of coercion–-denial of pay, subjection to substandard living conditions, isolation–-to establish that the victims believed that they had no alternative but to work on the farm. Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 936. The government had argued that the two men were “psychological hostages” whom the defendants had “brainwashed into serving them.” Id. The district court’s jury charge specifically allowed the jury to consider various types of non-physical, psychological coercion when determining whether the two men had been held to involuntary servitude. Id. at 939. The jury voted to convict. The appellate court en banc reversed the convictions.
The Supreme Court granted the government’s writ to consider 48

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 49 of 100
the scope of conduct pertinent to the meaning of “involuntary servitude” for purposes of a criminal prosecution under § 1584. In light of the state of the law when Congress first enacted § 1584 in 1948, the Court concluded that “involuntary servitude” was limited to cases involving the compulsion of services by the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion-– psychological coercion would not suffice. Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 948. The government had urged the Court to adopt a broad construction of “involuntary servitude” so as to prohibit the compulsion of services by any means that, from the victim’s point of view, either leaves the victim with no tolerable alternative but to serve the defendant or deprives the victim of the power of choice. Id. at 949. But the Court refused to give such an amorphous interpretation to a criminal statute. Such an interpretation would give no notice to ordinary people who are required to conform their conduct to the law and the question of whether any specific acts would constitute a crime would depend solely on the specific victim’s state of mind. Id. at 949-50. Further, the rule of lenity, which serves to promote fair notice to those subject to the criminal laws, requires that any uncertainty concerning the ambit of criminal statutes leads to a narrower interpretation, not a broader one. Id. at 951-52.
In summing up, the Supreme Court stated that absent change by Congress, for purposes of a criminal prosecution under § 1584,
49

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 50 of 100
the term “involuntary servitude” necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury, or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 952. The Court clarified, however, that its holding did not imply that evidence of other means of coercion, or of the victim’s special vulnerabilities would be irrelevant. To the contrary, the vulnerabilities of the victim would be relevant in determining inter alia whether the physical or legal coercion or threats thereof “could plausibly have compelled the victim to serve,” as well as the “causal effect” of any physical or legal coercion. Id. The Supreme Court affirmed, thereby vacating the convictions and remanding for a new trial.
Congress enacted § 1589 in the wake of Kozminski to provide federal prosecutors with the tools to combat severe forms of worker exploitation that do not rise to the level of involuntary servitude as defined in Kozminski. H.R. Rep. 106-939. Section 1589 is intended to address the increasingly subtle methods of traffickers who often use means other than overt violence. Id. With § 1589, prosecutors would no longer be required to demonstrate physical harm or threats of force against victims because the “serious harm” standard employed by the statute encompasses a broad array of harms, both physical and non-
50

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 51 of 100
physical. Id. The Kozminski Court did not directly confront the question
of whether a forced labor charge requires proof that the victim’s rendering of labor was involuntary or non-consensual, which of course is the point of law that the parties dispute in this case. But it is beyond dispute that the Court’s discussion of the law throughout the opinion confirms that the concept of involuntary servitude or forced labor turns on whether the victim rendered labor because of the verboten physical force or legal coercion. In other words, the issue is whether the victim was coerced by physical force or legal coercion into providing labor involuntarily. Nothing about Kozminski even remotely suggests that a finding of involuntary servitude or forced labor could be premised solely on the defendant’s conduct and the fact that the victim did in fact work for the defendant, while ignoring the issue of causation. Kozminski clearly suggests that a determination of involuntary servitude or forced labor requires a causal connection between what the defendant did, what the victim did, and why the victim did it. See Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 952 (“[T]he vulnerabilities of the victim are relevant in determining whether the physical or legal coercion or threats thereof could plausibly have compelled the victim to serve.”). In other words, the forced labor analysis cannot be confined solely to the defendant’s conduct but necessarily must take into account the
51

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 52 of 100
particular victim’s vulnerabilities.34
The question then is whether the TVPA so changed the forced labor inquiry so as to focus solely on the defendant’s conduct to the exclusion of the victim’s perspective. The TVPA included the new § 1589 statute on forced labor, that Plaintiffs rely upon herein, to counter Kozminski but the problem with Kozminski was not that the Supreme Court considered the individual victim’s vulnerabilities to be relevant to the issue of compulsion but rather that the coercive means punishable for a forced labor violation were too narrow under Kozminski, particularly with respect to psychological coercion. Section 1589 clearly recognizes that there are numerous types of harm beyond physical abuse or legal coercion that can be used to force an individual to work involuntarily. So because of the TVPA the more subtle forms of coercion that escaped criminal punishment in Kozminski are now clearly unlawful.
But the Court does not read either the TVPA or § 1589 in particular as shifting the focus of the crime of forced labor
34 Justice Brennan’s concurring opinion in particular contains numerous points of discussion that confirm that the victim’s perspective is crucial to a forced labor determination. See, e.g., Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 956-57 (Brennan, J., concurring) (“Without considering these techniques (and their particular effect on a mentally disabled person), one would hardly have a complete picture of whether the coercion inflicted on the victims was sufficient to make their service involuntary.”).
52

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 53 of 100
solely to the defendant’s conduct without concern for whether the defendant’s conduct was sufficient to make the specific alleged victim render labor involuntarily. The TVPA did not render the issue of consent irrelevant to a forced labor determination. Congress could have expressly rendered victim consent irrelevant to the determination, as is the case with the United Nations Protocol applicable to human trafficking, but Congress declined to do so. See Jennifer M. Chacon, Misery & Myopia: Understanding the Failures of U.S. Efforts to Stop Human Trafficking, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 2977, 2982 (2006).35 And the House Report on the TVPA contains a discussion that talks about “the individual circumstances of the victims that are relevant in determining whether a particular type or certain degree of harm or coercion is sufficient to maintain or obtain a victim’s labor or services, including the age and background of the victims.” H.R. Rep. 106-939. Other courts continue to recognize implicitly that even in the aftermath of the TVPA the question of forced labor turns on whether the defendant’s conduct or tactics reasonably coerced or forced the victim to provide labor. See, e.g., United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2004), rev’d on other grounds, Bradley v. United States, 545 U.S. 1101 (2005); United States v. Peterson, 627 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (M.D. Ga.
35 In fact, this author has opined that the TVPA, contrary to earlier law, actually gives “central importance” to the question of victim consent. Chacon, supra, at 2999.
53

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 54 of 100
2008). And one cannot determine whether the defendant’s actions coerced or forced the victim to provide labor without looking to the specific victim involved.
Moreover, the need to consider the specific alleged victim becomes even more crucial when the subtler forms of psychological coercion are involved, which the new § 1589 allows and which Plaintiffs rely upon in this case. Most human beings would likely choose to provide labor in lieu of receiving severe beatings or being tortured so with egregious forms of physical abuse the specific victim’s vulnerabilities may become less important. But with more subtle types of coercion, particularly psychological coercion, the vulnerabilities and characteristics of the specific victim become extremely important because one individual could be impervious to some types of coercion that cause another to acquiesce in providing forced labor. This is exactly what § 1589 now recognizes. But because § 1589 is a criminal statute that potentially reaches a broad range of coercive conduct that standing alone might not be unlawful, two things are clear. First, the defendant’s conduct must be the driving force behind the victim’s “choice” to render the labor.36
36 Justice Brennan sagaciously explained in Kozminski how at some level the laborer always has a “choice” no matter what the threat because he can choose to work or take a beating. But with less egregious forms of coercion it is particularly difficult to determine when a person’s actions are “involuntary.” Kozminski, 487 U.S. 959 (Brennan, J., concurring).
54

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 55 of 100
And second, the victim’s response to the defendant’s actions must pass the reasonable person test. The reasonable person test injects an objective standard into the forced labor determination which is important given the criminal nature of the statute. After all, as Justice Brennan noted in Kozminski, criminal sanctions cannot depend on a completely subjective standard that criminalizes otherwise innocent behavior simply because a particularly sensitive victim reacts to it. 487 U.S. at 960-61 (Brennan, J., concurring). Therefore, even though the “serious harm” that § 1589 encompasses is extremely broad it must at least pass a threshold objective standard such that it would cause a reasonable person in the victim’s shoes to render forced labor–the criminal law of which § 1589 is a part requires no less. Thus, it is not enough that the defendant’s conduct was subjectively coercive so as to cause the victim to render involuntary labor. The defendant’s conduct must also be objectively coercive enough to do so.37 But contrary to
37 The reasonable person standard for serious harm was codified in the 2008 amendments to the TVPA when Congress added a definition for “serious harm” to § 1589: “The term ‘serious harm’ means any harm, whether physical or nonphysical including psychological, financial, or reputational harm, that is sufficiently serious, under all the surrounding circumstances, to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances to perform and to continue performing labor or services in order to avoid incurring that harm.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 1589(c)(2) (West Supp. 2011). The court in Bradley had used a very similar definition of “serious harm” in its pre-2008 charges to the jury. 390 F.3d at 150.
55

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 56 of 100
Plaintiffs’ assertion, the injection of the objective reasonable person standard into the forced labor equation does not serve to eliminate the subjective aspects of the crime–-the jury must still determine whether the victim was coerced subjectively to provide labor based on the defendant’s threats. This is the very essence of the crime of forced labor and Plaintiffs’ interpretation of their burden of proof on the forced labor claims is contrary to the statute.
Of course, Plaintiffs are not prosecutors, they are civil litigants seeking to recover money damages under § 1595 for a violation of a criminal statute, § 1589. But § 1595 is a damages statute, not a statutory penalty provision that imposes a monetary sanction once the plaintiff establishes that the defendant has engaged in certain conduct. The plaintiff must prove the damages that he sustains as a result of the defendant’s violation of § 1589, and proving that compulsion at the hands of the defendant caused the plaintiff to render his services involuntarily is simply part of the causation analysis for the civil claim. It would be inimical to the concept of damage recovery in civil litigation to simply ignore the question of whether the individual plaintiff was in fact injured by the defendant’s conduct. And with a forced labor claim, the injury question is inextricably intertwined with the question of whether it was in fact the defendant’s conduct that coerced labor from
56

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 57 of 100
the plaintiff. That said, Plaintiffs do not suggest that they are
completely irrelevant to whether a violation of § 1589 has occurred, only that individual characteristics that might make one individual less susceptible to coercion than his co-worker are irrelevant. Plaintiffs’ contention is that certain broader characteristics shared by the class as a whole, e.g., immigration status, payment of exorbitant fees to recruiters, poor living conditions at Signal, would have compelled any reasonable person to stay at Signal and provide labor and therefore the focus should be on Defendants’ conduct. Clearly, the members of the class do share some common characteristics. And broadly speaking, it may very well be a logical conclusion that a welder of Indian origin, who incurred significant debt and now finds himself in the United States on a temporary visa, might choose to stay in an unpleasant employment situation. But while all of these considerations surely factor into the decision to stay with the employment, it does not mean that these characteristics that apply class-wide can substitute for the subjective aspects of why any given Plaintiff chose to stay at Signal. The question in a forced labor case is not whether any reasonable person who finds himself in the victim’s situation would have felt trapped by his circumstances and therefore stayed on the job with Signal. The question is whether Defendants’ coercive conduct was such that it
57

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 58 of 100
could overcome the will of the victim so as to make him render his labor involuntary. The Court is persuaded that this question cannot be answered via generalized class-wide proof but rather must be answered individually based upon individualized proof.
The Court does not agree, however, with Signal’s contention that a § 1589 claim can never be suitable for class certification. Certainly, based on the type of coercion used, there may be cases where consent becomes irrelevant. In other words, some “choices” might be so illegitimate that any decision to work is “involuntary.” See Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 959 (Brennan, J., concurring). But this case does not present one of those situations. To the contrary, this case involves paid workers who in fact could leave their jobs at any time, albeit under penalty of returning to their home countries but that restriction was dictated by U.S. immigration law. The workers were for the most part paid well, free to come and go as they pleased, and some even took vacations and bought cars. The pressure to work for Signal arguably came at least in part from a set of circumstances that each plaintiff individually brought upon himself when he elected to pay what is now characterized as “exorbitant” fees to participate in the green card program. Part of the “serious harm” that Plaintiffs claim that they faced was financial and reputational harm which are uniquely individual in nature. And the “threats” that Plaintiffs allege were made to
58

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 59 of 100
compel them to work were often made to individuals, not to the class as a whole.
Based on the foregoing this Court is persuaded that individual issues with respect to coercion and consent will predominate Plaintiffs’ § 1589 forced labor claims. This is true whether the question is viewed as one of coercion as an element of Plaintiffs’ claims, see Channer v. Hall, 112 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 1997), or as consent as an element of Defendants’ defense. Plaintiffs cannot avoid the burden of proof that each individual plaintiff faces, i.e., that it was conduct on the part of either Signal, Pol, or Dewan that was coercive so as to overcome his will and render his labor involuntary, by relying on the characteristics that apply broadly to the class as a whole. Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) even though common issues are present in their forced labor claims. The motion to certify is therefore DENIED as to the § 1589 forced labor claims.
B. Trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 1590 Section 1590 of Title 18, pertaining to Trafficking With Respect to Peonage, Slavery, Involuntary, Servitude, or Forced Labor, provides:
Whoever knowingly recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means, any person for labor or services in violation of this chapter shall be [subject to criminal penalties].
59

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 60 of 100
18 U.S.C.A. § 1590 (West 2000 & Supp. 2001) (emphasis added).38 The specific violations of Chapter 77 that Plaintiffs allege underlie their § 1590 trafficking claims, in addition to the violations of § 1589 regarding forced labor, are § 1583 (Enticement into slavery), § 1584 (Sale into involuntary servitude), § 1592(a) (Unlawful conduct with respect to documents in furtherance of trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor), and § 1594(a) (Attempted violations of §§ 1583, 1584, 1589, & 1590).
For the reasons explained in the § 1589 forced labor section above, the Court is persuaded that a human trafficking claim premised on a violation of the forced labor statute cannot be tried on a class-wide basis. Although a trafficking claim will focus to a great extent on the conduct of the defendant, it remains that a trafficking claim under § 1590 must be premised on a violation of one of the involuntary servitude statutes, even if indirectly so as is the case with § 1592(a), pertaining to the claim that Dewan confiscated passports while Plaintiffs were still in India. Under the facts of this case, individual issues will play a significant part in any claim premised on a violation of the statutes prohibiting forced labor, slavery, and involuntary servitude. Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the
38 Congress amended § 1590 in 2008. That amendment is not applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims.
60

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 61 of 100

predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) even though common issues are present in their trafficking claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ trafficking claims under § 1590 are not amenable to class certification and the motion is DENIED as to these claims.
2. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
The second set of claims that Plaintiffs seek to certify for class-wide treatment pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) are their claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and 1962(d). Plaintiffs’ RICO claims are brought against all defendants.
The RICO statutory scheme is aimed at combating organized crime--RICO is located in Title 18 of the criminal code--and the Act imposes criminal and civil liability upon those who engage in certain “prohibited activities” which are listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (a) through (c).39 Section 1962(c), which is Plaintiffs

39 The prohibited activities are:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received

any income derived, directly orindirectly, from a pattern

of racketeering activity or through collection of an

unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a

principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18,

United States Code, to use or in

vest, directly or

indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of

such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the

establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is

engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate

or foreign commerce . . . .

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern

61

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 62 of 100

first RICO claim, prohibits “any person employed by or associated with any enterprise” from participating in or conducting the affairs of that enterprise through a “pattern of racketeering activity.”40 St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 445 (5th Cir. 2000); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Section 1962(d), which is Plaintiffs’ second RICO claim, prohibits a conspiracy to

of racketeering activity or through collecti on of an unlawful debt to acq uire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or

associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the

activities of which affect, interstate or

foreign

commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or

indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affai rs

through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection

of unlawful debt.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
18 U.S.C.A. § 1962 (a) - (c) (West 2000).
40 “Racketeering activity” means, in relevant part, any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code: section 1341 (mail fraud), section 1343 (wire fraud), section 1546 (fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), and sections 1581-1592 (peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons). 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(1)(B) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011). The foregoing predicate acts are only those relevant to this lawsuit. The RICO statute contains a lengthy and exhaustive list of criminal acts that can serve as predicate acts. A “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity. Id. § 1961(5).

62

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 63 of 100
violate the provisions of § 1962(c). Regardless of the subsection, RICO claims under § 1962 have three common elements: 1) a person who engages in, 2) a pattern of racketeering activity, 3) connected to the acquisition, establishment, conduct, or control of an enterprise. Abraham v. Singh, 480 F.3d 351, 355 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Word of Faith v. Sawyer, 90 F.3d 118, 122 (5th Cir. 1996)). Private individuals who are injured by criminal RICO activity can recover damages in a civil action.41 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c).
Plaintiffs allege three association-in-fact RICO enterprises in support of their RICO claims. “RICO Enterprise I” is defined as “[a]ll Defendants and the United States Consular officers in India.” (SAC ¶ 290). Plaintiffs allege that the common purpose of this enterprise is recruiting, transporting, providing, processing, and obtaining foreign workers to work on shipyards in the United States, including Signal’s operations in Texas and
41 RICO’s civil enforcement provision provides in relevant part:
Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee . . . .
18 U.S.C.A. § 1964 (c) (West 2000).
63

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 64 of 100
Mississippi. (Id. ¶ 293).
“RICO Enterprise II” is defined as the “Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal.” (SAC ¶ 291). Plaintiffs allege that the common purpose of this enterprise is selling United States green cards, visas, and work opportunities to Indian workers to convince such workers to pay fees and travel to the United States to work for companies, including Signal. (Id. ¶ 299).
“RICO Enterprise III” is defined as the “Recruiter Defendants, Defendant Signal, Legal Facilitator Defendants, Swetman Security, and M & M Bank.”42 (SAC ¶ 292). Plaintiffs allege that the common purpose of this enterprise is providing and maintaining a consistent and acquiescent labor force at Signal’s operations. (Id. ¶ 304).
Plaintiffs rely upon the following predicate acts of racketeering activity for their RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c)-(d): a) enticement into slavery in violation of 18
42 Swetman Security and M & M Bank are not parties to this litigation. Plaintiffs contend that Swetman Security assisted Signal in effectuating forced labor and trafficking at Signal by participating in the forced detention and attempted deportation of several plaintiffs and perhaps by conducting other security activities at Signal’s Pascagoula facility. (RICO Case Stmt. ¶ 3B).
Plaintiffs contend that M & M Bank, at the direction of Signal, opened accounts for Plaintiffs and agreed to have their wages directly deposited into these accounts. Plaintiffs contend that when some workers departed Signal the bank denied them access to their bank accounts at Signal’s behest. (Id. ¶ 3J).
64

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 65 of 100
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.
Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Defendants’ RICO violations they have sustained similar injuries such as 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. (SAC ¶¶ 327, 331). Plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. (Id. ¶ 332).
Plaintiffs argue that their RICO claims are amenable to certification because the answer to the core question of whether Signal and each of the other defendants conducted or participated in RICO enterprises through a pattern of racketeering activity will be the same for all putative class members. Plaintiffs contend that the trafficking and forced labor-based RICO claims are certifiable for the same reasons that the TVPA claims are certifiable. Regarding the mail/wire/visa fraud claims,
65

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 66 of 100
Plaintiffs contend that Signal and Burnett filed attestations with the Department of Labor and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services of a 10-month labor need in order to obtain H-2B visas for the plaintiff class all the while knowing that Signal’s labor need was really two to three years and perhaps permanent; that Dewan, Pol, Burnett and Signal fraudulently promised United States green cards, visa extensions, and jobs; that all Defendants designed and carried out the fraudulent recruitment scheme by use of the phones, e-mail, and the mails.
Plaintiffs stress that they are not seeking to certify fraud claims that require proof of individualized reliance. In that vein, the first theory that Plaintiffs rely upon in support of certifying their fraud claims is that in issuing the H-2B visas the U.S. government relied on the false attestations of a 10 month labor need at Signal. Plaintiffs argue that they suffered injury as a direct result of this fraud directed at the U.S. government because but for the government having issued the H-2B visas, Plaintiffs would have never made the final installment payment to defendant Dewan, Pol, and Burnett. Plaintiffs argue that because there is a direct relationship between their injury and Defendants’ mail and wire fraud upon the U.S. government, they need not show individualized, first party reliance in order to support their RICO fraud claims. This theory of third-party reliance is referred to throughout the parties’ briefing as the
66

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 67 of 100
Bridge43 claim. Plaintiffs’ second theory of RICO fraud is a “market
approach” theory. Plaintiffs contend that a jury could validly infer from the identical contracts that they signed and the exorbitant fees that they paid that the plaintiff class relied on Defendants’ fraudulent representations regarding green cards. Without the promise of a green card no plaintiff would have paid the exorbitant fees that they paid to participate in the program and work at Signal. Plaintiffs contend that the evidence adduced thus far demonstrates that the prices that Defendants charged were commensurate with what would be charged for green cards, not temporary work visas. Plaintiffs advise that they will introduce expert testimony showing that in the Indian market for foreign visas no applicant would have paid the money that Plaintiffs paid without the expectation of a green card. Thus, Plaintiffs argue that they can prove reliance for their fraud claims on a classwide basis without the need for individualized proof. According to Plaintiffs, there is no need to ask each of them individually if he relied on the contents of the contract that he signed.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ RICO claims cannot be certified for class treatment because RICO claims simply defy certification in any form and RICO’s legal requirements preclude
43 Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008). 67

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 68 of 100
certification of the trafficking and fraud-based claims. Defendants argue that RICO claims premised on the trafficking and involuntary servitude predicate acts cannot be certified for the same reasons that the TVPA claims are not subject to certification, i.e., that trafficking and other coercion claims are implicitly based upon reliance on threats-–something that can only be proven on an individual basis. Defendants also argue that RICO causation cannot be proven on a class-wide basis because a RICO plaintiff must establish that his injury is caused by conduct that is wrongful under RICO-–again, something that can only be proven on an individual basis. Signal argues that Plaintiffs’ fraud-based RICO claims are founded on allegations of first-party individual reliance and under the law in this circuit such claims cannot be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) because individual issues will predominate.
A. Section 1962(c)–-Substantive RICO Violation Trafficking Predicate Acts
Plaintiffs’ RICO claims premised on the predicate acts of enticement into slavery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1583, involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584, forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589, trafficking persons with respect to modern day slavery, involuntary servitude, and forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590, and unlawful document-
68

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 69 of 100
related practices in furtherance of trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1592(a) cannot be certified for the same reasons that the claims cannot be certified when sued upon directly under the TVPA. Plaintiffs will be required to prove that the defendant committed the predicate acts upon which they rely for the pattern of racketeering activity. As previously explained in the section addressing certification of the TVPA claims, proof of these predicate acts, which are all premised on coercion, cannot be made without resort to individualized proof in light of the facts of this case. Common issues will not predominate and certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is therefore not appropriate.
Fraud-Based Predicate Acts Plaintiffs also rely upon the following fraud-based predicate acts in support of their § 1962(c) RICO claims: mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and immigration document fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546. As explained above, Plaintiffs urge two arguments in support of their contention that common issues will predominate under Rule 23(b)(3) with these fraud-based claims: 1) that a fraud-on-the-government Bridge claim requires no individualized proof of reliance, and 2) that first-party reliance can be proven via common evidence under Plaintiffs’ market approach theory.
69

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 70 of 100
1) Bridge claim a. Motion to Strike-1012 and Motion to File Third Amended Complaint In response to Plaintiffs’ Bridge claim of third party reliance, Signal has filed a Motion to Strike-1012 arguing that Plaintiffs did not adequately plead a third party reliance claim for the predicate acts of visa document fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). According to Signal, Plaintiffs only pled first-party reliance and those claims are not subject to certification. Even so, Signal argues that the § 1546 Bridge claim cannot be certified because RICO proximate cause will not be satisfied. The Motion to Strike-1012 is DENIED and the Motion to File Third Amended Complaint is DENIED AS MOOT. The Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs adequately pled their RICO claims and that there is no need to amend their complaint. Signal and the other defendants will suffer no prejudice at this juncture because the Court has determined that the RICO claims premised on predicate acts under 18 U.S.C. § 1546 are not amenable to certification anyway. As the case moves into the merits phase, notice as to the scope of Plaintiffs’ § 1546 claims will not be an issue because Defendants are now all well aware of Plaintiffs’ various fraud theories, and Defendants will be free to conduct whatever discovery they believe to be necessary to defend the
70

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 71 of 100
RICO claims premised on violation of § 1546. The Court is not moved by Signal’s contention that evidence
elicited at their representatives’ depositions should be stricken. Signal’s representatives were testifying as to facts about which they had first-hand knowledge and the questions that Plaintiffs’ counsel asked were fair game.
b. Analysis Causation is a crucial element of every civil RICO claim. In Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268 (1992), the Supreme Court held that factual or “but for” causation alone is insufficient to prove causation for a civil RICO claim. Proximate cause is also required. Id. Proximate cause requires a direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged. Id. When a court evaluates a RICO claim for proximate causation, the central question it must ask is whether the alleged RICO violation led directly to the plaintiff’s injuries. Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451, 461 (2006). With RICO claims, the compensable injury at issue is the harm caused by the predicate acts sufficiently related to constitute a pattern, for the essence of the violation is the commission of those acts in connection with the conduct of an enterprise. Sedima v. IMREX Co., 473 U.S. 479, 497 (1985). Any recoverable damages occurring by reason of a violation of § 1962(c) will flow from the predicate acts. Id.
71

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 72 of 100
When the predicate acts are fraud-based, proof of reliance on the fraud is often a necessary prerequisite to establishing the causation required by § 1964(c). Anza, 547 U.S. at 478 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bridge, the law in this circuit required a RICO plaintiff to prove individual, firstparty reliance on alleged fraud as part of the element of causation. See Sandwich Chef of Tex., Inc. v. Reliance Nat’l Indem. Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 2003). In Sandwich Chef the Fifth Circuit explained that RICO fraud actions require a showing of detrimental reliance by the plaintiff on the alleged fraud in order to satisfy proximate cause. Id. at 219 (quoting Summit Props., Inc. v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 214 F.3d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 2000)). Fraud actions that require proof of individual reliance cannot be certified for class treatment under Rule 23(b)(3) because individual rather than common issues will predominate. Id. at 211, 219; Castano, 84 F.3d at 745. Essentially, Sandwich Chef all but foreclosed the possibility of Rule 23(b)(3) certification of fraud-based RICO actions in this circuit.44
In 2008 the Supreme Court decided Bridge, which held that
44 Sandwich Chef expressly held open the possibility that proof of fraud upon a third party could constitute proof of reliance by the plaintiff under circumstances not present in that case. 319 F.3d at 223 n.13.
72

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 73 of 100
first-party reliance is not an element of a civil RICO claim premised on mail fraud. 553 U.S. at 641. The plaintiffs in Bridge were participants in a local tax sale. They claimed that the defendants’ acts of mail fraud against the county gave the defendants an unfair advantage at tax sale auctions. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ RICO claims because the plaintiffs were not the direct recipients of the allegedly fraudulent statements and therefore could not have relied upon them.
The Seventh Circuit reversed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether first-party reliance is an element of a civil RICO claim predicated on mail fraud. Bridge, 553 U.S. at 646. The Supreme Court held that first-party reliance is not an element of a civil RICO claim predicated on mail fraud. Id. at 649. The Court reasoned that neither the mail fraud statute nor the RICO statute imposed a requirement of first-party reliance. Id. A person can be injured by reason of a pattern of mail fraud even if he has not relied on any misrepresentations. Id. at 649.
The Court also rejected the contention that proof of firstparty reliance is necessary to establish proximate causation. Bridge, 553 U.S. at 654-55. But a RICO plaintiff will have to establish that someone relied upon the defendant’s misrepresentation because without such reliance even “but for”
73

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 74 of 100
causation will probably be lacking.45 Id. at 658-59.
Thus, while Bridge overruled cases like Sandwich Chef to the extent that they conflicted with the decision by requiring firstparty reliance as part of a RICO fraud claim, see St. Germain v. Howard, 556 F.3d 261, 263 (5th Cir. 2009), Bridge did not eliminate the need for reliance by someone when proof of the element of proximate cause necessitates it. Bridge likewise does not foreclose that in some situations proof of first-party reliance might very well be necessary to establish causation. And where proof of first-party reliance breaks down into individual determinations of reliance then Sandwich Chef’s admonitions about why certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is not likely still survive. Further, causation can be more challenging to prove when the plaintiff relies upon fraud perpetrated on a third party. See, e.g., Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 130 S. Ct. 983 (2010); Anza, 547 U.S. at 457.
Turning now to the Bridge claim herein, the contention is that defendants Signal and Burnett lied on forms submitted to the U.S. government in order to obtain approval to bring temporary H2B workers into the United States to work for Signal. The “lies”
45 The Fifth Circuit made a very similar observation in Sandwich Chef, noting that for a misrepresentation to cause injury there must be reliance somewhere. 319 F.3d at 218-19, After all, knowledge of the truth defeats a claim of fraud because it eliminates the deceit as the “but for” cause of the damages. Id. (citing Summit, 214 F.3d at 560 n.19).
74

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 75 of 100
at issue are the assertions that Signal’s labor needs were
temporary and limited to a 10 month period. According to
Plaintiffs, the government clearly relied on these
misrepresentations because otherwise Signal would not have
received approval to hire H-2B foreign workers. Plaintiffs
contend that this third-party reliance by the government on
Signal’s and Burnett’s fraudulent statements does not implicate
individual proof the way that first-party reliance does and
therefore does not create an impediment to certification under
Rule 23(b)(3). The Bridge claim implicates fraud under 18 U.S.C.
§ 154646 most strongly but §1341 and § 1343 are also implicated
46 Section 1546, entitled Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents, provides in relevant part:
Whoever knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, or utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, acce pts, or receives any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, alt ered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by means of any false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained; or
. . . .
Whoever knowingly makes under oath, or as permitted under penalty of perjury under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, kn owingly subscribes as true, any false statement with respect to a material fact in any
75

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 76 of 100
because the mails and wires were surely used to transmit the H-2B documents to the government.
Plaintiffs are of course correct in their contention that proving that the government relied on misrepresentations in approving H-2B status for Signal, and ultimately in issuing the hundreds of H-2B visas when the individual plaintiffs applied for them, does not trigger the individual questions that can often derail certification of fraud-based RICO actions. It does not necessarily follow, however, that Plaintiffs can nevertheless prove causation for their RICO injuries without resort to individual proof of reliance. In fact, the Court is persuaded that they cannot.
In order to understand why individual proof of reliance is necessary to the element of causation in this case notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ fraud on the government theory, one must consider the nature of the RICO violations alleged in this case and the specific injuries that Plaintiffs’ attribute to
application, affidavit, or other document required by the immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder, or knowingly presents any such application, affidavit, or other document which contains any such false statement or which fails to contain any reasonable basi s in law or fact--
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years . . . . 18 U.S.C.A. § 1546(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011).
76

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 77 of 100
those RICO violations. Plaintiffs’ claim in a nutshell is that the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud them by making false promises regarding green cards. (RICO Case Stmt.¶ 5D). Fraud on the government aside, it has always been and remains Plaintiffs’ contention that without the fraudulent promise of a green card they would not have paid the significant recruitment fees, would not have burdened themselves with massive amounts of debt, and would not have come to the United States to work for Signal. (Id. ¶ 9). Plaintiffs claim to have endured great financial, personal, and familial sacrifices in reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations. The most significant of the specific injuries that Plaintiffs attribute to Defendants’ fraudulent scheme are the exorbitant fees that they paid to Dewan, Pol, Rao, and Burnett, and the interest on the loans that Plaintiffs incurred to finance their way into the program. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 17). But these injuries were not the consequence of the alleged fraud that Signal and Burnett directed at the U.S. government when applying for H-2B status. In fact, for many of the plaintiffs the green card scheme began before Signal even entered the picture and applied for H-2B status. As to every plaintiff in this case, his RICO injuries arose directly out of the allegedly false and fraudulent green card promises that Dewan, Pol, Rao, and Burnett made to him. And the only way that any individual plaintiff could sustain an injury from that fraud
77

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 78 of 100
was to rely upon it in ignorance of the truth. Plaintiffs do not attempt to argue that the entirety of
their injuries are attributable to Signal’s and Burnett’s alleged fraud on the government. Instead, Plaintiffs point out that the third installment payment that they paid to the recruiters is attributable to the government having approved Signal’s H-2B status, the government having done so in reliance on misrepresentations as to Signal’s labor needs. Moreover, Plaintiffs have made the allegation that once they arrived in the United States Signal continued to use the false promise of a green card in order to placate them, and therefore they continued to sustain injury from the fraudulent green card scheme after arriving at Signal via the H-2B program.
The fact that Signal received approval to bring H-2B workers into this country is surely a but for cause of some portion of each plaintiff’s alleged injuries–-for those plaintiffs who were recruited specifically for Signal after it had obtained approval to bring H-2B workers into the United States, the fraud on the government is probably one but for cause of every aspect of those plaintiffs’ injuries; for those plaintiffs who were recruited and began incurring payments and debt before Signal entered the picture, the fraud on the government is perhaps one but for cause of a latter portion of their injuries. But for every plaintiff in this case, the totality of the injuries alleged, or at the
78

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 79 of 100
very least the most significant of the injuries alleged, were not proximately caused by fraudulent representations made to the government–-they were proximately caused by Defendants’ false representations to the plaintiff of receiving a green card. It was the fraudulent conduct directed specifically at the plaintiffs that injured them.
In a fraudulent scheme like the one alleged in this case that spans several years and the globe, and involves numerous players to effect its purpose, the instances of fraud that occur might very well be legion. But the fact that Plaintiffs can identify one narrow aspect of fraud and prove that someone relied upon it, does not strip the question of RICO causation in this case of its individual nature. It is important at this juncture to recognize exactly what Bridge teaches about reliance in a RICO fraud case–-reliance is not an element of the case. Reliance is important only insofar as it is necessary to prove causation. And while causation fails at the outset if no one relies on a fraudulent misrepresentation, it does not follow that causation between a RICO violation and the injury alleged is satisfied simply because the plaintiff can identify one aspect of fraudulent conduct that occurred in furtherance of the scheme to defraud and show that someone relied on it. RICO injuries must arise out of the unlawful conduct that constitutes the predicate acts. The injuries asserted in this case are not proximately
79

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 80 of 100
caused by any predicate act premised on fraud on the government. That’s not to say that the alleged fraud on the government is not relevant to some aspect of Plaintiffs’ RICO claims, including the element of causation. But the Court is persuaded that in light of the specific scheme to defraud that Plaintiffs allege in this case, they will still have to prove first-party reliance on the alleged fraud that was directed at them–-the fraud that most proximately caused their injuries.
Furthermore, in Bridge, the entirety of the fraudulent conduct alleged was directed at third parties whose reliance on it directly injured the plaintiff. In this case, the majority of the injurious fraudulent conduct was directed specifically and directly to Plaintiffs. The fraud on the government that Plaintiffs allude to herein is not the fraud that directly injured Plaintiffs.
To be sure, there will be significant overlap in the evidence if each Plaintiff is required to present his RICO claim to a jury. And surely there will be numerous common issues amongst the cases. But in light of the issue of individual reliance, those common issues will not predominate even if they happen to outnumber the individual issues. The question of individual reliance will be paramount to resolving whether Plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by a RICO violation. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ reliance on Bridge in support of certification under
80

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 81 of 100
Rule 23(b)(3) is misplaced. 2) Market Approach Theory a. Motion to Strike-1082
Signal has filed a second Motion to Strike-1082 arguing in essence that Plaintiffs’ contention that they can prove reliance via written contracts is new. Plaintiffs’ market approach theory is simply one way that they hope to show causation with respect to their RICO claims. As explained above, reliance is not an element of the claims, and therefore neither is the method that Plaintiffs intend to rely upon to show it. The motion is DENIED.
b. Analysis Regarding Plaintiffs’ “market approach” theory of reliance, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot obtain certification in this manner because they are essentially arguing for a presumption of reliance based on circumstantial evidence. Defendants contend that certification on this theory would likely run afoul of Defendants’ Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. In contrast to certification under Bridge, Plaintiffs’ market approach theory is grounded on first-party reliance–Plaintiffs’ own reliance on Defendants’ fraudulent promises regarding green cards. However, Plaintiffs contend that firstparty reliance can be proven via circumstantial, class-wide evidence that eliminates the need for individualized proof.
81

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 82 of 100
Plaintiffs point to the decision in Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004), as an example of how common evidence can be used to establish first-party reliance.
Certainly evidence such as the contracts that Plaintiffs signed, the slide show presentations that were made at recruitment seminars, and even the quantum of the fees that Plaintiffs paid will be relevant to establishing individual reliance on the green card promise. But the Court is not persuaded that this case presents a situation like Klay where first-party reliance can be established based solely on this type of evidence. Plaintiffs’ contention in this case is that they were defrauded by a false promise of a green card into joining Dewan’s recruitment program, traveling to the United States to work for Signal under conditions so deplorable that they were violative of the criminal laws of this country, and then duped once again into staying on at Signal based on Signal’s own false representations regarding green cards and permanent employment. Plaintiffs allege injuries arising out of each leg of the fraudulent scheme. But while the circumstantial evidence that Plaintiffs point to for proving first-party reliance might be sufficient to permit a jury to infer that a plaintiff signed up for the program and paid the first installment in reliance on the promise of a green card, it is not necessarily sufficient to carry the entire claim to its conclusion at Signal.
82

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 83 of 100
Each plaintiff who came to the United States had to apply for an H-2B temporary visa in order to enter the country. Some plaintiffs like Dhananjaya had previously worked in the United States under the temporary H-2B guest-worker program and therefore must have understood the temporary nature of the visa. Plaintiffs understood that they could not divulge to consular staff that they were expecting to get green cards or to stay in the United States permanently. Arguably, Plaintiffs had to be willing to misrepresent the truth during those interviews and some presumably did just that. Plaintiffs arrived at Signal in waves and the first group to arrive began protesting immediately about the lack of green cards yet others continued to go to Signal voluntarily on H-2B visas, presumably based on representations made by Signal personal to other class members. Although Plaintiffs maintain that Dewan lied to them about the ramifications of going to Signal on temporary visas, Dewan testified that some of the class members were so adamant about coming to the United States that they were willing to do so even though it might mean not getting a green card. Once arrived at Signal some of the plaintiff class was in Texas and some was in Mississippi, and perhaps subject to differing representations by Signal personnel.
All of these facts, and many others, must be weighed in light of the fact that the plaintiff class as a whole did not
83

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 84 of 100
labor under any specific vulnerabilities when they decided to join the green card program. That’s not to say that they were not the victims of fraud but Plaintiffs are not a class of children or mentally challenged persons. Plaintiffs were adult men, some of whom had worked overseas before and some of whom were well-educated and savvy. All of the Plaintiffs knew that green cards were difficult to get and could only be obtained from the United States government. Plaintiffs were clearly eager to come to the United States–-some individuals tried to obtain employment with Signal even without going through the recruiting scheme. A jury could find, for any given individual plaintiff, that given the nature of green cards, the significant money that Defendants were demanding, and a plaintiff’s own complicity in doing whatever was necessary to enter this country, that the injuries alleged were not proximately caused by Defendants’ conduct. On the other hand, a jury could find, for any given individual plaintiff, that Defendants’ conduct did cause the plaintiff’s injuries. The Court is persuaded that Defendants have the right to test each plaintiff’s claim of reliance to the jury.
None of the foregoing necessarily means that any given plaintiff did not rely on Defendants’ allegedly fraudulent representations when choosing to join the program, travel to the United States, and work for Signal. And the Court is not
84

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 85 of 100
disputing Plaintiffs’ contention that many members of the class faced a Hobson’s choice of either coming to the United States on a temporary H-2B visa or losing all of their money. But it is clear that in order to get from point A, which is joining the recruitment program, to point C, which is staying on as part of Signal’s compliant workforce, far more fraud must have been involved than the class-wide evidence that Plaintiffs point to in this case. In fact, Plaintiffs claim exactly that. Plaintiffs contend that they were lied to about the temporary nature of an H-2B visa and lied to about whether green card processing would continue once they arrived at Signal. But these alleged misrepresentations, which would have been crucial to understanding why Plaintiffs came to Signal, were made individually. And in contrast to the Klay case, which seemingly involved no direct communication of misrepresentations by the defendants to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs in this case had direct contact with the recruiters and the Signal personnel who allegedly lied to them about green cards and permanent residency. Those lies form a crucial part of each plaintiff’s reliance on the fraud at issue in this case.
For the foregoing reasons the Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs cannot prove their § 1962(c) substantive RICO claims without resort to individualized proof in light of the facts of this case. Common issues will not predominate and certification
85

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 86 of 100
under Rule 23(b)(3) is therefore not appropriate.47 The motion to certify is therefore DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
B. Section 1962(d)–-RICO Conspiracy
RICO criminalizes conspiracy to violate any of its substantive provisions. United States v. Delgado, 401 F.3d 290, 296 (2005) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)). In the criminal setting, the government must establish that two or more people agreed to commit a substantive RICO offense, and that the defendant knew of and agreed to the overall objective of the RICO offense. Id. (quoting United States v. Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d 832, 855 (5th Cir. 1998)). The conspirator need not have committed or agreed to commit two predicate acts. Id. (citing Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 61-66 (1997)).
The core of a RICO civil conspiracy is an agreement to commit predicate acts. Abraham, 480 F.3d 351, 357 (5th Cir. 2007). A plaintiff can use § 1962(d) to sue a defendant or coconspirator who might not have violated one of the substantive provisions of § 1962. Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494, 506-07 (2000). But while § 1962(d) criminalizes an illegal agreement, §
47 The Court also notes that some of the injuries/damages that Plaintiffs allege in conjunction with the RICO violations are highly individualized in nature and not subject to formulaic calculation: Assumption of significant interest bearing debt, interest on loans, lost work and professional opportunities, and lost and unpaid wages.
86

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 87 of 100
1964(c) imposes civil liability and therefore asks whether an admittedly illegal agreement gives rise to damages. Beck, 529 U.S. at 507 (Stevens, J., dissenting). In Beck, the Supreme Court held that a civil RICO conspiracy plaintiff cannot establish injury for purposes of § 1962(d) by relying on an overt act that is not unlawful under the RICO statute. Beck, 529 U.S. at 505-06. The injury recoverable for a RICO conspiracy violation must result from either an act of racketeering or conduct otherwise unlawful under the statute. Id. at 507. An agreement alone will not give rise to civil liability under §§ 1962(d) and 1964(c). Id. at 508 n.1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
The implication of the foregoing discussion is clear. Proving the mere existence of a RICO conspiracy might be sufficient to trigger criminal sanctions but it is not sufficient to recover damages in a civil suit. Plaintiffs will have to prove that their injuries were caused by the predicate acts that they have alleged. But as the Court explained in the section discussing RICO liability under § 1962(c), the predicate acts are not amenable to certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because common issues will not predominate. The motion to certify is therefore DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
3. Civil Rights Claims (42 U.S.C. § 1981) The third set of claims that Plaintiffs seek to certify for class-wide treatment are their disparate treatment claims under
87

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 88 of 100
42 U.S.C. § 1981 for discriminatory employment practices. Plaintiffs’ § 1981 claims are brought against defendant Signal. In support of their § 1981 claims, Plaintiffs allege that Signal discriminated against them with respect to the mandatory room and board arrangements at the Signal labor camps, which the nonIndian and/or U.S. citizen employees were not subject to. (SAC ¶ 336, 337). Plaintiffs also allege that Signal discriminated against them with respect to job assignments and other conditions of employment. (Id. at ¶ 378). Plaintiffs allege that Signal maintained an objectively hostile and abusive work environment based on their race, national origin, and/or alienage. (Id. at ¶¶ 339-342). Plaintiffs seek damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.48 (Id. at ¶ 345).
Section 1981, Equal Rights Under the Law, provides:
(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
48 Again, this claim does not include all members of the plaintiff class because it only involves those plaintiffs who actually worked at Signal. See note 7, supra.
88

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 89 of 100
For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
(c) Protection against impairment
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 (West 2003).
Section 1981 provides a federal remedy for workplace discrimination in private employment on the basis of race or ethnicity. See Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454 (1975); St. Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 (1987). To establish a prima facie case under § 1981, a plaintiff must show: 1) that he is a racial minority, 2) that the defendant intended to discriminate against him on the basis of race, and 3) that the discrimination concerns one or more of the activities enumerated in the statute. Wesley v. Gen. Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local 745, -- F.3d --, 2011 WL 4579133, at *2 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011) (citing Felton v. Polles, 315 F.3d 470, 483 (5th Cir. 2002), abrogated on other grounds, Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67 (2006)). Proof of intentional discrimination is essential for relief under § 1981. Id. (citing Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass’n v. Penn., 458 U.S. 375,
89

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 90 of 100
389 (1982)). Plaintiffs argue that their § 1981 claims are amenable to
certification because they are grounded on Signal’s uniform corporate policies toward the putative class. Plaintiffs contend that they will prove their § 1981 claims with generalized proof applicable to the class as a whole--Signal’s executives’ testimony, Signal’s emails, employee writings, etc. According to Plaintiffs, common issues not only predominate the § 1981 claims, they constitute the only issues.
Plaintiffs point out that Signal’s basis for resisting certification of their § 1981 claims is that individualized proof will be necessary to prove subjective harm and mental distress injury. But Plaintiffs contend that this will not be an issue because they will not seek emotional distress injury as part of their claim for compensatory damages. Further, the compensatory damages that they do seek are “refund-type” recovery of the recruitment fees and man camp fees, which are subject to a formulaic calculation. Therefore, according to Plaintiffs, issues pertaining to individual damage awards do not foreclose certification.
In Allison v. Citgo Petoleum Corp., the Fifth Circuit addressed the issue of whether claims of disparate treatment race discrimination were subject to class certification under either Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3). 151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998). The Fifth
90

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 91 of 100
Circuit explained that compensatory damages for intangible injuries are not presumed merely because the plaintiff proves that a statutory violation has occurred. Id. at 416-17. Specific individualized proof is necessary and compensatory damages may be awarded only if the plaintiff submits proof of actual injury. Id. at 417 (citing Patterson v. P.H.P. Healthcare Corp., 90 F.3d 927, 938-40(5th Cir. 1996); Brady v. Fort Bend County, 145 F.3d 691, 717-20 (5th Cir. 1998)). The very nature of compensatory damages for intangible injuries necessarily implicates the subjective differences of each plaintiff’s circumstances so that they constitute an individual, not a classwide remedy. Allison, 151 F.3d at 417. Allison explains why a plaintiff class seeking compensatory damages for a discrimination claim faces great difficulty in obtaining certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because individual issues will typically predominate.
While Plaintiffs are likely correct in their assertion that intentional discrimination by Signal can be proven via classwide, non-individualized evidence, Plaintiffs’ attempt to circumvent the predominance problem surrounding damages is unconvincing for several reasons. Aside from punitive damages, all of the relief that Plaintiffs seek for the § 1981 claims are compensatory in nature. In other words, there are no back pay issues or front pay issues or other remedies that would normally
91

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 92 of 100
pertain to an ongoing employment relationship.49 But compensatory damages arising out of workplace discrimination are not presumed to be owed simply because the plaintiff establishes that the employer maintained a discriminatory work environment. In order to obtain compensatory damages the plaintiff must prove actual injury to himself and that injury must be attributable to (caused by) the defendant’s disparate treatment. Thus, while Plaintiffs have attempted to define their compensatory damage claims in formulaic “refund” terms, it is clear that the significant recruitment fees that they are trying to recoup as compensatory damages–-fees that were paid to third parties before the plaintiffs even arrived at Signal–-are not an element of damages attributable to discrimination at Signal’s facilities. Plaintiffs cannot change the nature of § 1981 recovery by defining their own damages scheme based on what they believe would be a just result under the bigger picture of facts. Plaintiffs are only entitled to recover for those damages that they can prove were caused by Signal’s alleged race discrimination.
Further, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ suggestion that they will forego any type of emotional distress recovery perplexing. The class representatives willingness to forego a claim that
49 None of the members of the plaintiff class remain employed at Signal.
92

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 93 of 100
would preclude certification is not per se invalid but the Court is persuaded that it does create serious concerns for the rights of the plaintiff class. See Colindres v. Quietflex Manuf., 235 F.R.D. 347, 375 (S.D. Tex. 2006). Based on Plaintiffs’ own assertions about employment at Signal, the Court would assume that emotional injury would not be an insignificant part of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs have argued repeatedly about how Signal created a psychologically coercive work environment that basically turned them into modern day slaves. Their entire cause of action under the TVPA was based on conduct supposedly so psychologically coercive as to cause them to render labor involuntarily. Plaintiffs have characterized life at Signal as a “racialized ghetto” where they experienced feelings of isolation and segregation, as “prisoners” in the man camps, subject to abuse, threats, and exploitation. Plaintiffs allege that some class members became physically ill and required hospitalization while living in the man camps. Plaintiffs have pointed to the Black Friday suicide incident as evidence of how emotionally abysmal and untenable the situation at Signal had become for them. Plaintiffs allege that they were subjected to offensive language and threats (SAC ¶ 210) and that they were frightened and confused while at Signal (SAC ¶ 233-35). The Court finds it questionable that this case, which again is a case grounded on claims of psychological coercion and manipulation, can be
93

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 94 of 100
certified for class treatment based on the assertion that the class representatives are not making claims for psychological injury–-an assertion that would eventually bind the entire plaintiff class if the § 1981 were certified. And to the extent that the class representatives are willing to waive emotional damages in this case, this militates against a finding of adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4) for these representatives.
Moreover, Plaintiffs have pled a claim for punitive damages in addition to the compensatory damages that they seek. (SAC ¶ 345). Punitive damages cannot be assessed merely upon a finding that the defendant discriminated against the class and the award is based only in part upon the defendant’s conduct. Allison, 151 F.3d at 417. A punitive damage award turns on the recovery of compensatory damages and must be reasonably related to the plaintiff’s compensatory damage award. Id. at 417-18 (citing Patterson, 90 F.3d at 943-44). Punitive damages are not capable of computation by reference to objective standards. Id. at 418.
Plaintiffs have not suggested that the issues of liability and damages can be severed and tried separately in order to facilitate certification. Of course, bifurcation carries with it the danger of Seventh Amendment problems if a second jury is called upon to reexamine facts and issues addressed by the first jury. Castano, 84 F.3d at 750; Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620, 628 (5th Cir. 1999). The Court is persuaded
94

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 95 of 100
that at the very least the claim for punitive damages would carry the risk of Seventh Amendment problems in a bifurcated scenario. Punitive damages are necessarily based in part upon the evidence used to establish liability because punitive damages are a measure of the reprehensibility of the defendant’s discriminatory conduct. But punitive damages are not appropriate until the plaintiff proves actual harm and compensatory damages and therefore cannot be awarded in the liability phase of a trial.
Finally, even aside from the predominance problem that the damages aspect of the § 1981 claims creates, the most compelling rationale for finding superiority in a class action is not present in this case. Plaintiffs’ § 1981 claims do not present a negative value suit situation in which the paltry award that each plaintiff might recover precludes prosecution of individual claims. See Castano, 84 F.3d at 748. And the potential for recovery of attorney’s fees and punitive damages makes the case even less compelling for finding class action treatment superior to individual trials. See id.
In sum, the Court is persuaded that neither the predominance nor superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied for Plaintiffs’ § 1981 claims. The motion to certify is therefore DENIED as to the § 1981 discrimination claims
4. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and the
95

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 96 of 100
Thirteenth Amendment The last set of claims that Plaintiffs seek to certify for
class-wide treatment are their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Plaintiffs’ § 1985 claims are brought against defendants Signal, Pol, and Dewan. The gist of Plaintiffs’ § 1985 claim is that Defendants conspired to subject Plaintiffs to involuntary servitude based on their race, ethnicity and alienage. (Rec. Doc. 994-1, at 67-68). In support of the § 1985 claim, Plaintiffs allege that Signal, Pol, and Dewan conspired with other non-defendant parties, including Swetman Security and M & M Bank, for the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of equal protection of their rights under the Thirteenth Amendment and its implementing and enforcing statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 and 1590, to be free from forced labor, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons. (SAC ¶ 348). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were motivated by racial, anti-Indian, and/or antiimmigrant animus when they conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights. (Id. ¶ 349). Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered damages as a result and they seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. (Id. ¶¶ 35152).
Section 1985(3), Conspiracy to Interfere With Civil Rights, provides in relevant part:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire 96

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 97 of 100

. . . for the purpose of depriving, either directly or

indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal

protection of the laws, or of equal

privileges and

immunities under the laws;. . . in any case of conspiracy

set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged

therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of

the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured

in his person or property, or deprived of having and

exercising any right or privileg e of a citizen of the

United States, the party so injured or deprived may have

an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such

injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the

conspirators.

42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3) (West 2003).
In order to prove a conspiracy under § 1985(3), a plaintiff must show inter alia 1) that some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus lay behind the conspirators’ action, and 2) that the conspiracy aimed at interfering with rights that are protected against “private as well as official, encroachment.” Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 267-68 (1993) (quoting Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971); Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 833 (1983)). Section 1985(3) provides no substantive rights itself; it merely provides a remedy for violation of the rights it designates. Great Am. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366, 372 (1979).
Conspiracies among private actors (as opposed to state actors) are within the scope of § 1985(3) so long as the right at issue is one guaranteed against private (as opposed to state)

97

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 98 of 100
infringement. Id. (citing Carpenters, 463 U.S. at 833). There are few such rights but the Supreme Court has expressly acknowledged that the right to involuntary servitude, as guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment, is one such right.50 Id. (citing Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 942).
The Thirteenth Amendment states that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1. The primary purpose of the amendment was to abolish the institution of African slavery as it had existed in the United States at the time of the Civil War, although the amendment has not been limited to that application. Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 942. Rather, the Thirteenth Amendment extends to cover “those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which in practical operation would tend to produce like undesirable results.” Id. (quoting Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S.
50 The contours of a § 1985(3) claim are often nebulous in light of the varied jurisprudence addressing the cause of action. This Court is convinced that the “right” to be free from involuntary servitude for purposes of a § 1985(3) claim derives not from §§ 1589 & 1590, as Plaintiffs suggest, but from the Thirteenth Amendment itself otherwise every criminal statute that involves a victim could potentially give rise to a “right.” This would be contrary to the admonition that the Supreme Court has long held since Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971), that § 1985(3) cannot be interpreted in such a way so as to render it “a general federal tort law.” Bray, 506 U.S. at 268 (quoting Griffin, 403 U.S. at 102).
98

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 99 of 100
328, 332 (1916)). The Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs’ § 1985(3) claim
cannot be certified for class treatment. In Kozminski, the Supreme Court discussed the types of coercion that must be shown under the Thirteenth Amendment. Those types of coercion are physical coercion and legal coercion in which the victim is compelled to work by law. Neither type of coercion is at issue in this case. The TVPA, which sought to criminalize involuntary servitude based other forms of coercion, did not change the scope of the Thirteenth Amendment. And even if this Court errs as a matter of law in concluding that Plaintiffs have no “rights” under §§ 1589 and 1590 to vindicate via § 1985(3), see note 50, supra, a claim premised on a violation of §§ 1589 and 1590 is not subject to certification for the same reasons that none of the TVPA claims are certifiable, as explained above. The motion to certify is therefore DENIED as to the § 1985(3) conspiracy claims. IV. CLASS CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 23(b)(2)
For the reasons given on the record in open court on November 10, 2010, the Motions to Certify are DENIED insofar as Plaintiffs seek certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2).
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons; IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Certify Class (Rec. Doc.
99

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1117 Filed 01/04/12 Page 100 of 100
165) and Supplemental Motion to Certify Class (Rec. Doc. 994) filed by plaintiffs Kurian David, et al. is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Evidence Not Within Issues Raised in Plaintiffs’ Pleadings (Rec. Doc. 1012) filed by defendant Signal International, LLC is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 1031) filed by plaintiffs Kurian David, et al. is DENIED AS MOOT;
IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Evidence Not Within Issues Raised in Plaintiffs’ Pleadings (Rec. Doc. 1082) filed by defendant Signal International, LLC. is DENIED.
January 3, 2012 JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
100

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1347 Filed 06/03/13 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal International (Civil Action No. 12-557) (“EEOC”)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is plaintiff Equal Empolyment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”)

“Motion for Protection from Delay of Litigation.1” Plaintiff-intervenors support theEEOC’s

motion.2 Defendant Signal International, LLC(“Signal”) opposes the EEOC’s motion3. For

the reasons set forth below, the EEOC’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

One of the EEOC’s specific prayers for relief in its motion is for an order directing

1 R. Doc. 192. 2 R. Doc. 193. 3 R. Doc. 195.
1

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1347 Filed 06/03/13 Page 2 of 4
Signal to file an answer to the EEOC’s amended complaint within ten days.4 In response, Signal explains that it will file its answer “on or before June 3, 2013.”5 Accordingly, to the extent the EEOC’s motion seeks an order directing Signal to answer the EEOC’s amended complaint within a certain time frame, IT IS ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED tha t Signal shall filed an answer to the EEOC’s amended complaint on or before June 3, 2013.
The Court now turns to the EEOC’s genera l prayer that the Court “i mmediately release [the EEOC matter] from any affiliation with David [v. Signal International, LLC, Civil Action No. 08-1220], and allow [the EEOC] to proceed with Phase I discovery and litigation,” and the following specific prayers:(1) that the Court order Signal to produce the identity of the persons and entities identified in interrogatories propounded on Signal by the EEOC;6 (2) that the Court authorize the EEOC’isssuance of Third-Party Subpoenas; (3) that the Court order the parties to participate in a Rule 26(f) Conference and file a Joint Case Management Order, and to exchange Initial Disclosures no later than 14 days after the Rule 26(f) Conference; and (4) that the Court order that the parties file a Joint Protective Order governing the handling of confidential information.
Judge Zainey denied Signal’s motion to consolidate the EEOC case and the David case while this case was pending before Section “A” of this Court. 7 As a result, while the
4 See R. Doc. 153. 5 R. Doc. 195 at p. 2. 6 See R. Doc. 192-3. 7 R. Doc. 93.
2

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1347 Filed 06/03/13 Page 3 of 4
cases are clearly related, they are not formally consolidated. It is not clear that the EEOC is referring to when it references “affiliation” of this case with the David case. Affiliation is not a term in the Federal Rules, and there is no order in the record affiliating the two cases. Instead, they are “related cases,” and that is how they are designated in the caption. Accordingly, to the extent the EEOC’s motion eseks an order “releasing its lawsuit from any affiliation with David,” IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Court agrees with the EEOC, however, that the EEOC should b e a llowed to proceed with discovery in its case against Signailn an effort to movethe case towards a final resolution. Despite Signal’s arguments to th e contrary, there is no valid reason why the EEOC case should not move forward, and, to accomplish this goal, Signal must engage in meaningful discovery with the EEOC and plaintiff-intervenors.
Accordingly, to the extent the EEOC’s motion seeks an order allowing the EEOC to proceed with discovery, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Specifically, to the extent the EEOC’s motion seeks (1) an order directing Signal to produce to the EEO C, no later than fifteen (15) days after the entry of this Order, the identity of the persons and entities identifiedin the interrogatories propounded on Signal by the EEOC; (2) an order authorizing EEO C's issuance of Third-Party Subpoenas, effective immediately; (3) an order directing the parties to participate in a Rule 26(f) Conference no later than twenty (20) days after the entry of this Order and to exchange Initial Disclosures no later thanfourteen (14) days after the Rule 26(f) Conference; and (4) an order directing the parties to file a Joint Protective Order, or separate proposals if
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1347 Filed 06/03/13 Page 4 of 4
no agreement can be reached, governing the handling of confidential information no later than thirty (30) days after the entry of this Order, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the EEOC’s motion be and hereby is GRANTED.
Finally, the EEOC’s request for an order rqeuiring the parties to develop and submit a joint case ma nagement order is contingent in part upon the Court’s resolution of the EEOC’s pending motion to bifurcate the trial of this matter8. Accordingly, to the extent the EEOC’s motion seeks an order requiring the parties to file a joint case management order, the EEOC’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will deal with the case management order issue in the context of the EEOC’s motion to bifurcate.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _3_rd_ day of June, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Court to Notify: Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles
8 See R. Doc. 141.
4

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: Kurian David et al v. Signal International, LLC et al (Civil Action No. 08-1220) (“David”)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is the David Plaintiffs’ motion to “reconsider in limited part”1 the

Court’s order of June 11, 20132 in which the Court denied defendant Signal International,

LLC’s (“Signal”) motion to sever. 3 For the reasons set forth below, the David Plaintiffs’

motion to reconsider is denied.

BACKGROUND

On March 16, 2012, while the above-captioned cases were pending in Section “A” of

1 R. Doc. 1355. 2 R. Doc. 1349. 3 R. Doc. 1196.
1

this Court, Judge Zainey considered competingcase management proposals after denying the David Plaintiffs’ motion to certifyDavid as a Rule 23 class action. TheDavid Plaintiffs proposed that all twelve named plaintiffs be tried together, while Signal, along with other David defendants, proposed that each plaintiff’s case be tried individually. Judge Zainey determined that the initialDavid trial will involve five of thetwelve named plaintiffs, with three of those plaintiffs picked by theDavid Plaintiffs and two picked by Signal.See David v. Signal Intern., LLC, No. 08-1220, 2013 WL 2631427, at *1& n. 5 (E.D. La. June 11, 2013). After the cases were transferred, this Courtadopted Judge Zainey’s case management plan on June 15, 2012. Id. Signal then moved to sever theDavid Plaintiffs’ cases, again asking that each of theDavid Plaintiffs have a separate trial.Id. The Court denied Signal’s motion to sever, noting that it was essentially a motion to reconsider Judge Zainey’s prior ruling and that “[b]oth Judge Zainey and this Co urt ha ve a lready evaluated this case and determined that it will proceed under one case number with twelve named plaintiffs, and that the first trial in this matter will have five named plaintiffs; three chosen by plaintiffs and two chosen by defendants.” Id. at *3.
Fresh on the heels of the Coutr’s denial of Signal’s request for reconsideration (under the guise of a motion to sever), the David Plaintiffs are now seeking reconsideration of Judge Zainey’s case management plan. The David Plaintiffs ask the Co urt to reconsider Judge Zainey’s March 16, 2012 decision to allow Signal to pick two of the plaintiffs for the first David trial and this Court’s adoption of that plan in June 2012 and reaffirmation of that plan in June 2013. The David Plaintiffs argue that reconsideration of that decision is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. In response, 4 Signal argues that the David
4 See R. Doc. 1358.
2

Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider is untimely and that allowing Signal to pick two of the plaintiffs in the first David trial will not result in manifest injustice.
STANDARD OF LAW A timely filed motion to reconsider an interlocutory order is evaluated under the same standard as a motion to alter or amen d a final judgment brought pursua nt to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce dure. See, e.g. Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 142 4398, at * 3–4 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010) (“The general practice of thi s court has been to evaluate motions to reconsider interlocutory orders under the same standards that govern Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend a final judgment.”). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). A motion to reconsider filed outside thi s 28-day window is evaluated under the standards governing a motion for relief from final judgment under Rule 60(b). Stangel v. United States, 68 F.3d 857, 859 (5th Cir. 1995) (“[a]lthough motions for reconsideration or rehearing are typi cally tr eated as F ED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) motions, motions for reconsideration or rehear ing served more than [28] days after the judgment are generally decided under Rule 60(b)”);see also Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2 012) (depending on the time of filing, a motion to reconsider “is evaluated either asa motion to ‘alter or amend a judgment’ under Rule 59(e) or as a motion for ‘relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding’ under Rule60(b)”). A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the corre ctness of a judgment. In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002). “A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered e vidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which
3

could, and should, have been made before th e judgment issued.” Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotations omitted). In deciding motions under Rule 59(e), the Court considers the following:
(1) whether t he m ovant d emonstrates the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;
(2) whether the movant presents new evidence; (3) whether the motion is necessary in ord er t o prevent
manifest injustice; and (4) whether the motion is justified by an interveningchange
in the controlling law. Castrillo, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4. “A Rule 59(e) motion should not be used to relitigate prior matters that should have been urged earlier or that simply have been resolved to the movant's dissatisfaction.” SPE FO Holdings, LLC v. Retif Oil & Fuel, LLC, No. 07–3779, 2008 WL 3285907, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 6, 2008). “A district court has considerable discretion to grant or deny a motoin for new trial under Rule 59.”Kelly v. Bayou Fleet, Inc,. No. 06–6871, 2007 WL 3275200, at *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2007).
A Rule 60(b) motion also calls into question the correctness of a judgment. Under Rule 60(b), the Court may “reileve a party from a final judgment” for one of six enumerated reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered eviden ce that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been di scovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing paryt;
4

(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisifed, released ordischarged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no l onger equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). The district court enjoys broad discretion in assessing whether any of these reasons are present in a given caseT. eal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 1991). All Rule 60(b) motions must be brought within a “reasonable time ” a fter judgment, and motions brought pursuant Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3) must be brought within one year of the judgment or order. F ED. R. CIV. P. 60(c); see also Steverson v. GlobalSantaFe Corp., 508 F.3d 300, 305 (5th Cir. 2007).
ANALYSIS The David P laintiffs’ motion to reconsider, while purporting to seek timely reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of the Court’s June 11, 2013 order regarding Signal’s motion to sever, appears in actuality to seek reconsideration of a decision made by Judge Zainey in March 2012, which motion would properly be governed by Rule 60(b). Indeed, several of the arguments raised in the instant motion to reconsider were rai sed by the David Plaintiffs in their proposed case management submission to Judge Zainey last year. The Court need not dwell on this timing issue, however, because theDavid Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that reconsideration of Judge Zainey’s case management plan is appropriate under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Case management decisions rest squarely within the discretion of the district cour.t See, e.g., Ctr. for Biological Diversity, Inc.v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 704 F.3d 413, 432 (5th Cir.
5

2013). In fact, in the only case cited by the David Plaintiffs on this issue, In re Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 109 F.3d 1016 (5th Cir. 1997), the Fifth Circuit stated that while it did not necessarily approve of the district court’s csae management plan, it was nevertheless loathe to disturb the district court’s discretionary determination as to an appropr iate case management plan and the appropriate procedure for and use of an initial trial involving only the claims of a sampling ofplaintiffs from a larger group.Id. at 1018. The Fifth Circuit went on to caution, however, that “before a tiral court may utilize results from a bellwether trial for a purpose that extends beyond the individual cases tried, it must, prior to any extrapolation, find that the c ases tried are representative of the larger group of cases or claims from which they are selected.” Id. at 1020.
The first trial in this case, while it will have obvious ramifications for the case as a whole, is not a “bellwether” trial. The Court does not intend the results of the first trial in this case to be extrapolated to later trials. Nor does the Court intend the jury’s findings as to the plaintiffs in the first trial to apply to anyone but thoseparticular plaintiffs. The Court also notes that n either the David Plaintiffs nor Signal intend for the first trial to have a binding effect on the later trials or for the results of the first trial to be extrapolated in any way. The Fifth Circuit’s cautionary statements about the preclusive effect of bellwether trials does not control the Court’s discretionary case management decisions in this case.
Not only is the David Plaintiffs’ attempt to relitigate this issue by way of motion to reconsider inappropriate, they also have not established that Judge Zainey’s case management plan will result in manifest injustice. The Court, in its discretion, denies the David Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the David Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider be
6

and hereby is DENIED. Judge Zainey’s case managementplan remains in effect, as does this Court’s ruling on Signal’s motion to sever.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this1_5_th_ day of July, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Court to Notify: Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles
7

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies To: David et al. v. Signal International et al. (08-1220)

ORDER Before the Court is plaintiffs’ objection 1 to Judge Knowles’ June 19, 2013 order2

granting defendant Signal International LLC’s(“Signal”) motion for protective order.3 For

the reasons set forth below, plainitffs’ objection is overruled. The June 19 Order is clarified

in part and, as clarified, the June 19 Order is affirmed.

Signal’s motion for protective order sought, inter alia , to avo id reproducing

documents to plaintiffs in native format whenit already has produced those documents, at

great expense, in non-native format. In opposition to the motion for prote ctive order,

1 R. Doc. 1357. 2 R. Doc. 1352. For ease of reference, the Court refers to this order as the “June 19 Order.” 3 R. Doc. 1305.
1

plaintiffs argued that, while they previouslyrequested those documents in their non-native format, the documents produced by Signal in response to those previous requests are not reasonably usable now that this case has shi fted from the class certifica tion stage to the merits stage.4 Judge Knowles granted Signal’s motion for protective order in its entirety, citing the burden on Signal if it were required to reproduce the documents in their native format after having been previously requested in non-native format and complying with that request.
The objection now before the Court attacks one specific aspect of the June 19 Order: that it allows Signal to avoid reproduction of documents relating to plaintiffs’ wages and boarding deductions. Plaintiffs argue the June 19 Order is contrary to law with respect to these particular documents as they do not comply with Federal Ruleof Civil Procedure 34’s requirement that electronically stored information be produced in a “usable form.” In response, Signal reiterates it produced the documents in non-native format because they were requested in that format. Signal arguesthe June 19 Order was neither contrary to law nor clearly erroneous, given the circumstances.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.2, nondispositive pretrial matters decided by a magistrate judge may be appealed to the district judge. The order of a magistrate judge may bereversed only “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erro neous or contrary t o l aw.” 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); LR 72.2.
To the extent the June 19 Order allows Si gnal to avoid producing the subject
4 On January 4, 2012, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was denied. R. Doc. 1117. On June 15, 2012, the Court ordered merits discovery to begin on August 15, 2012. R. Doc. 1275.
2

documents to plaintiffs at Signa’ls cost, the order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Thus, the order is affirmed and plaintiffs’ objections are overruled.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDEREDthat plaintiffs’ objection to the June 19 Order be and hereby isOVERRULED, insofar as the order allows Signal to avoid reproducing wage and boarding documents in native format at Signal’s cost.
It is not clear tha t the J une 19 Order would foreclose plaintiffs from seeking production of the subject documents at their own cost. The June 19 Order is not explicit on this point, but because the order grante d Signal’s motion for protective order in its entirety, and because that protective order iswritten to allow Signalto avoid all production of the subject documents in their native format, regardless of which party bears the cost of that production, the Court finds it necessary toclarify the June 19 Order, and the resulting protective order, in a way that does not forecolse the possibility of plaintiffs’ requesting the subject documents through discovery, providedplaintiffs are willing to bear the reasonable cost of their request. While the Court a grees with Judge Knowles that forcing Signal to reproduce the subject documents in their nativeformat will be necessarily cumulative and duplicative, Signal’s main concern is the cost of such reproduction. That concern will be alleviated if Signal did not haveto bear the cost of the reprodutcion. To be sure, such a task would be time consuming and inconvenient, but if plaintiffs bear the reasonable costs of their request, the burden of having to produce the documents in native format would no longer outweigh the potential benefits.
Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the June 19 Order be and hereby is CLARIFIED to provide that plaintiffs are not foreclosed from requesting production of wage and boarding documents, in the documents’ native format, so long as plaintiffs bear
3

the reasonable cost of such production. Likewis,ethe protective order is clarified to provide that Signal is not permitted to avoid prod uction of na tive-format wage and boarding documents, so long as plaintiffs bear the reasonable cost of such production.5
IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat the June 19 Order, asclarified by the preceding paragraph, be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _7_th_ day of August, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 The Court also reiterates Judge Knowles’ statement that plaintiffs are free to propound interrogatories on Signal relating to any metadata scrubbed from the subject documents when the documents were converted from native to non-native format. See R. Doc. 1352 at p. 7.
4

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal International (Civil Action No. 12-557) (“EEOC”)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Co urt is plaintiff Equal Em ployment Opportunity Commission’s (“the

EEOC” or “the Commission”) “Motion to Bifurcate Trial and Discover y.”1 P laintiff-

intervenors ("the Intervenors") support the EEOC’s motion.

2 Defendant Sig nal

International, LLC (“Signal”) opposes the EEOC’s motion3. The EEOC has also filed a reply

in further support of its motion to bifurcate4 and a notice of supplemental authority.5 For

1 R. Doc. 141. 2 R. Doc. 149. 3 R. Doc. 150. 4 R. Doc. 160. 5 R. Doc. 183.
1

the reasons set forth below, the EEOC’s motion to bifurcate is granted in part and denied in part.
I. THE EEOC'S CLAIMS The EEOC asserts four bases for its claims for relief against Signal in this case:6
(1) that Signal “created and perpetuated a hostile work environment,”in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a);
(2) that Signal subjected certain employees to terms and conditions of employment that were less favorabel than enjoyed by other employees, in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a);
(3) that Signal retaliate d agai nst specific employees who complained about Signal’s employment practices, in violation of § 704(a) of Title VII, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); and
(4) that Signal “engaged in a pattern or practice of subjecting its Indian Employees to a host ile environment and disparate terms and conditions of employment based on their race and national origin,” in violation of § 706(f)(1), § 706(f)(3), and § 707 of Title VII, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, respectively.
II. BIFURCATION GENERALLY
6 See R. Doc. 153 (the EEOC’s amended complaint). While this amended complaint was filed after the motion to bifurcate now before the Court, the amendments were, in large part, technical, and have no substantive effect on the Court’s resolution of the motion to bifurcate. Indeed, in the motion to bifurcate, the EEOC noted the amendment to correct a citation. See R. Doc. 141-1 at p. 6 n. 4.
2

Federal Rule of Civil Proce dure 42(b) provides that “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, thecourt may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.” FED. R. CIV. P. 42(b). The decision to bifurcate pursuant to this rule is left to the discretion of the district court. See, e.g., Malin Intern. Ship Repair and Drydock, Inc. v. Veolia Es Special Servs., Inc., 369 F. App’x 553, 555 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).
III. PHASE I The Court agrees that bifurcation of the case for discovery and trial is appropriate with respect to the EEOC's pattern or practiceclaim for disparate treatment as bifurcation will aid in the swift and efficient resolution ofthese claims. The Court declines to bifurcate the EEOC's pattern or practice hostile work environment claim because of the sub jective nature of the proof required. See EEOC v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. of Am. , 990 F. Supp. 1059, 1078-79 (C.D. Ill. 1998);Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Company, 824 F. Supp. 847, 875 (D. Minn. 1993); EEOC v. JBS United States, LLC, 2011 LEXIS 87127, at *17 (D. Colo. Aug. 8, 2011). Liability and injunctive relief under th e EEOC's pattern or practice claim for disparate treatment to be litigated in Phaes I will proceed under the framework the United States Supreme Court delineated in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1997). Should the trier o f fact fin d liability regarding the EEOC's pattern or practice claim in Phase I, appropraite prospective injunctive relief will be decided by the Court. Post-trial briefing concerningthe appropriateness and type of injunctive and equitable relief will be allowed. IV. Phase II
3

The remaining claims asserted by the EEOC and all claims asserted by the
Intervenors will be tried in Phase II, including punitive damages. The Supreme Court has
made it clear that any punitive damages determination must be "reasonable and
proportionate" to the amount of actual (i.e. compensatory) damages. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 426 (2003). Further, it would be unfair to ask
a jury to determine punitive damages against an employer without determining how many
individual employees were actually negative ly impacted by the alleged discriminatory
conduct. See Phillip Morris USA v. Williams , 549 U.S. 346, 354 (2007). The EEOC's
proposal that the jury in Phase I determine punitive damages runs afoul of the principles
articulated in bothState Farm andPhilip Morris. This Court must follow the Fifth Circuit's
reasoning in Allison v. Citgo , 151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998), which rejected the idea that
punitive damages should be assessed on a classw- ide basis at the conclusion of the liability
phase:
Punitive damages cannot be assessed merely upon a finding that the defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination. Such a finding establishes only that there has been general harm to the group and that injunctive relief is appropriate.See Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 266 (1989) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the ju dgment). Actual liability to individual class members, and their entitlement to moneta ry relief, are not determined untilthe second stage of the trial.See id.; Dillon v. Coles, 746 F.2d 998, 1004 (3d Cir. 1984). And because punitive damages must be reasonably related to the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct and to the compensatory damages awa rded to the plaintiffs, recovery of punitive damages must necessa rily turn on the recovery of compensatory damages.
Id. at 417.
Handling punitive damages in Phase II will allow the jury to make the fact-specific
determinations necessary for each claimant.See EEOC v. Int'l Profit Assocs., 2007 LEXIS
4

78378 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2007). V. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the EEOC’s motion to bifurcate be and hereby
is GRANTED IN PART but DENIED to the extent it seeks a determination of its hostile work environment pattern or practice claim and its punitive damages claim in Phase I.
In a previous motion, the EEOC requested anorder requiring the parties to develop and submit a joint case management order in this case. 7 Because that request was contingent in part upon the Court’s resolution of the instant motion to bifurcate the trial of this matter, the Court denied the EEOC’s reqeust and informed the parties that this issue would be revisited when the Court resolved the motion to bifurcate.8
The Court notes there is a pending motionfor partial dismissal filed by Signal.9 That motion rela tes o nly to the recruitment clai m filed by the Intervenors and the motion's resolution, even if granted, will not defeat alcllaims filed by the Intervenors. The pendency of this claim does not affect the parti es' ability to craft a case management order with respect to all other claims.
The Court order s the EEOC to submit a proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order ("DPCMO"), and a memorandum in support of its proposal, for Phase I and Phase II within fourteen (14) days of this Order. The DPCMO shall cover all topics necessary for the orderly preparation for and tiral of Phase I and Phaes II, including but not limited to the following topics: the discovery tobe taken in each phase, including any issues
7 R. Doc. 192. 8 R. Doc. 198. 9See R. Doc. 184 (motion to dismiss).
5

regarding discovery of electronicallystored information and coordination of discovery with the David case; the claims to be tried in each phase (in accordance with this Order), with statutory citations for the basis for each claim; the identities of the claimant(s) for each claim in each phase; the elements of, and the burden of proof to be applied to, each claim in each phase;10 the presumptions or inferences resulting from any previous findings; the affirmative defenses available with respect to each claim in each phas e; the effect of any pattern or practice finding in Phase I on individual claims in Phase II; the relief requested for each claim in each phase; the time needed for trial of each phase; and suggested dates for the pre-trial conference and trial of each phase. The EEOC is instructed to confer with the Intervenors and Signal in an attempt to resolve as many issues regarding the DPCMO as possible prior to the filing of the EEOC's porposed DPCMO. In the event that agreement is not reached on all issue s, Signal and the In tervenors shall file their objections to the proposed DPCMO, and supporting memorand um, and their counter-proposals, withi n seven (7) days of the filing of the EEOC proposal.
After consideration of the parties' proposals and memoranda, the Court will enter a DPCMO for Phase I and Phase II. The Court ismindful of the fact that adjustments will likely be necessary as the case progresse s but fi nds it desirable for the orderly administration of this case for a DPCMO to be entered at this time.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1_9_th_ day of August, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10The EEOC has stipulated that its pattern or practice claims are to be decided within the framework the United States Supreme Court delineated in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1997).
6

Court to Notify: Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles
7

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 1 of 129

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, SONY VASUDEVAN SULEKHA, PALANYANDI THANGAMANI, MURUGANANTHAM KANDHASAMY, HEMANT KHUTTAN, PADAVEETTIYIL ISAAC ANDREWS, KECHURU DHANANJAYA, SABULAL VIJAYAN, KRISHAN KUMAR, JACOB JOSEPH KADAKKARAPPALLY, KULDEEP SINGH, and THANASEKAR CHELLAPPAN, individually and for FLSA claims, on behalf of similarly-situated individuals

CIVIL ACTION No. 08-1220-SM-DEK SECTION “E”

Plaintiffs,

-against-

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL TEXAS GP, LLC, SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, L.P., MALVERN C. BURNETT, GULF COAST IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER, L.L.C., LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C. BURNETT, A.P.C., INDO-AMERI SOFT L.L.C., KURELLA RAO, J & M ASSOCIATES, INC. OF MISSISSIPPI, BILLY R. WILKS, J & M MARINE & INDUSTRIAL, LLC, GLOBAL RESOURCES, INC., MICHAEL POL, SACHIN DEWAN, and DEWAN CONSULSTANTS PVT. LTD (a/k/a MEDTECH CONSULTANTS).

Defendants.

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 2 of 129

Related Case:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiffs,
and
SABULAL VIJAYAN, et al. PlaintiffsIntervenors
-against-
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant.
Related Case:
LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al. Plaintiffs,
-against-
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION No. 12-557-SM-DEK SECTION “E”
CIVIL ACTION No. 13-6218-SM-DEK (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14472) SECTION “E”

Applies To: David, No. 08-1220

SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers, approximately 590 Indian men, were trafficked into the United States through the federal government’s H-2B guestworker program to provide labor and services to Defendants Signal International L.L.C., Signal International Texas GP, LLC and Signal International Texas, L.P. (Refeference to “Signal” throughout this Complaint includes these three entities as well as their corporate parent, Signal International, Inc.). Recruited to perform welding, pipefitting, and other marine fabrication work, Plaintiffs were
2

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 3 of 129
subjected to forced labor and other serious abuses at Signal operations in Pascagoula, Mississippi and Orange, Texas.
2. Plaintiffs bring this action to recover for damages inflicted by Defendants Signal, J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi (“J&M”), Indo Ameri-Soft, LLC (“IAS”) and these employers’ recruiters, agents, alter egos, and successors operating in India, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Defendants have collectively exploited and defrauded Plaintiffs by fraudulently recruiting them to work in the United States and effectuating a broad scheme of psychological coercion, threats of serious harm and physical restraint, and threatened abuse of the legal process to maintain control over Plaintiffs.
3. Lured by Defendants’ fraudulent promises of legal and permanent workbased immigration to the United States for themselves and their families, Plaintiffs plunged themselves and their families into debt and/or sold or pawned property to take advantage of these seemingly promising opportunities. Plaintiffs undertook these transactions to pay mandatory recruitment, immigration processing, and travel fees charged by Defendants totaling as much as $11,000 – $25,000 per worker. Trusting in the veracity of the immigration and work benefits promised by Defendants, Plaintiffs further relinquished stable employment opportunities in India and as guestworkers in the Persian Gulf and other locations.
4. Defendants and their agents threatened, coerced, and defrauded Plaintiffs into paying extraordinary fees for recruitment, immigration processing, and travel, including by Dewan Consultants holding Plaintiffs’ passports and visas. Defendants breached agreements with Plaintiffs that had promised green cards and under which Plaintiffs had performed. Signal and its agents further caused Plaintiffs to believe that if
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 4 of 129
they did not work for Signal under the auspices of temporary, Signal-restricted H-2B guestworker visas, they would suffer abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process, physical restraint, and/or other serious harm.
5. The false promises, collection of exorbitant recruiting fees, and strong-arm tactics of Defendants and/or their agents were, upon information and belief, authorized by Defendants Signal, J&M, and IAS. In any event, while there is evidence that Defendant Signal was aware of the false promises from the start of its relationship with the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants, there can be no doubt that Defendant Signal learned these facts in detail from the very first Indian H-2B workers who arrived at Signal’s facilities in the United States as early as late October 2006. Far from taking any corrective measures, Defendant Signal ratified and perpetuated the scheme by continuing to facilitate the transportation of further waves of Indian H-2B workers, including Plaintiffs herein, from November 2006 through April 2007.
6. Upon Plaintiffs’ arrival in the United States, Defendant Signal required them to live in guarded, overcrowded, and isolated labor camps. Signal and its agents further deceived Plaintiffs regarding their visa status, threatened Plaintiffs with 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.
7. On March 9, 2007, Defendant Signal, using private security guards, attempted to forcibly and unlawfully deport Plaintiffs Sabulal Vijayan and Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally in retaliation for speaking out against discriminatory and abusive conditions in Signal’s labor camp in Pascagoula, Mississippi and for seeking counsel to
4

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 5 of 129
understand their legal rights. Signal similarly attempted to forcibly and unlawfully deport Plaintiffs Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, and Krishan Kumar.
8. Terrified by the threat of imminent deportation, the security guards pursuing him and the other security guards detaining his fellow Indian workers, Plaintiff Vijayan attempted suicide and had to be taken to a local hospital. During the same morning, Signal personnel and security guards successfully forced Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally, Chellappan, and Kumar into a trailer under guard. There, Signal detained Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally, Chellappan, and Kumar for several hours without food or water or bathroom facilities. Amidst the chaos of the pre-dawn raid, Plaintiff Singh hid and subsequently escaped from the Signal labor camp.
9. Having witnessed and/or heard of the events of March 9, 2007, the remaining Plaintiffs at Signal’s operations in Mississippi and Texas reasonably feared that they would suffer serious harm, physical restraint, and/or abuse of legal process if they were to leave Signal’s employ. Deeply indebted, fearful, isolated, disoriented, and unfamiliar with their rights under United States law, these workers felt compelled to continue working for Signal.
10. Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants arising from violations of their rights under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (“TVPA”); 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); collective action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”); and claims for damages arising from fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Plaintiffs Sabulal Vijayan and Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally bring individual claims arising from retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981). Plaintiffs
5

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 6 of 129
Sabulal Vijayan, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Krishan Kumar, and Thanasekar Chellappan also bring individual claims based on violations of, and attempted violations of, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1985), false imprisonment, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. 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), 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights), and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (FLSA). 12. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ causes of action based on the laws of U.S. states and foreign states pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as these claims arise out of the same nucleus of facts which support the federal claims. 13. Venue in the Eastern District of Louisiana is proper under 18 U.S.C. § 1965 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in that various Defendants and/or agents of Defendants, including Malvern C. Burnett, the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center L.L.C., Kurella Rao, and Indo-Amerisoft, L.L.C., resided and/or may be found in New Orleans during the relevant time periods.
PARTIES Plaintiffs 14. Plaintiffs are Indian nationals and former H-2B guestworkers who were recruited from India and/or the United Arab Emirates by Defendants at various times between 2003 and 2007. 15. Plaintiffs are of South Asian Indian descent and are Indian nationals.
6

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 7 of 129
16. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were “persons” within the meaning of that term as defined by RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3).
17. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were employed by Signal as defined by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).
18. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were engaged in interstate commerce and/or in the production of goods for sale in interstate commerce.
19. Plaintiff Kechuru Dhananjaya was recruited in 2003 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2007, Dhananjaya worked at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility.
20. Plaintiff Andrews Issac Padavettiyil was recruited in 2004 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2006, Padavettiyil worked at Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.
21. Plaintiff Kurian David was recruited in 2006 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2007, David worked at Signal’s Orange, Texas and Pascagoula, Mississippi facilities.
22. Plaintiff Sony Vasudevan Sulekha was recruited in 2006 from India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2006, Sulekha worked at Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.
23. Plaintiff Muruganantham Kandhasamy was recruited in 2006 from India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2007, Kandhasamy worked at Signal’s Orange, Texas and Pascagoula, Mississippi facilities.
24. Plaintiff Palanyandi Thangamani was recruited in 2006 from India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2006, Thangamani worked at Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.
7

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 8 of 129
25. Plaintiff Hemant Khuttan was recruited in 2006 from India for work in the United States. After arriving in the United States in 2007, Khuttan worked at Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.
26. Plaintiff Sabulal Vijayan was recruited beginning in late 2003 from the United Arab Emirates and India for work in the United States. Vijayan worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from late 2006 until Signal terminated his employment on March 9, 2007.
27. Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally was recruited beginning in late 2003 from India and Saudi Arabia for work in the United States. Kadakkarappally worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from late 2006 until Signal terminated his employment on March 9, 2007.
28. Plaintiff Thanasekar Chellappan was recruited beginning in 2006 from India for work in the United States. Chellappan worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from early 2007 until Signal terminated his employment on March 9, 2007.
29. Plaintiff Kuldeep Singh was recruited beginning in 2006 from India for work in the United States. Singh worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from early 2007 until Signal terminated his employment on March 9, 2007.
30. Plaintiff Krishan Kumar was recruited beginning in 2006 from India for work in the United States. Kumar worked for Defendant Signal in Pascagoula, Mississippi from early 2007 until Signal terminated his employment on March 9, 2007.
8

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 9 of 129
Defendants The Employer Defendant 31. Defendants Signal International, L.L.C., Signal International Texas GP, LLC, and Signal International Texas, L.P. are corporate entities organized under the laws of Delaware, whose global parent, Signal International, Inc., is organized under the laws of Delaware and provides marine and fabrication services in the Gulf Coast region, with operations in Orange, Texas; Pascagoula, Mississippi; and Mobile, Alabama (collectively, these four entities are referred to as “Signal”). At all relevant times, Signal’s decision-making headquarters was located in Pascagoula, Mississippi.
Recruiter Defendants 32. Defendant Global Resources, Inc. (“Global”) is or was a corporation organized under the laws of Mississippi and engaged in the business of recruiting workers from India for employment in the United States. 1 At all relevant times, Global Resources conducted the recruiting in question from an office located in Mississippi. 33. 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. 34. Dewan Consultants’ decision making headquarters is located in Mumbai, India.
1 Claims against Michael Pol, the President of Recruiter Defendant Global Resources, have been stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Sixth Amended Complaint if and when the stay is lifted.
9

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 10 of 129
35. Defendant Sachin Dewan (“Dewan”) is the Director of Dewan Consultants. Dewan resides in India and is a citizen of India.
36. Upon information and belief, Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants have authorized and utilized Defendant Global and the Legal Facilitator Defendants described below, to act as their United States-based operations and/or agents.
37. Upon information and belief, Defendants Global and the Legal Facilitator Defendants described below, have authorized and utilized Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants to act as their India and United Arab Emirates based operations and/or agents.
38. Upon information and belief, Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, and Global, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants described below, acted as a joint venture with respect to the recruitment, contracting, and provision of Plaintiffs for labor or services except for with regard to recruitment by Defendants Indo-Amerisoft and Rao prior to mid-2006. Prior to approximately mid-2006, on information and belief, Global was not involved in the recruitment conducted by Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants on behalf of Indo-Amerisoft and Rao
39. Defendant Global Resources, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants described below, 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 Resources has shared offices with Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants in India and the United Arab Emirates.
40. Upon information and belief, Defendants Dewan and Dewan Consultants have utilized Defendants Global Resources and the Legal Facilitator Defendants
10

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 11 of 129
described below, to conduct and effectuate their shared business interests and activities in the United States.
41. Defendant Global conducted its business almost entirely in United States dollars. Nearly every payment made to Defendant Global described herein was by cashier’s check drawn on United States banks and deposited in United States bank accounts.
42. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, and Global collectively as “Recruiter Defendants.”
Legal Facilitator Defendants 43. Defendant Malvern C. Burnett (“Burnett”) is an attorney who resides in and maintains offices in New Orleans, Louisiana and Ocean Springs, Mississippi. 44. 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 its sole registered agent, member, and/or corporate officer. 45. 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. 46. Upon information and belief, Defendants Burnett, GCILC, and Burnett Law Offices are engaged in a joint venture and/or are alter egos in that all entities have the same corporate mailing address, intermingle business assets, fail to operate at arms’ length, and Defendant Burnett serves as the registered agent and sole member and/or corporate officers for GCLIC and Burnett Law Offices.
11

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 12 of 129
47. 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.
48. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Defendants Burnett, GCILC, and Burnett Law Offices collectively as “Legal Facilitator Defendants.”
49. The Legal Facilitator Defendants engaged in a joint venture with Defendants 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.
50. The Legal Facilitator Defendants conducted their business almost entirely in United States dollars. Nearly every payment made to the Legal Facilitator Defendants described herein was by cashier’s check drawn on United States banks and deposited in United States bank accounts.
Labor Broker Defendants 51. Defendant Indo-Amerisoft, L.L.C., (“Indo-Amerisoft”)2 a corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana and headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana, at all relevant times was 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.
2 Plaintiffs’ claims against Indo-Amerisoft are stayed pending the outcome of its bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek to pursue those claims if and when the stay is lifted. Therefore, all factual assertions made herein regarding Indo-Amerisoft are included only in support of allegations against Defendants other than Indo-Amerisoft.
12

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 13 of 129
52. At all relevant times, Defendant Kurella Rao (“Rao”)3 was the Chairman and Director of Indo-Amerisoft, L.L.C., and maintained offices in the New Orleans, Louisiana metropolitan area. Rao has or had, at the relevant times, business contacts in the New Orleans, Louisiana area.
53. Defendants Indo-Amerisoft and Rao conducted their business almost entirely in United States dollars. Nearly every payment made to Defendants IndoAmerisoft and Rao described herein was by cashier’s check drawn on United States banks and deposited in United States bank accounts.
54. Defendant J & M Associates of Mississippi, Inc. (“J & M”), a corporation organized under the laws of Mississippi, 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. At all relevant times, J & M operated its labor brokerage services from its headquarters in Mississippi.
55. Defendant Billy R. Wilks (“Wilks”) was the founder and general manager of J & M and currently acts as a consultant for the company. Wilks is personally liable for the conduct of J & M as discovery subsequent to the filing of the First Amended Complaint, and outlined in paragraphs 55-68 below, 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. At all relevant times, Wilks lived in Moss Point, Mississippi.
3 Plaintiffs’ claims against Rao are stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek to pursue those claims if and when the stay is lifted. Therefore, all factual assertions made herein regarding Rao are included only in support of allegations against Defendants other than Rao.
13

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 14 of 129
56. 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, even though Wilks’ sons also participated substantially in the conduct of the company.
57. At some point prior to 2007, J & M was sued in unrelated litigation. In response to that lawsuit, Wilks set up a new corporation domiciled and incorporated in Mississippi – 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.
58. 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.
59. 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. Additionally, Wilks, in yet another indication of
14

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 15 of 129
the absence of corporate formalities between him and J & M, has represented to this Court that he intends to borrow money so that he is able to personally fund J & M’s legal defense.
60. A “Notice to Dissolve/Revoke” with respect to J & M was filed with Mississippi Secretary of State on or about September 12, 2010, and J & M was administratively dissolved on or about December 7, 2012, according to the Mississippi Secretary of State’s Business Services website.
61. 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 that he did everything for the company. Indeed prior to incorporating J & M in 1996, Wilks was doing exactly the same work, as the 100% owner, under a “doing/business/as” rubric. Once Wilks incorporated 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.
62. Defendant J & M Marine, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Mississippi, is engaged in the business of recruiting and providing labor to United States companies. As discovery subsequent to the filing of the First Amended Complaint demonstrates, and as outlined in paragraphs 62-68 here below, J & M Marine is a mere continuation of J & M with no substantial difference in management, personnel, and corporate purpose. As the successor corporation to J & M, it is therefore liable for any judgment entered against J & M.
63. The primary reason that J & M Marine came into existence is because Wilks’s other entity, J & M, was being sued. To evade that litigation Wilks created J & M Marine in 2006.
15

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 16 of 129
64. 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.
65. Both J & M and J & M Marine clearly share the same initials, which reference the same individuals: John and Michael Wilks.
66. 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) 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.
67. More importantly, with respect to the “asset” crossover between the two companies, Defendant Wilks moved the recruited laborers from J & M, who they contracted with, over to J & M Marine. In other words, the very revenue source of J & M became the revenue for J & M Marine.
68. In bringing the candidates over to J & M Marine, after they had signed agreements with J & M, Defendant Wilks was unequivocally holding J & M Marine out, at the very least to Plaintiffs Padavettiyil and Kadakkarappally, as the successor company of J & M. Further, this transition of recruited laborers, 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.
16

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 17 of 129
69. Throughout this Complaint, Plaintiffs refer to Defendants Indo-Amerisoft, Rao, J & M, Wilks and J & M Marine collectively as “Labor Broker Defendants.”
All Defendants 70. At all relevant times, Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, Global, Burnett, Burnett Law Offices and GCILC acted as agents of Defendants Signal, J & M, Indo-Amerisoft and/or Rao for the purposes of recruiting, obtaining, contracting, transportation and/or providing Plaintiffs for labor or services (except that Global did not recruit for Indo-Amerisoft or Rao). 71. Individually and through their agents, associates, attorneys, and/or employees, all Defendants have contacts with New Orleans, Louisiana. 72. At all relevant times, Defendants were “persons” within that term as defined by RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3). 73. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been engaged in contacts with Plaintiffs, including recruiting, obtaining, labor contracting, providing immigrationrelated services to, transporting, harboring, providing and/or employing Plaintiffs. 74. At all relevant times, Defendants operated enterprises engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce. 75. At all relevant times, Defendant Signal employed Plaintiffs for the purposes of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203.
FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 76. All claims set forth in the Seventh Claim for Relief are brought against Defendant Signal by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons pursuant to the collective action provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA.
17

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 18 of 129
77. Plaintiffs seek to represent a FLSA class consisting of all Indian H-2B workers employed by Defendant Signal at its Orange, Texas and Pascagoula, Mississippi facilities at any time from October 1, 2006 to January 2009.
78. The proposed FLSA class members are similarly situated in that they have been subject to uniform practices by Defendant Signal which violated the FLSA, including:
a. Signal’s systematic unlawful payroll deductions for room and board and work-related tools;
b. Signal’s workforce-wide failure to pay class members overtime wages based on one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay during workweeks when Signal credited class members with a “safety bonus.”
c. Signal’s workforce-wide failure to reimburse class members for travel, immigration processing, visa, recruitment, and other immigration-related expenses to the extent necessary to ensure that class members earned the required minimum and overtime wages during their first workweek.
STATEMENT OF FACTS The Recruitment Process Recruitment of the Group I Plaintiffs 79. Beginning in late 2003 and continuing through at least 2004, Recruiter Defendants (Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, and Global) placed ads in various newspapers across India and the United Arab Emirates, seeking welders, fitters, and other
18

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 19 of 129
marine fabrication workers on behalf of various U.S.-based companies and individuals, including Labor Broker Defendants (Defendants Indo-Amerisoft, Rao, and J & M).4
80. 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.
81. 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 advertising efforts on behalf of Labor Broker Defendants.
82. 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.
83. In response to these advertisements, Plaintiffs Kechuru Dhananjaya, Andrews Issac Padavettiyil, Sabulal Vijayan, and Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally (hereinafter “Group I 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.
4 As set forth in paragraph 70, supra, Defendant Global did not recruit for Defendants Indo-Amerisoft or Rao. As such, on information and belief, Defendant Global did not communicate with Plaintiffs Vijayan and Dhananjaya or Defendants Indo-Amerisoft and Rao until the initial steps of the recruitment process for Defendant Signal began. On information and belief, Defendant Global did not take money from Plaintiffs Vijayan and Dhanajaya until approximately that same time. For the purpose of this pleading, this exception is incorporated by reference into paragraphs 79-81, 83, 85-87, 90-102, 104-107.
19

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 20 of 129
84. Specific facts relevant to the experiences of Group I Plaintiffs are set forth in the chart attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1 (“RICO Fraud Chart”), which is incorporated herein by reference, and which is incorporated into Plaintiffs’ RICO Case Statement.
85. 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.
86. 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 Defendants Rao and IndoAmerisoft personally and through employees, agents and/or associates, told Group I Plaintiffs that if Group I Plaintiffs successfully passed skills tests administered in the United Arab Emirates or India and paid fees totaling approximately 5 to 8 lakh5 rupees (approximately $12,000 to $20,000), then Group I Plaintiffs would be able to apply for permanent resident (green card) status in the United States with Labor Broker Defendants.
87. On information and belief, all statements the Recruiter Defendants and the Legal Facilitator Defendants made to Plaintiffs in the course of recruiting Plaintiffs for J & M were within the scope of the agency agreements between Defendant J & M and Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants.
5 A “lakh” is a term used in India to refer to one hundred thousand of any item, thus 5 “lakh” rupees would be the equivalent of 500,000 rupees.
20

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 21 of 129
88. In these communications occurring during the first half of 2004, Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants further explained to Plaintiffs Padavettiyil and Kadakkarappally that the installment payments would be divided among Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants.
89. In these communications occurring during the first half of 2004, Defendants Dewan Consultants, Dewan, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendants Rao and Indo-Amerisoft further explained to Plaintiffs Vijayan and Dhananjaya that the installment payments would be divided among Defendants Dewan, Dewan Consultants, Rao, and Indo-Amerisoft.
90. In telephone communications, in-person meetings, faxes, written agreements, 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/or Defendants Rao and Indo-Amerisoft instructed Group I Plaintiffs that the total fees to work for the Labor Broker Defendants would be paid in a series of approximately three installments.
91. In these conversations in the first half of 2004, Group I 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, Group I Plaintiffs would be able to obtain legal permanent residence for their spouses and children.
92. At informational meetings and in telephone conversations, faxes, agreements, and other written documents transmitted in late 2003 through approximately mid-2004, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Defendants Rao and Indo-Amerisoft, personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or
21

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 22 of 129
employees, represented to Group I 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 Group I Plaintiffs green cards enabling Group I Plaintiffs to permanently and legally immigrate to the United States with their family members.
93. At informational meetings and in telephone conversations, faxes, agreements, 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 Group I Plaintiffs that the green card process, once commenced, would be completed within 18 to 24 months.
94. In such communications with Plaintiffs, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendants Rao and Indo-Amerisoft further promised to act diligently and do everything necessary to obtain green cards for employment with Labor Broker Defendants for Group I Plaintiffs in the timelines stipulated.
95. Based on these and other promises made to them regarding green cards and work opportunities in the United States, Group I Plaintiffs (with the exception of Plaintiff Padavettiyil) signed agreements (hereinafter “the green card agreements”) at various times in early to mid-2004 with Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants.
96. Agreements signed by Plaintiffs and other documents provided to the Group I Plaintiffs by Legal Facilitator Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, through the use of mail and/or wire transmissions in and around early to mid-
22

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 23 of 129
2004, further promised that Group I 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 Group I Plaintiffs as promised.
97. Legal Facilitator Defendants, Recruiter Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants knew or should have known that they and/or their agents would not refund Group I Plaintiffs’ money as promised in written agreements and other documents.
98. Legal Facilitator Defendants, Recruiter Defendants and Labor Broker Defendants personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, induced the Group I Plaintiffs to enter into the green card agreements without intent to diligently pursue Group I Plaintiffs’ green card applications; knowingly representing without any basis whatsoever, inter alia, that the companies and/or entities purportedly sponsoring Group I Plaintiffs’ applications were financially solvent and had reliable and stable employment opportunities to provide Group I Plaintiffs; that green card applications sponsored by such companies would be valid and bona fide under U.S. immigration law; and that such applications were likely to be successfully completed and approved within the promised timelines.
99. In reasonable reliance on Legal Facilitator Defendants, Recruiter Defendants and Labor Broker Defendants’ explicit and repeated promises made personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees regarding green cards, family members’ ability to immigrate to the United States, and lawful and legitimate employment opportunities in the United States, Group I 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, and/or lost or unpaid wages.
23

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 24 of 129
100. Group I Plaintiffs signed agreements with Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants and made the first round of installment payments required by these agreements.
101. After Group I Plaintiffs signed agreements with Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Labor Broker Defendants and paid the first installment payments required by the agreements, these Defendants failed to provide Group I Plaintiffs with updates regarding the progress of their green card applications for extended periods of time.
102. When Group I Plaintiffs contacted Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Defendants Rao and Indo-Amerisoft 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 with Labor Broker Defendants, these Defendants falsely assured them that the green card process was going forward. Defendants also falsely told Plaintiffs that their applications had been delayed through no fault of Defendants but assured Plaintiffs that their applications were on “fast track” processing.
103. While awaiting the processing of their green cards, Group I Plaintiffs continued to accrue substantial interest on the money they had borrowed for the purpose of making the first installment payment to these Defendants.
104. 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 Group I 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.
24

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 25 of 129
105. After this notification, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants and Labor Broker Defendants personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, used wire and/or mail communications to collect the second and/or third installment payments from the Group I Plaintiffs.
106. By spring 2006, after the 18 to 24 month processing period promised by Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants and/or their agents had elapsed, the Group I Plaintiffs had still not received their green cards.
107. By spring of 2006, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Labor Broker Defendants and/or their agents had yet to refund Group I Plaintiffs’ payments as promised by Plaintiffs’ green card agreements.
108. 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”).
109. 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 to the United States government and the state governments of Mississippi and Texas were furnished with
25

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 26 of 129
signatures by Signal executives swearing, under pain of perjury, to the veracity of the information in these applications.
110. Defendant Signal sought these workers to perform various jobs essential to its marine fabrication services business, including welding and fitting.
111. 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.
112. 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.
113. 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.”
114. 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.
115. 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.
26

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 27 of 129
116. 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 by telephone, mail, e-mail, and/or fax to direct and coordinate recruitment of Indian workers to fill the anticipated H-2B guestworker jobs.
117. Upon information and belief, in the course of telephone, fax, e-mail and/or mail 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 H2B guestworker jobs at Signal operations.
118. 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-yetunsuccessful green card applications on behalf of, among others, Group I Plaintiffs.
119. 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 simultaneously being processed.
120. Defendant Signal authorized its agents to make these representations even though it knew or had reason to know that such H-2B guestworker visa extensions and
27

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 28 of 129
simultaneous 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.
121. 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.
122. 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 United States government that at the end of this 10 month period, it intended to return all H-2B beneficiaries 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 labor need for these workers exceeded ten months.
123. In spring and summer of 2006, Group I Plaintiffs who had already initiated the green card process spoke with Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Defendants Rao and Indo-Amerisoft over the phone and in person regarding their long-pending green card applications with Labor Broker Defendants.
124. In these communications, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and/or Defendants Rao and Indo-Amerisoft offered Group I Plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue their green cards under the sponsorship of Defendant Signal.
28

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 29 of 129
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.
125. Defendant Global and Defendants Rao and Indo-Amerisoft agreed that Global would take over the recruitment process started by Rao if Rao paid Global a substantial portion of the recruitment fees he had collected from Plaintiffs Vijayan and Dhananjaya, and other Indian workers, in the first and second installment payments.
126. On information and belief, Defendant Rao paid to Defendant Global the collected recruitment fees, and Global began communicating with former Rao recruits, including Plaintiff Vijayan.
127. In these communications, Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants falsely assured Group I 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.
128. Upon information and belief, prior to these communications with Group I 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 Group I Plaintiffs.
129. In their communications with Group I Plaintiffs, Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator 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
29

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 30 of 129
applying for H-2B visa status is fundamentally incompatible with simultaneously applying for a green card.
130. Group I 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 Defendants Rao and Indo-Amerisoft, 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 and Legal Facilitator Defendants.
131. In reliance on the representations of Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal, Group I Plaintiffs 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 Pascagoula, Mississippi and Orange, Texas facilities.
132. Group I 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.
133. Group I 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.
30

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 31 of 129
Recruitment of the Group II Plaintiffs 134. Acting as Defendant Signal’s recruiting agent for the purposes of facilitating the recruitment of Indian workers for employment at Signal, the Recruiter Defendants (Defendants Global Resources, Inc., Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., and Sachin Dewan) placed advertisements in newspapers throughout India and the United Arab Emirates in spring, summer, and fall 2006 offering opportunities for welders and fitters to immigrate permanently to the United States under the auspices of Defendant Signal, “a leading marine and fabrication company in Mississippi and Texas.” 135. 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 (Defendants Malvern Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 136. In response to the advertisements posted by Recruiter Defendants, Plaintiffs Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Palanyandi Thangamani, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, and Thanasekar Chellappan (hereinafter “Group II Plaintiffs”) contacted Recruiter Defendants in spring, summer and fall 2006 via telephone and at in-person meetings. 137. Specific facts relevant to the experiences of Group II Plaintiffs Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Muruganantham Kandhasamy, Palanyandi Thangamani, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, and Thanasekar Chellappan are set forth in the chart attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1, which is incorporated herein by reference, and which is incorporated into Plaintiffs’ RICO Case Statement.
31

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 32 of 129
138. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal’s direction of and coordination of Recruiter Defendants’ and Legal Facilitator Defendants’ recruitment efforts was effectuated by the use of numerous telephone, fax, e-mail, and/or mail communications occurring from spring of 2006 through at least January 2007.
139. In these communications 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.
140. In these communications, Defendant Signal further authorized Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants to falsely represent that Signal would agree to sponsor bona fide green card applications for the Group II Plaintiffs and obtain at least two H-2B visa extensions on behalf of Group II Plaintiffs to allow them to remain in the United States working for Signal while their green card applications were being processed.
141. Defendant Signal authorized these representations even through it knew or had reason to know that such visa extensions and green card applications would not be bona fide, valid, or lawful under United States immigration law and even though Signal did not have the intention at that time to apply for visa extensions and/or green cards on behalf of all the Indian H-2B workers, including Group II Plaintiffs.
142. Defendant Signal further learned from the first Indian H-2B workers to arrive at Signal’s facilities in late October 2006 that those workers had paid exorbitant recruitment fees to Signal’s agents – the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants – and had made those payments on the basis of promises, namely that the workers would receive green cards, that Signal knew to be false. Defendant Signal
32

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 33 of 129
nonetheless continued to facilitate the transportation, to Signal worksites, of hundreds of more Indian H-2B workers, including Plaintiffs, because it was in Signal’s financial interest to do so.
143. In spring, summer, and fall of 2006, Group II Plaintiffs attended meetings at which Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants, acting on Signal’s behalf, informed Group II Plaintiffs of the opportunity to work for Defendant Signal on H-2B visas which would lead to permanent resident (green card) status.
144. 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 meetings.
145. Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants traveled across state and international lines to attend meetings with Group II Plaintiffs in India and the United Arab Emirates in spring, summer, and fall of 2006.
146. According to the statements made at these meetings and in communications effected by wire and mail during this time period, Defendant Signal would sponsor Group II Plaintiffs’ green card applications and extend their H-2B visas multiple times to enable Group II Plaintiffs to work in the United States while their green card applications were pending. In exchange, Group II Plaintiffs would have to pay fees totaling as much as 11.5 lakh rupees ($25,000) each in a series of approximately three installments.
147. Group II Plaintiffs were further informed by Recruiter Defendants and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants that in exchange for an additional fee of approximately
33

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 34 of 129
$1,500 per family member, Plaintiffs would be able to obtain legal permanent residence for their spouses and children.
148. At informational meetings and in telephone conversations, faxes, written agreements, and other written documents transmitted through the use of mail and wire communications occurring during the spring and summer of 2006, Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants personally and/or through their agents, representatives, and/or employees, represented to Group II Plaintiffs that Signal would provide lawful, stable, and ample employment opportunities, that working under an H-2B visa for Signal was not inconsistent with applying for permanent immigration status sponsored by Signal, and that Signal would obtain for Group II Plaintiffs work-authorized green cards enabling the Group II Plaintiffs to permanently and legally reside in the United States with their families.
149. Such assurances were within the scope of the agency agreements between Signal and Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants.
150. In such communications with Plaintiffs, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants further promised to act diligently and do everything necessary to ensure that Plaintiffs obtain green cards within 24 months of initiating the green card process.
151. Such promises were within the scope of the agency agreements between Signal and Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants.
152. Reasonably relying on these and other promises made to them regarding green cards and work opportunities in the United States, Group II Plaintiffs signed green card agreements at various points from mid-2006 to early 2007 with Recruiter
34

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 35 of 129
Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants in which they promised to pay the fees charged by these Defendants.
153. Written agreements signed by Plaintiffs and other documents provided to Group II Plaintiffs by Legal Facilitator Defendants and Recruiter Defendants through the use of mail and/or wire transmissions in and around mid-2006 through at least early 2007, further promised that Group II 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 Group II Plaintiffs as promised.
154. Legal Facilitator Defendants and Recruiter Defendants knew or should have known, however, that they would not refund Group II Plaintiffs’ money as promised in the written agreements and other documents.
155. Legal Facilitator Defendants and Recruiter Defendants induced Group II Plaintiffs to enter the green card agreements without intent to diligently pursue Group II Plaintiffs’ applications and without any basis whatsoever for representing, inter alia, that Defendant Signal had lawful long-term employment opportunities to provide Group II Plaintiffs; that Defendant Signal could legally apply for numerous H-2B visa extensions to maintain Group II Plaintiffs’ presence in the United States; that working under an H2B visa for Signal was not inconsistent with applying for permanent immigration status sponsored by Signal; that green card applications sponsored by Defendant Signal would be valid and bona fide under U.S. immigration law; and that such applications were likely to be successfully completed and approved within the promised timelines.
156. In reasonable reliance on Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitators’ explicit and repeated promises regarding green cards and employment opportunities in the United States, Group II Plaintiffs undertook considerable personal and familial
35

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 36 of 129
sacrifices, including the mortgaging and/or sale of personal property and incurrence of debt, in order to amass the funds necessary to initiate the green card process with Defendant Signal.
157. In reasonable reliance on the promises of Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants, Group II Plaintiffs signed written agreements with these Defendants and made the payments required by these agreements.
158. Group II Plaintiffs would not have paid the extraordinary fees charged by Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants for green cards, visas, and employment opportunities had they known that these Defendants’ promises and representations were false.
159. Group II Plaintiffs would not have paid the extraordinary fees charged by the Recruiter Defendants and Legal Facilitator Defendants for 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 (All Plaintiffs) 160. At various times during the spring, summer, and fall 2006, 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.
161. Plaintiffs paid costs necessary to travel to the cities where these tests were held.
162. Plaintiffs paid admission fees charged to take these tests.
36

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 37 of 129
163. 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.
164. 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.
165. 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.
166. 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.
167. 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.
168. 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.
169. 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.
37

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 38 of 129
170. 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).
171. 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
172. 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 payments of the second and/or third installment from Plaintiffs and other class members.
173. Plaintiffs entered the United States on H-2B guestworker visas, issued by the U.S. Government on the basis of false statements made by Defendant Signal and the Legal Facilitator Defendants, in late 2006 and early 2007 for the purposes of working for Defendant Signal at its Pascagoula, Mississippi and Orange, Texas facilities.
174. From the beginning of the recruitment process, Defendant Signal, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Recruiter Defendants represented to Plaintiffs and/or by omission caused Plaintiffs to believe that they were processing the green card applications concurrently with the H-2B applications.
175. Plaintiffs relied on these representations and omissions when they made installment payments on their recruitment fees.
176. Defendant Signal, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Recruiter Defendants did not process green card applications concurrently with the H-2B applications. In fact, these Defendants did not submit green card applications until after
38

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 39 of 129
Plaintiffs already were in the United States, if at all. Defendants’ representations to the contrary were false when made.
177. 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.
178. 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.
179. 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) and Mumbai (Bombay).
180. 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.
181. 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 at these meetings.
182. 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 agreements.
39

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 40 of 129
183. Defendants further required that Plaintiffs pay an additional 35,000 to 45,000 rupees ($800 to $1,100) fee for H-2B visa processing.
184. Recruiter Defendants and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants required Plaintiffs to sign documents permitting Defendant Sachin Dewan to receive their visastamped passports from the Consulate on Plaintiffs’ behalves.
185. Recruiter Defendants and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants also coached the Plaintiffs on what to say during consular interviews.
186. 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.
187. During Plaintiffs’ consular interviews, the consular officials took Plaintiffs’ passports from them.
188. Once Plaintiffs’ visas were approved, consular officials sent their passports, with H-2B visas affixed, directly to Defendant Dewan.
189. After receiving word that Plaintiffs’ visas were approved, Recruiter Defendants made travel arrangements for Plaintiffs’ departures to the United States.
190. Before Plaintiffs could leave for the United States, however, Plaintiffs were required to attend final meetings in Recruiter Defendants’ Mumbai (Bombay) office.
191. 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.
40

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 41 of 129
192. At these meetings, Recruiter Defendants collected final installment payments required by Plaintiffs’ green card agreements.
193. Recruiter Defendants also required that Plaintiffs, some of whom did not proficiently read or speak English, sign English language documents with little or no time for review.
194. 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.
195. 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.
196. 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.
197. 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 agreements, Defendant Dewan and his associates threatened to destroy and/or deface these workers’ passports.
198. 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.
199. Based on the Recruiter Defendants’ threatening and coercive behavior during these pre-departure meetings in Mumbai and the extraordinary and increasing
41

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 42 of 129
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 payments required by the Recruiter Defendants and to travel to the United States to work for Defendant Signal.
200. Plaintiffs and up to 578 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 approximately April 2007 on tickets arranged by the Recruiter Defendants.
201. Pursuant to Defendant Signal’s instructions and arrangements, approximately 300 workers were to be sent to Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility and approximately 290 workers were to be sent to Signal’s Orange, Texas facility upon arrival in the United States, although Signal’s Orange, Texas facility began turning away workers in February 2007.
202. The Plaintiffs had no choice but to use the Recruiter Defendants and the Legal Facilitator Defendants to secure employment at Defendant Signal’s operations.
203. 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.
204. 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.
42

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 43 of 129
Conditions at the Signal Facilities in Pascagoula and Orange 205. Upon arrival at Defendant Signal’s facilities in Pascagoula and Orange, Plaintiffs were shocked to discover that they were to be living in unsanitary, isolated, and overcrowded labor camps comprised of trailer-like bunkhouses. 206. 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. 207. The labor camp gates were constantly monitored by security guards retained by Defendant Signal. Upon information and belief, some or all of these guards may have been obtained by Signal through the Swetman Security company. 208. Signal’s security guards monitored Plaintiffs’ comings and goings by requiring them to show their employee identification badges and/or recording when Plaintiffs entered and/or exited the camps. Signal’s security guards also searched Plaintiffs’ packages and bags when they entered the camps. 209. Except on rare occasions, Plaintiffs were not permitted to receive visitors in the labor camps. 210. Up to twenty-four 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 OSHA. 211. 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, as well as unsanitary conditions in the bathrooms and showers.
43

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 44 of 129
212. 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 day or night shifts.
213. Defendant Signal’s personnel and/or security guards conducted surprise searches of the dormitory areas of the bunkhouses, including searches of workers’ personal belongings.
214. Plaintiffs took their meals in Defendant Signal’s mess halls, which were only open during limited hours and were dirty and unsafe. Due to unhygienic kitchen conditions and living, Indian H-2B Workers, including Plaintiffs, frequently became ill, sometimes requiring hospitalization.
215. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal did not obtain the required permit(s) to furnish the board at their Texas and Mississippi man camps, 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 Food Code, as adopted and modified by Mississippi Department of Health Food Regulations (Mississippi man camp residents) and Texas Food Establishment Rules (Texas man camp residents).
216. 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. This money was deducted for every day and irrespective of the number of paid hours Plaintiffs worked. It was deducted irrespective of whether injury or inclement weather prevented Plaintiffs from working, or whether Signal only provided Plaintiffs a limited number of work hours during a given pay period.
44

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 45 of 129
217. When Plaintiffs complained and asked to live outside the labor camps, Defendant Signal initially refused. Subsequently, Signal 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.
218. Defendant Signal only housed Indian H-2B workers such as Plaintiffs in its labor camps, which non-Indian employees and management at Signal referred to as the “reservation(s)”. Upon information and belief, workers of non-Indian descent were neither required nor allowed to live in and/or pay for accommodations in Defendant Signal’s labor camps.
219. Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs to skills testing and re-testing, onthe-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.
220. In addition, Signal camp personnel and supervisors frequently 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.
221. 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.
222. During the first two weeks of employing Plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the United States, Defendant Signal deducted approximately $100 to $200
45

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 46 of 129
each week from Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated workers’ checks for job-related tool kits which they were required to purchase from Defendant Signal.
223. 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 met Defendant Signal’s safety rules.
224. The safety bonus Defendant Signal paid the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated was in addition to their regular hourly wage.
225. 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.
226. 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.
227. 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.
228. 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.
229. In the isolated and guarded atmosphere of the labor camps 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.
46

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 47 of 129
230. At regular meetings and in one-on-one or small group conversations with Signal camp personnel and management, some workers, including Plaintiffs Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, voiced complaints regarding the discriminatory and abusive treatment to which Indian H-2B workers were subject.
231. Plaintiffs Vijayan and Kadakkarappally took leading roles in voicing others’ complaints to Defendant Signal’s personnel in camp meetings.
232. When Indian workers, including Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, voiced grievances regarding housing, food, and wages, Defendant Signal’s personnel warned them to stop complaining.
233. When Signal took no action in response to workers’ complaints, numerous Indian H-2B workers living at the Pascagoula labor camp, including Plaintiffs Vijayan and Kadakkarappally, began meeting collectively to discuss how to persuade Signal to improve conditions in its labor camps, including meeting with third parties to discuss how best to address their concerns.
234. Defendant Signal became aware of these meetings, such as a meeting between workers -- including Plaintiffs Vijayan and Kadakkarappally-- and third parties whom Signal believed to be attorneys.
235. 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 Plaintiffs Vijayan and Kadakkarappally.
236. 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
47

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 48 of 129
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.
237. Upon information and belief, Signal management and camp personnel conferred and planned internally and with the private Swetman security firm 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 workforce from exercising their legal rights.
238. On or about March 7, 2007, Defendant Sachin Dewan called Plaintiff Vijayan’s wife at her home in India and warned her that Plaintiff Vijayan must stop making trouble at Signal.
239. Plaintiff Vijayan’s wife informed Plaintiff Vijayan of this call, and Vijayan called Defendant Dewan on or about March 8, 2007. During that conversation, Defendant Dewan told Plaintiff Vijayan that Dewan had learned from Defendant Signal that Vijayan was organizing the workers and making trouble. Defendant Dewan told Plaintiff Vijayan that if the organizing continued, all the workers would be sent back to India.
240. Plaintiff Vijayan informed other Indian workers about his conversation with Defendant Dewan and the call his wife had received from Defendant Dewan, and word spread quickly through the Pascagoula and Orange camps regarding the threats against Vijayan.
241. News about the calls between Defendant Dewan, Plaintiff Vijayan, and Vijayan’s wife substantially heightened the reasonable fears of Plaintiffs in the Pascagoula and Orange camps that if they complained about or tried to leave the
48

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 49 of 129
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.
242. Defendant Signal called a workforce-wide meeting on or about March 8, 2007 in the Pascagoula camp, attended by Signal management and Defendant Burnett.
243. At this meeting, Signal management told Plaintiffs and other H-2B workers that Signal would fight back against organizing efforts by the workers.
244. 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 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.
245. At or about the same time as this camp-wide meeting in Pascagoula, Mississippi, Signal management made the decision to terminate and forcibly deport Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan, and to do so by means that would make an example of them for the other Indian workers in order to keep those workers in line.
246. 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.
247. 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 Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan.
49

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 50 of 129
248. Security guards began accosting workers to determine whether they were the individuals shown in the pictures.
249. Plaintiffs and other Indian H-2B workers 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 labor camp.
250. Around 5:15 AM that morning, Plaintiff Vijayan was walking towards the dining area. On his way, he saw that two of his fellow workers had been detained by security guards. When he attempted to make contact with them, a security guard denied him entry. Subsequently, after arriving in the mess hall, a security guard and Darrell Snyder, a Signal employee, aggressively confronted Vijayan and instructed him that he was in their custody.
251. Based upon the threats Signal executives made at the meeting on March 8, 2007, Plaintiff Vijayan’s recent phone call with Sachin Dewan, and Plaintiff Vijayan’s observation of security guards detaining fellow Indian workers against their will and denying himself and other workers access to them, Vijayan feared what Defendant Signal might do to him.
252. Plaintiff 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.
253. These feelings, combined with Plaintiff 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.
50

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 51 of 129
254. While attempting to assist Plaintiff Vijayan in obtaining medical attention, Plaintiff Kadakkarappally was grabbed by Darrell Snyder and/or one or more of the security guards.
255. Plaintiff Kadakkarappally was marched into a communal room in the labor camp referred to by workers as “the TV room.”
256. Upon arriving in the TV room, Kadakkarappally found two workers already held inside. Earlier that morning, Darrell Snyder and the security guards had grabbed Plaintiff Chellappan in the communal eating area and Plaintiff Kumar in his bunkhouse and forced both of them into the TV room, where they were kept under guard and prevented from leaving.
257. In the TV room, Darrell Snyder informed Plaintiff Kadakkarappally that he and Plaintiffs Kumar and Chellappan were fired and would be taken to the airport to be deported to India. Snyder demanded that Plaintiff Kadakkarappally stay inside the TV room, and Kadakkarappally was prevented from leaving the TV room by security guards.
258. Plaintiff 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 area.
259. Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan were detained in the TV room, under guard, from approximately 6 a.m. for several hours.
260. Several security guards watched over Plaintiffs 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.
51

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 52 of 129
261. When Plaintiff 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.
262. Confused and frightened, workers assembled outside the TV room to protest the treatment of Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan.
263. At around 10 AM, Signal camp personnel finally permitted Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan to use the bathroom accompanied by security guards, one at a time.
264. Around noon, Darrell Snyder and a Pascagoula police officer entered the TV room and the officer questioned why Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan were there. Snyder said that these workers had been fired and would be sent back to India.
265. 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 Plaintiff Vijayan and the forced detention of Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan.
266. Faced with growing protests by community members and Signal employees, Defendant Signal decided not to forcibly transport Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan to the airport for deportation to India, and instead escorted them from the Pascagoula labor camp.
267. Plaintiffs David and Kandhasamy and other Indian H-2B workers working at Signal’s 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.
52

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 53 of 129
268. 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 Pascagoula, these meetings were with representatives from M & M Bank.
269. At the instruction of Defendant Signal, Plaintiffs at these respective locations had opened accounts with the designated banks 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.
270. At some point before April 10, 2007, after some Indian H-2B workers had fled Signal’s Pascagoula camp, M & M Bank denied these departed workers access to their bank accounts and invalidated their ATM cards.
271. Upon information and belief, M & M Bank refused the departed workers access to their own bank accounts at Defendant Signal’s behest.
272. Indian H-2B workers still working at Signal labor camps 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.
273. 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 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.
274. 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
53

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 54 of 129
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.
275. 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.
276. 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.
277. 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.
278. In that same time period, Defendants Sachin Dewan and Burnett came to the Signal camp 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 Plaintiffs who had not been terminated by Signal (Plaintiffs David, Sulekha, Thangamani, Kandhasamy, Khuttan, Padavettiyil and Dhananjaya), and the other Indian H-2B workers. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on these promises.
54

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 55 of 129
279. 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.
280. At the same time Defendant Signal was promising to arrange for H-2B visa extensions and green cards for the Plaintiffs who had not been terminated by Signal, as well as other Indian H-2B workers, Signal in fact was secretly evaluating all of the Indian workers with the intent of not applying for visa extensions for certain of the Indian H-2B workers.
281. 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 those Plaintiffs who had not been terminated by Signal to fear serious harm and/or abuse of the legal process if they left Signal’s employ.
282. Under such circumstances, these Plaintiffs reasonably felt like they had no choice but to continue working for Signal.
283. 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.
284. Since first contracting with Defendants in India and the United Arab Emirates, Plaintiffs have yet to receive from Defendants the green cards Defendants promised them. Despite clear agreements requiring them to do so, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants have
55

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 56 of 129
refused to refund any of the moneys Plaintiffs paid to them and/or their agents for unsuccessful green card and visa processing.
285. Defendants received advantage under their agreement with Plaintiffs. Specifically, Defendants reaped significant profits from recruitment fees Plaintiffs paid to the Defendants.
286. Defendant Signal received advantage under their agreement with Plaintiffs through payments Plaintiffs made for housing in Signal labor camps.
287. Defendant Signal received advantage under their agreement with Plaintiffs through increased profits brought about by having a captive work force Signal could pay significantly less than contract labor and by using the captive work force to complete projects it otherwise would not timely complete, thereby avoiding liquidated damages clauses in Signal’s underlying contracts with its customers.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 288. Plaintiffs’ specific claims for damages are set forth herein and in Exhibit 2 attached to this Complaint, which is incorporated herein by reference.
56

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 57 of 129
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION 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) All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Signal, 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) 6 289. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 290. Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendants Signal, the Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants), and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 291. 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. 292. 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. 293. 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).
6 Claims against Michael Pol, the President of Recruiter Defendant Global Resources, have been stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Sixth Amended Complaint if and when the stay is lifted.
57

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 58 of 129
294. 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).
295. 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.
296. 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).
297. 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).
298. 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
58

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 59 of 129
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 modernday 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, thereby violating 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). 299. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered emotional injuries, injuries to their businesses and property, and other damages. 300. Under the TVPA, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to:
a. compensation at the prevailing wage rate and all applicable overtime wages for the work done while at Signal;
b. damages for emotional pain and suffering, including but not limited to fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or
59

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 60 of 129
ordeal experienced during the recruitment process up to the point at which each Plaintiffs’ employment at Signal was terminated; c. compensation for all moneys paid during the recruitment process and in order to come to the United States to work for Signal, including, but not limited to: recruitment fees; travel expenses; legal fees; medical testing; skills testing and administrative fees; losses on any personal or real property sold or pawned for the purposes of making payments in connection with the recruitment described herein; and fees and interest paid on any loans incurred as a result of the recruitment process up to the point at which each Plaintiffs’ employment at Signal was terminated; d. compensation of deductions taken from Plaintiffs’ paychecks by Defendant Signal for room and board; e. punitive damages; and f. attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 1595. 301. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
60

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 61 of 129
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants7
302. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
303. Plaintiffs’ RICO Case Statement is incorporated herein by reference. 304. Plaintiffs bring these claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68 (“RICO”). 305. Group I Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally, Vijayan, Dhananjaya, and Padavettiyil) bring these claims against all Defendants, specifically: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); the Labor Broker Defendants (Indo-Amerisoft, Rao, J & M Associates, J & M Marine, and Wilks); and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 306. Group II Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs Thangamani, David, Kandhasamy, Khuttan, Chellappan, Singh, Kumar, and Sulekha) bring these claims against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center).
7 Claims against Michael Pol, the President of Recruiter Defendant Global Resources, have been stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Further, claims against Indo-Amerisoft and Rao also have been stayed pending the outcome of their bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Sixth Amended Complaint if and when these stays are lifted.
61

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 62 of 129
307. Plaintiffs are “persons” with standing to sue within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
308. Each of the Defendants is a “RICO person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1963(1).
309. 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).
310. 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).
311. Recruiter Defendants, Defendant Signal, Legal Facilitator Defendants, Swetman Security, and M & M 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
312. RICO Enterprise I is 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.
313. RICO Enterprise I is engaged in interstate commerce in that its activities and transactions relating to the international and interstate movement of workers affect
62

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 63 of 129
interstate commerce and frequently require travel and communications across state and international lines.
314. The members of RICO Enterprise I function as a continuing unit. 315. 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 in persons. 316. 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; d. Trafficking in 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); 317. 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):
63

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 64 of 129
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
318. RICO Enterprise II is 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.
319. The members of RICO Enterprise II operate as a continuing unit. 320. RICO Enterprise II is 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. 321. 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 Signal’s operations. 322. Specifically, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal conducted or participated in the affairs of RICO Enterprise II by
64

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 65 of 129
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 323. RICO Enterprise III is an ongoing business relationship between the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, Defendant Signal, Swetman Security, and M&M Bank with the common purpose of providing and maintaining a consistent and acquiescent labor force at Signal operations. 324. RICO Enterprise III is 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 in interstate commerce (Signal). 325. The members of RICO Enterprise III function as a continuing unit.
65

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 66 of 129
326. 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.
327. 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 18 U.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.
66

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 67 of 129
Predicate Acts Enticement into Slavery: 18 U.S.C. § 1583 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 enticement into modern-day slavery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1583, and as set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief, ¶ 298(a), supra. Involuntary Servitude: 18 U.S.C. § 1584 329. 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, ¶ 298(b), supra.
Forced Labor: 18 U.S.C. § 1589 330. 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, ¶¶ 292-296, supra.
Trafficking for the Purposes of Forced Labor and/or Involuntary Servitude: 18 U.S.C. § 1590
331. 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
67

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 68 of 129
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590, and as set forth in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief, ¶¶ 297-298, supra.
Document Servitude: 18 U.S.C. § 1592 332. 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, ¶ 298(c), supra.
Mail and Wire Fraud: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343 333. 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. 334. 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. 335. 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. 336. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Recruiter Defendants, Legal Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal, through RICO
68

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 69 of 129
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.
337. 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) 338. 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. 339. 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. 340. 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. 341. These willful, knowing, and intentional acts constitute immigration document fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).
69

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 70 of 129
Pattern of Related Racketeering Acts 342. 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. 343. 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 this lawsuit. 344. Defendants, though the RICO enterprises, rely on the racketeering acts described in this Complaint to conduct their regular business activities. 345. 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. 346. Defendants’ acts yielded similar results and caused similar injuries to Plaintiffs, including payment of high fees, assumption of significant interest bearing debt, and/or loss of real and personal property. 347. 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. 348. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in 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.
70

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 71 of 129
349. 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 350. 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 immigration and recruitment-related services; interest on debts assumed by Plaintiffs to pay such fees up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; losses of personal and real property up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated incurred in reliance on Defendants’ fraudulent acts; and other pecuniary and/or losses to real or personal property up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated. 351. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including but not limited to:
a. compensation for all moneys paid during the recruitment process and in order to come to the United States to work for Signal, including, but not limited to: recruitment fees; travel expenses; legal fees; medical testing; skills testing and administrative fees; losses on any personal or real property sold or pawned for the purposes of making payments in connection with the recruitment described herein; and fees and interest paid on any loans incurred as a result of the recruitment process and up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated;
71

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 72 of 129
b. compensation of deductions taken from Plaintiffs’ paychecks by Defendant Signal for room and board;
c. trebling of the damages set forth in subparagraphs (a) and (b), supra; and d. attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs associated with this action, as
authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). 352. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
42 U.S.C. § 1981 All Plaintiffs Against Defendant Signal 353. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 354. Plaintiffs assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 damages against Defendant Signal. 355. 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. 356. Specifically, Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs to discriminatory and offensive mandatory room and board arrangements at Signal labor camps. 357. Defendant Signal did not subject its non-Indian and/or U.S. citizen employees to the same or similar room and board arrangements.
72

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 73 of 129
358. 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 employees and/or U.S. citizen were not similarly subject.
359. 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.
360. 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.
361. Plaintiffs reasonably perceived their work environment to be hostile, abusive, and discriminatory on the basis of their race, national origin, and/or alienage.
362. Defendant Signal’s hostile, abusive, and discriminatory treatment of Plaintiffs and other class members was unwelcome.
363. Defendant Signal knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and without justification acted to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.
364. As a result of Defendant Signal’s unlawful acts, Plaintiffs have suffered injury to their property and/or persons.
365. Plaintiffs seek all appropriate relief in an amount to be determined at trial, including, but not limited to:
a. compensatory damages for the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights during their time in Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi and/or Orange, Texas employment up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated;
73

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 74 of 129
b. compensation for money deducted from Plaintiffs’ salary for the discriminatory room and board while at Signal; c. compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering, including fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced as a result of the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights, up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; d. punitive damages for Signal’s malicious and reckless discriminatory conduct; e. attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs of this action as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)-(c). 366. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
74

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 75 of 129
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT OF 1871
42 U.S.C. § 1985 and the Thirteenth Amendment All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Signal, 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) 8 367. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 368. Plaintiffs assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for damages against Defendants Signal, 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). 369. 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, including the Swetman Security firm and M & M 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. 370. Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants were motivated by racial, anti-Indian, and/or anti-immigrant animus when they conspired
8 Claims against Michael Pol, the President of Recruiter Defendant Global Resources, have been stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Further, claims against Indo-Amerisoft and Rao also have been stayed pending the outcome of their bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Sixth Amended Complaint if and when these stays are lifted.
75

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 76 of 129
to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights and/or acted in furtherance of a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.
371. Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and without justification planned and acted to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.
372. As a result of the unlawful acts of Defendant Signal, Recruiter Defendants, and Legal Facilitator Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.
373. Plaintiffs seek all appropriate relief in an amount to be determined at trial, including, but not limited to:
a. compensatory damages for deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; b. damages for emotional pain and suffering, including fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced during the recruitment process and up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; c. compensation for all moneys paid during the recruitment process and in order to come to the United States to work for Signal, including, but not limited to: recruitment fees; travel expenses; legal fees; medical testing; skills testing and administrative fees; losses on any personal or real property sold or pawned for the purposes of making payments in connection with the recruitment described herein; and fees and interest paid on any loans incurred as a result of the recruitment process and up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated;
76

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 77 of 129 d. compensation of deductions taken from Plaintiffs’ paychecks by Defendant Signal for room and board; e. punitive damages; and f. attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)-(c).
374. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
77

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 78 of 129
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INDIA FRAUD
All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants9 375. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs. 376. Group I Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally and Padavettiyil bring these claims under the Indian Contract Act of 1872, including §§ 17 and 65, as well as common law, equity, and case law regarding fraud (hereinafter “India fraud law”) against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); J & M Associates, J & M Marine, and Wilks; and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 377. Group I Plaintiffs Vijayan and Dhananjaya bring these claims under India fraud law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); Indo-Amerisoft and Rao; and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 378. Group II Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs Thangamani, David, Kandhasamy, Khuttan, Chellappan, Singh, Kumar, and Sulekha) bring these claims under India fraud law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan
9 Claims against Michael Pol, the President of Recruiter Defendant Global Resources, have been stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Further, claims against Indo-Amerisoft and Rao also have been stayed pending the outcome of their bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Sixth Amended Complaint if and when these stays are lifted.
78

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 79 of 129
Consultants); and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center).
379. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees, and/or representatives, engaged in acts of deliberate deception by making materially false and untrue statements and representations to Plaintiffs, with knowledge of their falsity, regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States.
380. Signal knew or should have known of its agents’ misrepresentations, omissions, promises made without intent to perform, and other acts in violation of India fraud law.
381. Plaintiffs were ignorant of the falsity of these statements and representations.
382. Plaintiffs reasonably believed these statements and representations were true.
383. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants engaged in acts of deliberate deception by knowingly concealed material facts, with knowledge of the facts and their concealment, from Plaintiffs regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States.
384. Plaintiffs were ignorant of this deliberate concealment of these material facts.
385. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants made promises to Plaintiffs without any intention of performing the promises.
79

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 80 of 129
386. Defendants engaged in these acts of deliberate deception in order to take unfair advantage of Plaintiffs and to gain from Plaintiffs’ loss.
387. Plaintiffs were ignorant of the Defendants’ intent not to perform the promises.
388. Plaintiffs did not have the means to discover the truth with ordinary diligence.
389. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants committed other acts intended to deceive Plaintiffs.
390. Defendants intended that the false representations and concealments deliberately made by Defendants and/or their agents, employees, and/or representatives would be acted upon in the manner Defendants reasonably contemplated:
a. that the false statements and concealments would and did induce Plaintiffs to pay the exorbitant fees requested by the Labor Brokers, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants; b. that the false statements and concealments would and did induce Plaintiffs to leave their homes and, in many instances, jobs, in India and the United Arab Emirates and travel to the United States to work for the Labor Brokers and/or Defendant Signal. 391. Defendants willfully or recklessly caused Plaintiffs to believe and act upon Defendants’ deliberate deception. 392. Plaintiffs were entitled to and did rely on Defendants’ representations. 393. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false representations and concealments regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs paid large
80

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 81 of 129
sums of money to Labor Brokers, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants.
394. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false representations and concealments regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs (with the exception of Plaintiff Padavettiyil) 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.
395. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false representations and concealments regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs (with the exception of Plaintiffs Khuttan, Kumar, and Singh) sold personal and real property.
396. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false representations and concealments regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs left their homes and, in many instances, jobs, in 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, and intentional acts, Plaintiffs have been injured.
398. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for injuries Plaintiffs suffered in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to:
a. compensation for all moneys paid during the recruitment process and in order to come to the United States to work for Signal, including, but not limited to: recruitment fees; travel expenses; legal fees; medical testing; skills testing and administrative fees; losses on any personal or real property sold or pawned for the purposes of making payments in connection with the recruitment described herein; and fees and interest
81

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 82 of 129
paid on any loans incurred as a result of the recruitment process up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; b. refunds of recruitment fees, legal services fees, and other fees and costs that Defendants promised to pay Plaintiffs if Defendants failed to secure for Plaintiffs the promised visa extensions and green cards; c. compensation of deductions taken from Plaintiffs’ paychecks by Defendant Signal for room and board; d. damages for emotional pain and suffering, including fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced during the recruitment process up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; e. punitive damages; and f. attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs. 399. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
82

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 83 of 129
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MISSISSIPPI FRAUD
All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants10 400. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs. 401. Group I Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally and Padavettiyil bring these claims under Mississippi law against: Signal, Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); J & M Associates, J & M Marine, and Wilks; and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). Group I Plaintiffs Vijayan and Dhananjaya bring these claims under Mississippi law against: Signal, Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); Indo-Amerisoft and Rao; and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 402. Group II Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs Thangamani, David, Kandhasamy, Khuttan, Chellappan, Singh, Kumar, and Sulekha) bring these claims under Mississippi law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center).
10 Claims against Michael Pol, the President of Recruiter Defendant Global Resources, have been stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Further, claims against Indo-Amerisoft and Rao also have been stayed pending the outcome of their bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Sixth Amended Complaint if and when these stays are lifted.
83

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 84 of 129
403. Plaintiffs bring this claim in the alternative pursuant to Rule 8(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should the Court determine that India law, as set forth in the Fifth Claim for Relief, supra, does not apply.
404. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees, and/or representatives, made materially false and untrue statements and representations to Plaintiffs, with knowledge of their falsity or ignorance of their truth, regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States.
405. Plaintiffs were ignorant of the falsity of these statements and representations.
406. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants knowingly failed to disclose, with knowledge of this failure 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.
407. Plaintiffs were ignorant of this failure to disclose material facts. 408. Defendants intended that the false representations and material omissions made by Defendants and/or their agents, employees, and/or representatives would be acted upon in the manner Defendants reasonably contemplated:
a. that the false statements and material omissions would induce Plaintiffs to pay the exorbitant fees requested by the Labor Brokers, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants; b. that the false statements and material omissions would induce Plaintiffs to leave their homes and, in many instances, jobs, in India and
84

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 85 of 129
the United Arab Emirates and travel to the United States to work for the Labor Brokers and/or Defendant Signal. 409. Plaintiffs were entitled to and did rely on Defendants’ representations. 410. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false representations and material omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money to Labor Brokers, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants. 411. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false representations and materials omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs (with the exception of Plaintiff Padavettiyil) 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. 412. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false representations and material omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs (with the exception of Plaintiffs Khuttan, Kumar, and Singh) sold personal and real property. 413. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false representations and material omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs left their homes and, in many instances, jobs, in India and other countries and traveled to the United States to work for Defendant Signal. 414. As a consequence and proximate result of Defendants’ knowing, willful, and intentional acts and/or in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, Plaintiffs have been injured. 415. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for injuries Plaintiffs suffered in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to:
85

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 86 of 129
a. compensation for all moneys paid during the recruitment process and in order to come to the United States to work for Signal, including, but not limited to: recruitment fees; travel expenses; legal fees; medical testing; skills testing and administrative fees; losses on any personal or real property sold or pawned for the purposes of making payments in connection with the recruitment described herein; and fees and interest paid on any loans incurred as a result of the recruitment process up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated;
b. refunds of recruitment fees, legal services fees, and other fees and costs that Defendants promised to pay Plaintiffs if Defendants failed to secure for Plaintiffs the promised visa extensions and green cards;
c. compensation of deductions taken from Plaintiffs’ paychecks by Defendant Signal for room and board;
d. damages for emotional pain and suffering, including fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced during the recruitment process up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated;
e. punitive damages; and f. attorneys’ fees and costs. 416. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
86

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 87 of 129
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF TEXAS FRAUD
Individual Plaintiffs David, Kandhasamy, and Dhananjaya Against All Defendants11 417. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 418. Group I Plaintiff Dhananjaya brings these claims under Texas law against:
Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); Indo-Amerisoft and Rao; and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center).
419. Group II Plaintiffs David and Kandhasamy bring these claims under Texas law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center).
420. For the purpose of this Claim for Relief, Plaintiffs Dhananjaya, David, and Kandhasamy shall be referred to as “the Texas Plaintiffs.”
421. The Texas Plaintiffs bring this claim in the alternative pursuant to Rule 8(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should the Court determine that India Law, as set forth in the Fifth Claim for Relief; and Mississippi law, as set forth in the Sixth Claim for Relief, supra, do not apply to the Texas Plaintiffs.
11 Claims against Michael Pol, the President of Recruiter Defendant Global Resources, have been stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Further, claims against Indo-Amerisoft and Rao also have been stayed pending the outcome of their bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Sixth Amended Complaint if and when these stays are lifted.
87

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 88 of 129
422. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees, and/or representatives, made materially false and untrue statements and representations to the Texas Plaintiffs, with knowledge of their falsity or recklessly as a positive assertion without knowledge of their truth, regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States.
423. The Texas Plaintiffs were ignorant of the falsity of these statements and representations.
424. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants knowingly failed to disclose, with knowledge of this failure to disclose, material facts to the Texas Plaintiffs regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States.
425. The Texas Plaintiffs were ignorant of this failure to disclose material facts. 426. Defendants intended that the false representations and material omissions made by Defendants and/or their agents, employees, and/or representatives would induce the Texas Plaintiffs to act upon the false representations and material omissions in the manner Defendants reasonably contemplated:
a. that the false statements and material omissions would induce the Texas Plaintiffs to pay the exorbitant fees requested by the Labor Brokers, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants; b. that the false statements and material omissions would induce the Texas Plaintiffs to leave their homes and jobs in India and the United Arab Emirates and travel to the United States to work for the Labor Brokers and/or Defendant Signal.
88

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 89 of 129
427. The Texas Plaintiffs were justified to and did actually rely on Defendants’ representations.
428. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false representations and material omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, the Texas Plaintiffs paid large sums of money to Labor Brokers, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants.
429. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false representations and materials omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, the Texas Plaintiffs incurred substantial interest-bearing debts in order to pay recruitment, immigrationrelated, and travel fees charged by Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives.
430. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false representations and material omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, the Texas Plaintiffs sold personal and real property.
431. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false representations and material omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, the Texas Plaintiffs left their homes and, in some instances, their jobs in India and other countries and traveled to the United States to work for Defendant Signal.
432. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ knowing, willing, and intentional acts, the Texas Plaintiffs have been injured.
433. The Texas Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for injuries the Texas Plaintiffs suffered in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to:
a. compensation for all moneys paid during the recruitment process and in order to come to the United States to work for Signal, including, but
89

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 90 of 129
not limited to: recruitment fees; travel expenses; legal fees; medical testing; skills testing and administrative fees; losses on any personal or real property sold or pawned for the purposes of making payments in connection with the recruitment described herein; and fees and interest paid on any loans incurred as a result of the recruitment process up to the point at which each of the Texas Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; b. refunds of recruitment fees, legal services fees, and other fees and costs that Defendants promised to pay the Texas Plaintiffs if Defendants failed to secure for the Texas Plaintiffs the promised visa extensions and green cards; c. compensation of deductions taken from the Texas Plaintiffs’ paychecks by Defendant Signal for room and board; d. damages for emotional pain and suffering, including fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced during the recruitment process up to the point at which each of the Texas Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; e. punitive damages; and f. attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs. 434. For this cause of action, no Texas Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
90

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 91 of 129 EIGHTH, NINTH, AND TENTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF, GENERALLY NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 435. Plaintiffs bring claims of negligent misrepresentation in the alternative
pursuant to Rule 8(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should the Court determine that Plaintiffs’ claims of fraud, as set forth in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Claims for Relief, supra, do not apply.
91

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 92 of 129
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INDIA NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants12 436. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs. 437. Group I Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally and Padavettiyil bring these claims under the Indian Contract Act of 1872 including §§ 18 and 65, as well as related common law, equity, and case law (hereinafter “India negligent misrepresentation law”) against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); J & M Associates, J & M Marine, and Wilks; and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 438. Group I Plaintiffs Vijayan and Dhananjaya bring these claims under India negligent misrepresentation law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); Indo-Amerisoft and Rao; and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 439. Group II Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs Thangamani, David, Kandhasamy, Khuttan, Chellappan, Singh, Kumar, and Sulekha) bring these claims under India negligent misrepresentation law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin
12 Claims against Michael Pol, the President of Recruiter Defendant Global Resources, have been stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Further, claims against Indo-Amerisoft and Rao also have been stayed pending the outcome of their bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Sixth Amended Complaint if and when these stays are lifted.
92

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 93 of 129
Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center).
440. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees, and/or representatives, made positive untrue assertions to Plaintiffs in a manner not warranted by the information, and in spite of the contrary information, available to the Defendants regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States.
441. Plaintiffs were ignorant of the untrue nature of these assertions. 442. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs, which gained an advantage to Defendants by misleading Plaintiffs to Plaintiffs’ prejudice regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States. 443. Plaintiffs were ignorant of the fact that Defendants were misleading them. 444. Defendants failed to exercise their duty to the Plaintiffs as to the fact that, without limitation:
a. the untrue statements and concealments would and did induce Plaintiffs to pay the exorbitant fees requested by the Labor Brokers, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants; b. the untrue statements and concealments would and did induce Plaintiffs to leave their homes and, in many instances, jobs, in India and the United Arab Emirates and travel to the United States to work for the Labor Brokers and/or Defendant Signal.
93

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 94 of 129
445. Plaintiffs were entitled to and did rely on and act upon Defendants’ untrue statements and concealments, the Defendants’ misrepresentations were not innocent, and Plaintiffs did not have any means to discover the truth with ordinary diligence.
446. In reasonable reliance on and acting upon Defendants’ untrue statements and concealments regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money to Labor Brokers, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants.
447. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ untrue statements and concealments regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs (with the exception of Plaintiff Padavettiyil) 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.
448. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ untrue statements and concealments regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs (with the exception of Plaintiff Khuttan, Kumar, and Singh) sold personal and real property.
449. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ untrue statements and concealments regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs left their homes and, in many instances, jobs, in India and other countries and traveled to the United States to work for Defendant Signal.
450. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ knowing, willing, and intentional acts, Plaintiffs have been injured.
451. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for injuries Plaintiffs suffered in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to:
94

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 95 of 129
a. compensation for all moneys paid during the recruitment process and in order to come to the United States to work for Signal, including, but not limited to: recruitment fees; travel expenses; legal fees; medical testing; skills testing and administrative fees; losses on any personal or real property sold or pawned for the purposes of making payments in connection with the recruitment described herein; and fees and interest paid on any loans incurred as a result of the recruitment process up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; b. refunds of recruitment fees, legal services fees, and other fees and costs that Defendants promised to pay Plaintiffs if Defendants failed to secure for Plaintiffs the promised visa extensions and green cards; c. compensation of deductions taken from Plaintiffs’ paychecks by Defendant Signal for room and board; d. damages for emotional pain and suffering, including fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced during the recruitment process up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; e. punitive damages; and f. attorneys’ fees and costs. 452. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
95

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 96 of 129
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MISSISSIPPI NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants13 453. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs. 454. Group I Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally and Padavettiyil bring these claims under Mississippi law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); J & M Associates, J & M Marine, and Wilks; and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 455. Group I Plaintiffs Vijayan and Dhananjaya bring these claims under Mississippi law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); Indo-Amerisoft and Rao; and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 456. Group II Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs Thangamani, David, Kandhasamy, Khuttan, Chellappan, Singh, Kumar, and Sulekha) bring these claims under Mississippi law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center).
13 Claims against Michael Pol, the President of Recruiter Defendant Global Resources, have been stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Further, claims against Indo-Amerisoft and Rao also have been stayed pending the outcome of their bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Sixth Amended Complaint if and when these stays are lifted.
96

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 97 of 129
457. Plaintiffs bring this claim in the alternative pursuant to Rule 8(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should the Court determine that India law as set forth in the Eighth Claim for Relief, supra, does not apply.
458. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees, and/or representatives, made material or significant misrepresentations and omissions of facts to Plaintiffs regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States.
459. Plaintiffs were ignorant of the falsity of these statements and representations.
460. Defendants made these materials or significant misrepresentations and omissions without exercising reasonable care Plaintiffs were entitled to expect of Defendants.
461. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care as to the fact that: a. the misstatements and omissions would induce Plaintiffs to pay the exorbitant fees requested by the Labor Brokers, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants; b. the misstatements and omissions would induce Plaintiffs to leave their homes and, in many instances, jobs, in India and the United Arab Emirates and travel to the United States to work for the Labor Brokers and/or Defendant Signal.
462. Plaintiffs were entitled to and did reasonably rely on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions.
97

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 98 of 129
463. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money to the Labor Brokers, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants.
464. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs (with the exception of Plaintiff Padavettiyil) 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.
465. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs (with the exception of Plaintiff Khuttan, Kumar, and Singh) sold personal and real property.
466. In reasonable reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs left their homes and, in many instances, jobs, in India and other countries and traveled to the United States to work for Defendant Signal.
467. As a direct result of Defendants’ negligent misrepresentations and omissions and Plaintiffs reasonable reliance thereon, Plaintiffs have been injured.
468. As a proximate result of Defendants’ negligent misrepresentations and omissions and Plaintiffs reasonable reliance thereon, Plaintiffs have been injured.
469. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for injuries Plaintiffs suffered in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to:
a. compensation for all moneys paid during the recruitment process and in order to come to the United States to work for Signal, including, but not limited to: recruitment fees; travel expenses; legal fees; medical
98

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 99 of 129
testing; skills testing and administrative fees; losses on any personal or real property sold or pawned for the purposes of making payments in connection with the recruitment described herein; and fees and interest paid on any loans incurred as a result of the recruitment process up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; b. refunds of recruitment fees, legal services fees, and other fees and costs that Defendants promised to pay Plaintiffs if Defendants failed to secure for Plaintiffs the promised visa extensions and green cards; c. compensation of deductions taken from Plaintiffs’ paychecks by Defendant Signal for room and board; d. damages for emotional pain and suffering, including fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced during the recruitment process up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; e. punitive damages; and f. attorneys’ fees and costs. 470. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
99

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 100 of 129
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF TEXAS NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND OMISSION Individual Plaintiffs David, Kandhasamy, and Dhananjaya Against All Defendants14 471. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 472. Plaintiff Dhananjaya brings these claims under Texas law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); IndoAmerisoft and Rao; and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 473. Plaintiffs David and Kandhasamy bring these claims under Texas law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 474. For the purpose of this Claim for Relief, Plaintiffs Dhananjaya, David, and Kandhasamy shall be referred to as “the Texas Plaintiffs.” 475. The Texas Plaintiffs bring this claim in the alternative pursuant to Rule 8(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should the Court determine that India law, as set forth in the Eighth Claim for Relief; and Mississippi law, as set forth in the Ninth Claim for Relief, supra, do not apply to the Texas Plaintiffs.
14 Claims against Michael Pol, the President of Recruiter Defendant Global Resources, have been stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Further, claims against Indo-Amerisoft and Rao also have been stayed pending the outcome of their bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Sixth Amended Complaint if and when these stays are lifted.
100

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 101 of 129
476. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and in Exhibit 1, Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees, and/or representatives, made material or significant misrepresentations and omissions of facts to the Texas Plaintiffs regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States.
477. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions were made in the course of their business or in transactions in which they had pecuniary interests.
478. Defendants supplied the false information and made the omissions for the guidance of the Texas Plaintiffs in their business.
479. The Texas Plaintiffs were ignorant of the falsity of these statements and representations.
480. Defendants made these materials or significant misrepresentations and omissions without exercising that degree of diligence and expertise Texas Plaintiffs were entitled to expect of Defendants.
481. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information to the Texas Plaintiffs, and to the fact that:
a. the misstatements and omissions would induce the Texas Plaintiffs to pay the exorbitant fees requested by the Labor Brokers, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants; b. the misstatements and omissions would induce the Texas Plaintiffs to leave their homes and jobs in India and the United Arab Emirates and travel to the United States to work for the Labor Brokers and/or Defendant Signal.
101

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 102 of 129
482. The Texas Plaintiffs were justified to and did reasonably rely on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions.
483. In reasonable and justifiable reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, the Texas Plaintiffs paid large sums of money to the Labor Brokers, Recruiter Defendants, and/or Legal Facilitator Defendants.
484. In reasonable and justifiable reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, the Texas Plaintiffs incurred substantial interest-bearing debts in order to pay recruitment, immigrationrelated, and travel fees charged by Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives.
485. In reasonable and justifiable reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, the Texas Plaintiffs sold personal and real property.
486. In reasonable and justifiable reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding green cards and employment opportunities, the Texas Plaintiffs left their homes and, in some instances, jobs in India and other countries and traveled to the United States to work for Defendant Signal.
487. As a direct result of Defendants’ negligent acts, the Texas Plaintiffs suffered pecuniary losses and been injured.
488. As a proximate result of Defendants’ negligent acts, the Texas Plaintiffs suffered pecuniary losses and been injured.
489. The Texas Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for injuries the Texas Plaintiffs suffered in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to:
102

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 103 of 129
a. compensation for all moneys paid during the recruitment process and in order to come to the United States to work for Signal, including, but not limited to: recruitment fees; travel expenses; legal fees; medical testing; skills testing and administrative fees; losses on any personal or real property sold or pawned for the purposes of making payments in connection with the recruitment described herein; and fees and interest paid on any loans incurred as a result of the recruitment process up to the point at which each of the Texas Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; b. refunds of recruitment fees, legal services fees, and other fees and costs that Defendants promised to pay the Texas Plaintiffs if Defendants failed to secure for the Texas Plaintiffs the promised visa extensions and green cards; c. compensation of deductions taken from the Texas Plaintiffs’ paychecks by Defendant Signal for room and board; d. damages for emotional pain and suffering, including fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced during the recruitment process up to the point at which each of the Texas Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; e. punitive damages; and f. attorneys’ fees and costs. 490. For this cause of action, no Texas Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
103

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 104 of 129
ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF, GENERALLY BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUASI-CONTRACT CLAIMS
491. Plaintiffs bring claims of breach of contract and quasi-contract claims in the alternative pursuant to Rule 8(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should the Court determine that Plaintiffs’ claims of fraud, as set forth in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Claims for Relief, supra, and negligent misrepresentation, as set forth in the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Claims for Relief, supra, do not apply.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INDIA BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUASI-CONTRACT CLAIMS
All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants15 492. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 493. Group I Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally and Padavettiyil bring these claims under the Indian Contract Act of 1872, §§ 2-10, 25, 37-58, 63, and 73-74; Indian Evidence Act of 1872, § 115; as well as related common law, equity, and case law (“India contract law”), against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); J & M Associates, J & M Marine, and Wilks; and the
15 Claims against Michael Pol, the President of Recruiter Defendant Global Resources, have been stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Further, claims against Indo-Amerisoft and Rao also have been stayed pending the outcome of their bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Sixth Amended Complaint if and when these stays are lifted.
104

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 105 of 129
Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center).
494. Group I Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally and Padavettiyil bring these claims under India contract, common, and equity law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); Indo-Amerisoft and Rao; and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center).
495. Group II Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs Thangamani, David, Kandhasamy, Khuttan, Chellappan, Singh, Kumar, and Sulekha) bring these claims under India contract, common, and equity law, against Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center).
496. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees and/or representatives, communicated to Plaintiffs and with the knowledge of Plaintiffs a proposal offering to obtain permanent residence and immigration status for Plaintiffs in the United States within 18 to 24 months. Defendants also offered to provide, visa extensions prior to permanent residence, as well as steady work opportunities in the United States with Defendant Signal and/or Defendants IndoAmerisoft, Rao, J & M Associates, J & M Marine, and Wilks (Labor Broker Defendants). Defendants made these offers 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. Defendants also promised to refund all or most of the fees Plaintiffs paid for the promised permanent residence and
105

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 106 of 129
immigration status if Defendants failed to secure the permanent residence and immigration status for Plaintiffs.
497. Plaintiffs accepted and relied on Defendants’ offers and the Defendants had knowledge of the Plaintiffs’ acceptance.
498. Plaintiffs provided consideration and performed or tendered reasonable performance of their obligations under the contract by paying the agreed upon fees, and there was mutual consent to the terms of the contract.
499. Plaintiffs performed or tendered performance of their obligations under the contract by working for Signal.
500. Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with their binding promises regarding permanent residence and immigration status and by failing to refund Plaintiffs’ payments to them, in breach of their contractual promises to Plaintiffs.
501. Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by not fulfilling within a reasonable time their binding promises regarding permanent residence and immigration status.
502. In reliance on their agreements with Defendants and Defendants’ promises, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money and entered into substantial debts, surrendered other employment opportunities in the UAE and/or in India, and/or incurred other financial losses.
503. Defendants received advantage under their agreement with Plaintiffs. Specifically, Defendants reaped significant profits from recruitment fees Plaintiffs paid to the Defendants.
106

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 107 of 129
504. Defendant Signal received advantage under their agreement with Plaintiffs through payments Plaintiffs made for housing in Signal labor camps.
505. Defendant Signal received advantage under their agreement with Plaintiffs through increased profits brought about by having a captive work force Signal could pay significantly less than contract labor and by using the captive work force to complete projects it otherwise would not timely complete, thereby avoiding liquidated damages clauses in Signal’s underlying contracts with its customers.
506. As a direct result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which Plaintiffs and Defendants knew when they made the agreement to be the likely result of the breach.
507. If the Court determines that the green card and immigration status agreements do not constitute enforceable contracts in part or in full, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover relief pursuant to the following equitable claims in quasi-contract:
a. Unjust enrichment. Defendants should be required to disgorge money which Defendants received from Plaintiffs to Defendants’ benefits and which in good conscience and justice Defendants should not retain. b. Promissory estoppel. Defendants promised Plaintiffs they would reimburse recruitment fees if Defendants failed to obtain green cards, Defendants intended that Plaintiffs rely upon that promise and Plaintiffs did in fact rely upon that promise and altered their position in doing so, and a refusal to enforce this promise would virtually sanction the perpetuation of fraud or would result in other inequities. 508. Plaintiffs therefore are entitled to recover damages under contract or quasi-contract in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to:
107

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 108 of 129
a. compensation for all moneys paid during the recruitment process and in order to come to the United States to work for Signal, including, but not limited to: recruitment fees; travel expenses; legal fees; medical testing; skills testing and administrative fees; losses on any personal or real property sold or pawned for the purposes of making payments in connection with the recruitment described herein; and fees and interest paid on any loans incurred as a result of the recruitment process and up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; b. refunds of recruitment fees, legal services fees, and other fees and costs that Defendants promised to pay Plaintiffs if Defendants failed to secure for Plaintiffs the promised visa extensions and green cards; c. compensation of deductions taken from Plaintiffs’ paychecks by Defendant Signal for room and board; d. disgorgement of profits received by advantage of Defendants’ agreements with Plaintiffs, including profits from recruitment fees Plaintiffs paid to the Defendants, Signal’s profits from payments Plaintiffs made for room and board at Signal’s labor camps, and increased profits Signal obtained by having a captive work force Signal could pay significantly less than contract labor and by using the captive work force to complete projects it otherwise would not timely complete, thereby avoiding liquidated damages clauses in Signal’s underlying contracts with its customers; e. punitive damages; and f. attorneys’ fees and costs.
108

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 109 of 129
509. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MISSISSIPPI BREACH OF CONTRACT AND QUASI-CONTRACT CLAIMS
All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants16 510. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 511. Group I Plaintiffs Kadakkarappally and Padavettiyil bring these claims under Mississippi state law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); J & M Associates, J & M Marine, and Wilks; and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 512. Group I Plaintiffs Vijayan and Dhananjaya bring these claims under Mississippi state law against: Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants); Indo-Amerisoft and Rao; and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center). 513. Group II Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs Thangamani, David, Kandhasamy, Khuttan, Chellappan, Singh, Kumar, and Sulekha) bring these claims under Mississippi state law against Signal; Recruiter Defendants (Global Resources, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan
16 Claims against Michael Pol, the President of Recruiter Defendant Global Resources, have been stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Further, claims against Indo-Amerisoft and Rao also have been stayed pending the outcome of their bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Sixth Amended Complaint if and when these stays are lifted.
109

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 110 of 129
Consultants); and the Legal Facilitator Defendants (Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center).
514. Plaintiffs bring this claim in the alternative pursuant to Rule 8(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should the Court determine that India law as set forth in the Eleventh Claim for Relief, supra, does not apply.
515. 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. Defendants also offered to provide visa extensions prior to permanent residence status and steady work opportunities in the United States with Defendant Signal and/or Defendants Indo-Amerisoft, Rao, J & M Associates, J & M Marine, and Wilks (Labor Broker Defendants). Defendants made these offers 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. Defendants also promised to refund all or most of the fees Plaintiffs paid for the promised permanent residence, visa extensions, and immigration status if Defendants failed to secure the permanent residence and immigration status for Plaintiffs.
516. Plaintiffs accepted and relied on Defendants’ offers. 517. Plaintiffs proffered consideration and performed or tendered reasonable performance of their obligations under the contract by paying the agreed upon fees. 518. Plaintiffs performed or tendered performance of their obligations under the contracts by working for Signal. 519. There was mutual assent as to the terms of the contract.
110

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 111 of 129
520. Defendants received advantage under their agreement with Plaintiffs. Specifically, Defendants reaped significant profits from recruitment fees Plaintiffs paid to the Defendants.
521. Defendant Signal received advantage under their agreement with Plaintiffs through payments Plaintiffs made for housing in Signal labor camps.
522. Defendant Signal received advantage under their agreement with Plaintiffs through increased profits brought about by having a captive work force Signal could pay significantly less than contract labor and by using the captive work force to complete projects it otherwise would not timely complete, thereby avoiding liquidated damages clauses in Signal’s underlying contracts with its customers.
523. Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with their binding promises regarding applying for and otherwise making best efforts to obtain permanent residence and immigration status and by failing to refund Plaintiffs’ payments to them, in breach of their contractual promises to Plaintiffs.
524. Defendants breached theirs contracts with Plaintiffs by delaying and otherwise failing to perform their binding promises regarding permanent residence and immigration status.
525. In reliance on their agreements with Defendants and Defendants’ promises, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money and entered into substantial debts, surrendered other employment opportunities in the UAE and/or in India, and/or incurred other financial losses.
526. As a direct result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages. 527. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.
111

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 112 of 129
528. If the Court determines that the green card agreements do not constitute enforceable contracts in part or in full, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover relief pursuant to the following equitable claims in quasi-contract:
a. Unjust enrichment. Defendants should be required to disgorge money which Defendants received from Plaintiffs to Defendants’ benefit and which in good conscience and justice Defendants should not retain. b. Promissory estoppel. Defendants promised Plaintiffs they would reimburse recruitment fees if Defendants failed to obtain green cards, Defendants intended that Plaintiffs rely upon that promise and Plaintiffs did in fact rely upon that promise, and a refusal to enforce this promise would virtually sanction the perpetuation of fraud or would result in other injustice. 529. Plaintiffs therefore are entitled to recover damages in contract or quasicontract in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to: a. compensation for all moneys paid during the recruitment process and in order to come to the United States to work for Signal, including, but not limited to: recruitment fees; travel expenses; legal fees; medical testing; immigration processing fees; skills testing and administrative fees; losses on any personal or real property sold or pawned for the purposes of making payments in connection with the recruitment described herein; and fees and interest paid on any loans incurred as a result of the recruitment process and up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated;
112

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 113 of 129
b. refunds of recruitment fees, legal services fees, immigration processing fees, and other fees and costs that Defendants promised to pay Plaintiffs if Defendants failed to secure for Plaintiffs the promised visa extensions and green cards; c. compensation of deductions taken from Plaintiffs’ paychecks by Defendant Signal for room and board; disgorgement of profits received by advantage of Defendants’ agreements with Plaintiffs, including profits from recruitment fees Plaintiffs paid to the Defendants, Signal’s profits from payments Plaintiffs made for room and board at Signal’s labor camps, and increased profits Signal obtained by having a captive work force Signal could pay significantly less than contract labor and by using the captive work force to complete projects it otherwise would not timely complete, thereby avoiding liquidated damages clauses in Signal’s underlying contracts with its customers. d. Punitive damages; and e. attorneys’ fees and costs. 530. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (“FLSA”)
COLLECTIVE ACTION All Plaintiffs Against Defendant Signal 531. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
113

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 114 of 129
532. The named Plaintiffs assert this claim for damages against Defendant Signal pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
533. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the named Plaintiffs have consented in writing to be Plaintiffs in this FLSA action. Their written consents are attached to the original and First Amended Complaints.
534. Defendant Signal violated 29 U.S.C. § 206 by failing to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated the applicable minimum wage for every compensable hour of labor they performed.
535. The violations of the FLSA minimum wage requirement set forth in the preceding paragraph resulted from Defendant Signal’s unlawful deductions from the wages of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated including, inter alia:
a. Expenses and fees for point-of-hire travel, visa and other immigration-related matters, and recruitment, all of which were services furnished primarily for the benefit or convenience of Defendant Signal. These expenses and fees also were services furnished in violation of federal, state, or local law, including, inter alia, the TVPA and the RICO as set forth supra including in ¶ 221.
b. Tools of the trade that were furnished primarily for the benefit or convenience of Defendant Signal as set forth in ¶ 218, supra.
c. Housing furnished primarily for the benefit or convenience of Defendant Signal. The conditions and overcrowding of the housing also violated federal, state, and/or local law, including, inter alia, the OSHA as set forth supra, including in ¶¶ 205-218.
114

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 115 of 129
d. Board furnished primarily for the benefit or convenience of Defendant Signal. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal did not obtain the required permit(s) to furnish the board at their Texas and Mississippi man camps, 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 Food Code, as adopted and modified by Mississippi Department of Health Food Regulations (Mississippi man camp residents) and Texas Food Establishment Rules (Texas man camp residents), as set forth in ¶¶ 214-216, supra. 536. Defendant Signal violated 29 U.S.C. § 207 by failing to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated the applicable overtime wage for every compensable hour of labor they performed. 537. The violations of the FLSA overtime requirement set forth in the preceding paragraph resulted from, inter alia:
a. Defendant Signal’s failure to pay one and one-half the regular rate of pay for overtime hours during workweeks when Plaintiffs and others similarly situated received a safety bonus premium, as set forth in ¶¶ 222-227, supra.
b. Unlawful deductions from the wages of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated including, inter alia:
(i) Expenses and fees for point-of-hire travel, visa and other immigration-related matters, and recruitment, all of which were services furnished primarily for the benefit or convenience of Defendant Signal. These expenses and fees also were services furnished in violation of federal, state, or local law, including, inter alia, the TVPA and the RICO as set forth supra including in ¶ 221.
115

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 116 of 129
(ii) Tools of the trade that were furnished primarily for the benefit or convenience of Defendant Signal as set forth in ¶ 222, supra.
(iii) Housing furnished primarily for the benefit or convenience of Defendant Signal. The condition and overcrowding of the housing also violated federal, state, and/or local law, including, inter alia, the OSHA as set forth supra including in ¶¶ 205-218.
(iv) Board furnished primarily for the benefit or convenience of Defendant Signal. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal did not obtain the required permit(s) to furnish the board at their Texas and Mississippi man camps, 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 Food Code, as adopted and modified by Mississippi Department of Health Food Regulations (Mississippi man camp residents) and Texas Food Establishment Rules (Texas man camp residents) as set forth in ¶¶ 214-216, supra. 538. For the purpose of the proceeding paragraphs, the term “deductions” shall include both withholdings Defendant Signal made from the wages of Plaintiffs and outof-pocket costs Plaintiffs paid that amounted to de facto deductions. 539. Defendant Signal’s failure to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated the federally mandated minimum and overtime wages were willful violations of the FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). 540. As a consequence of Defendant Signal’s violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are entitled to recover the following damages, including but not limited to:
116

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 117 of 129
a. reimbursement of Plaintiffs’ unpaid minimum wages; b. reimbursement of Plaintiffs’ unpaid overtime wages; c. an additional equal amount in liquidated damages; d. costs of suit; and e. reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 541. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Retaliation) Individual Plaintiffs Vijayan and Kadakkarappally Against Defendant Signal
542. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
543. Individual Plaintiffs Vijayan and Kadakkarappally assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Defendant Signal for damages.
544. The actions of Defendant Signal violated Plaintiffs Vijayan’s and Kadakkarappally’s rights to receive full and equal benefit of all laws as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. § 1981, by, inter alia, threatening, assaulting, battering, falsely imprisoning, causing emotional distress to, and terminating the employment of Plaintiffs Vijayan and Kadakkarappally as a direct response to and in retaliation for their legally protected opposition to Defendant Signal’s discriminatory practices.
545. Defendant Signal knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and without justification acted to deprive Plaintiffs Vijayan and Kadakkarappally of their rights.
117

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 118 of 129
546. As a result of Defendant Signal’s unlawful acts, Plaintiffs Vijayan and Kadakkarappally have suffered injury.
547. Plaintiffs Vijayan and Kadakkarappally seek all appropriate relief, including but not limited to:
a. compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering, including fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced based on the retaliatory discharge and other retaliatory acts up to the point at which each Plaintiff’s employment at Signal was terminated; b. punitive damages c. attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs of this action, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)-(c). 548. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
118

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 119 of 129
FIFTEENTH FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE KLU KLUX KLAN ACT OF 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1985) (Thirteenth Amendment and Constitutional Right to Travel) Individual Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar and Chellappan Against Defendants Signal, 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)17 549. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 550. Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar and Chellappan assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for damages against Defendant Signal, the Recruiter Defendants, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants. 551. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and the First and Second Claims for Relief, Defendant Signal, the Recruiter Defendants, the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Swetman Security firm conspired, agreed, planned, and coordinated the March 9, 2007 kidnapping and detention of Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan for the purpose of depriving these 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 and trafficking in persons and to exercise their Constitutional right to travel. 552. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs and the First and Second Claims for Relief, Defendant Signal, the Recruiter Defendants, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants, along with the Swetman Security firm, acted in furtherance of their
17 Claims against Michael Pol, President of Recruiter Defendant Global Resources, have been stayed pending the outcome of his bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the Fourth Amended Complaint if and when the stay is lifted.
119

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 120 of 129
conspiracy for the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar and Chellappan 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 trafficking in persons.
553. Defendant Signal, the Recruiter Defendants, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants were motivated by racial, anti-Indian, and/or anti-immigrant animus when they conspired to deprive the Individual Plaintiffs of their rights and/or acted in furtherance of a conspiracy to deprive the Individual Plaintiffs of their rights.
554. Defendant Signal, the Recruiter Defendants, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and without justification planned and acted to deprive the Individual Plaintiffs of their rights.
555. As a result of the unlawful acts by Defendant Signal, the Recruiter Defendants, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants, the Individual Plaintiffs have suffered injury.
556. Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan seek all appropriate relief in an amount to be determined at trial, including but not limited to:
a. compensatory damages for Signal’s, the Recruiter Defendants’ , and the Legal Facilitator Defendants’ deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights on March 9, 2007; b. damages for emotional pain and suffering, including but not limited to fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced as a result of Signal’s, the
120

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 121 of 129
Recruiter Defendants’, and the Legal Facilitator Defendants’ deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights on March 9, 2007; c. punitive damages; and d. attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs of this action, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)-(c). 557. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MISSISSIPPI FALSE IMPRISONMENT Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan Against
Defendant Signal 558. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 559. Individual Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan bring this claim for damages resulting from their false imprisonment, and attempted false imprisonment, by Defendant Signal. 560. Defendant Signal acted to unlawfully and unreasonably detain the Individual Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan against their will and consent. 561. Defendant Signal acted with malice, gross negligence, and/or reckless disregard. 562. Individual Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan suffered injury as a result of Defendant Signal’s actions. 563. Defendant Signal is liable to the Individual Plaintiffs for damages, including but not limited to:
121

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 122 of 129
a. compensatory damages for the false imprisonment; b. damages for emotional pain and suffering, including but not limited to fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced as a result of the false imprisonment or attempted false imprisonment; and c. punitive damages. 564. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MISSISSIPPI ASSAULT AND BATTERY Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Kumar, Singh and Chellappan against Defendant
Signal 565. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 566. Individual Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Kumar, Singh and Chellappan assert this claim for damages resulting from their assault and battery, or assault and attempted battery, by Defendant Signal on March 9, 2007 567. Defendant Signal intentionally acted with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with Individual Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Kumar, Singh, and Chellappan. 568. Defendant Signal intentionally placed Individual Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Kumar, Singh, and Chellappan in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
122

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 123 of 129
569. Defendant Signal’s actions resulted in harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Kumar, and Chellappan.
570. Defendant Signal acted with malice, gross negligence, and/or reckless disregard.
571. Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Kumar, Singh and Chellappan suffered injury as a result of Defendant Signal’s actions.
572. Defendant Signal is liable to the Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Kumar, Singh and Chellappan for damages, including but not limited to:
a. compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering, including fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced as a result of the assault and battery or assault and attempted battery; and b. punitive damages. 573. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MISSISSIPPI INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan against
Defendant Signal 574. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 575. Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan bring this claim for damages resulting from Defendant Signal’s intentional infliction of emotional distress on March 9, 2007.
123

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 124 of 129
576. Defendant Signal’s actions to assault, batter, and falsely imprison Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan were extreme and outrageous.
577. Defendant Signal undertook this conduct with the intent to cause, or with disregard of, the reasonable forseeability of causing severe emotional distress.
578. Defendant Signal’s conduct was intentional, willful, and/or wanton. 579. Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Defendant Signal’s actions. 580. Defendant Signal is liable to the Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan for damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including but not limited to:
a. compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering, including fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced as a result of the false imprisonment and assault and battery; and b. punitive damages. 581. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
124

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 125 of 129
NINETEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF MISSISSIPPI NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Individual Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, Chellappan, Sulekha, Padavettiyil, Khuttan and Thangamani Against Defendant Signal 582. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 583. Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan, Sulekha, Padavettiyil, Khuttan and Thangamani bring this claim for damages resulting from Defendant Signal’s negligent infliction of emotional distress on March 9, 2007. 584. Defendant Signal negligently inflicted emotional distress on each of these Plaintiffs through its actions or attempt to assault, batter, and falsely imprison Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan. Signal carried out these acts publicly and with the stated intention of intimidating all of the H-2B workers. It made an example out of Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan to demonstrate what would happen to the other H-2B workers if they complained about Signal or took steps to seek legal assistance. Plaintiffs Sulekha, Padavettiyil, Khuttan and Thangamani witnessed the event in all or in part and suffered emotional distress as a result. 585. The emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan as a result of Defendant Signal’s actions or attempt to assault, batter and falsely imprison them was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Defendant Signal’s conduct. The emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs Sulekha, Padavettiyil, Khuttan and Thangamani, who witnessed the events in all or in part, was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Defendant Signal’s conduct.
125

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 126 of 129
586. Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, Chellappan, Sulekha, Padavettiyil, Khuttan and Thangamani suffered severe emotional injury as a result of Defendant Signal’s actions.
587. Defendant Signal is liable to Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarappally, Singh, Kumar, Chellappan, Sulekha, Padavettiyil, Khuttan and Thangamani for damages, including:
a. compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering, including fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, depression, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, panic, apprehension, terror, or ordeal experienced as a result of the false imprisonment and assault and battery; and b. punitive damages. 588. For this cause of action, no Plaintiff seeks damages from any Defendants relating to events that occurred after his employment with Signal ended.
126

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 127 of 129
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief: a. Certifying the claims set forth in Plaintiffs’ Thirteenth Claim for Relief as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); b. Compensatory damages; c. Punitive damages; d. Treble damages as authorized by RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) e. Liquidated damages as authorized by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216; f. An award of all prevailing party costs authorized by law, including attorney fees; g. A finding of alter ego between Billy R. Wilks and J & M Associates thus piercing J & M Associate’s corporate veil; h. A finding that J & M Marine is the successor of J & M Associates; and i. Such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
127

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 128 of 129

Respectfully submitted this 4th day of August, 2014,

Daniel Werner (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 422070 Naomi Tsu (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 507612 Kristi L. Graunke (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 305653 Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center 233 Peachtree Street, Suite 2150 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Facsimile: (404) 221-5857 daniel.werner@splcenter.org naomi.tsu@splcenter.org kristi.graunke@splcenter.org
Alan B. Howard, T.A. (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 2173268 Hugh Sandler (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4712584 Melia Amal Bouhabib (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4878468. Chiemi Suzuki (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4330569 Crowell & Moring, LLP 590 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10022 212-803-4042 ahoward@crowell.com hsandler@crowell.com abouhabib@crowell.com csuzuki@crowell.com

s/ Joseph Bjarnson_____________ Joseph Bjarnson (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4774055 Sahn Ward Coschignano & Baker 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., # 601 Uniondale, NY 11553 516-228-1300 jbjarnson@swcblaw.com
Tracie L. Washington, Esq. Louisiana Bar No. 25925 Louisiana Justice Institute 1631 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70117 Telephone: 504.872.9134 tracie@LouisianaJusticeInstitute.org tlwesq@cox.net
Ivy O. Suriyopas (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4406385 Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund 99 Hudson Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212)966-5932 isuriyopas@aaldef.org
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4136966 Human Rights Program American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street – 18th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 519-7840 cbhatnagar@aclu.org

128

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 1706 Filed 08/05/14 Page 129 of 129 Meredith B. Stewart Louisiana Bar No. 34109 Southern Poverty Law Center 1055 St. Charles Ave., # 505 New Orleans, LA 70130 504-486-8982 Fax: 504-486-8947 meredith.stewart@splcenter.org
129

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Cases:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-557 SECTION “E”

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732) SECTION "E"

Applies To: David v. Signal (08-1220) ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings1 and a

1R. Doc. 1431.
1

12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss,2 both filed by Signal International, LLC ("Signal"), as well as a 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Burnett.3 Plaintiffs oppose all of the motions.4 Considering the briefs, the record, and the parties arguments at oral argument, the court rules as follows.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are twelve citizens of India who secured H-2B visas to work in the United States for Signal in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Plaintiffs allege the Defendants5 recruited them to work as temporary workers for Signal and forced them to pay inbound travel expenses, visa expenses, and other recruiting expenses. Plaintiffs allege they were induced by Defendants to pay such sums because Defendants knowingly made false promises and representations regarding "the nature and terms and conditions of the immigration and work opportunities offered."6 Plaintiffs also claim they were discriminated against and subjected to forced labor as welders, pipefitters, and marine fabrication workers at Signal's facilities in Pascagoula, Mississippi and Orange, Texas. Once Plaintiffs arrived at Signal facilities in the United States, Plaintiffs claim Signal forced the workers to live in deplorable conditions and used various tactics to compel the Plaintiffs to continue working for Signal.
2R. Doc. 1594. 3R. Doc. 1582. The Court uses "Burnett" to collectively refer to the following defendants: Malvern C. Burnett, the Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC and the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC. 4R. Doc. 1491; R. Doc. 1602; R. Doc. 1598. 5The defendants include: Signal, Malvern Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Center, LLC, The Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC, J&M Associates, Inc., J&M Marine, Inc., Billy Wilks, Global Resources, Inc., Dewan Consultants, Pvt., and Sachin Dewan. Plaintiffs allege all defendants were involved in the scheme to recruit Plaintiffs to work in the United States. 6R. Doc. 1706, p. 30.
2

Plaintiffs allege Signal and Burnett violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003 ("TVPRA")(15 U.S.C. § 1589), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") (18 U.S.C. § 1962, et seq.), and the Klu Klux Klan Act (42 U.S.C. § 1985).7 Plaintiffs claim Signal violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981) ("Section 1981") and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")(29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.).8 Additionally, Plaintiffs bring claims against Signal and Burnett for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract under state law.
Signal filed a 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims, claim for recruitment fees under Section 1981, and claim for recruitment fees, inbound travel expenses, and visa expenses under FLSA contained in Plaintiffs' third amended complaint.9 The Court thereafter ordered Plaintiffs to file fourth and fifth amended complaints to clarify their causes of action and to state which law their state law claims arise under.10 After Plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint, Signal filed a 12(b)(6) Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims, putting forth the same arguments as its Rule 12(c) motion, and additionally asking the Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims.11 Burnett filed a Rule 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings seeking to dismiss the TVPRA, RICO, and the Klu Klux Klan Act claims in Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint, as well as Plaintiffs' state law
7R. Doc. 1706, pp. 56-71, 116-118. 8R. Doc. 1706, pp. 71-73. 9R. Doc. 1431. 10R. Doc. 1518; R. Doc. 1584. 11R. Doc. 1594.
3

claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation.12 Plaintiffs then sought and obtained leave to file a sixth amended complaint to add
various Signal entities as defendants.13 In Plaintiffs' sixth amended complaint, they do not seek recruitment fees under Section 1981. Plaintiffs seek "compensatory damages for the deprivation of Plaintiffs' civil rights during their time in Signal's Pascagoula, Mississippi and/or Orange, Texas employment up to the point at which each Plaintiffs' employment at Signal was terminated."14 Plaintiffs do not pray for compensatory damages related to the recruitment fees they incurred prior to or after working at Signal under Section 1981. Accordingly, Signal's 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim for recruitment fees under Section 1981 is DENIED AS MOOT. However, with respect to the remaining issues raised in both Signal's and Burnett's motions, the amended complaints have not rendered any of those issues moot. Accordingly, the Court will rule on each motion in turn.
STANDARD OF LAW Signal and Burnett's motions under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) are governed by the same legal standard. The standard for dismissal under Rule 12(c) is the same as that for dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 528 (5th Cir. 2004). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court may dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if the plaintiff has not set forth factual allegations in support of his claim
12R. Doc. 1582. 13R. Doc. 1706. 14R. Doc. 1706, p. 73 (emphasis added).
4

that would entitle him to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007);
Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007). As the Fifth Circuit explained in
Gonzales v. Kay:
"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). The Supreme Court recently expounded upon the Twombly standard, explaining that "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 128 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929). "A Claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. It follows that "where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not 'show[n]' - that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. at 1950 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009).
The Court cannot look beyond the factual allegations in the pleadings to determine
whether relief should be granted. See Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir.
1999); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). In assessing the Plaintiffs'
complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and liberally construe all
factual allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. Spivey, 197 F.3d at 774;
Lowrey v. Tex A & M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997). "Dismissal is appropriate
when the complaint 'on its face show[s] a bar to relief." Cutrer v. McMillan, 308 F. App'x
819, 820 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (unpublished) (quoting Clark v. Amoco Prod. Co.,
794 F.2d 967, 970 (5th Cir. 1986)). A court may grant a motion for judgment on the
pleadings when no genuine issues of material fact remain and the case can be decided as a
matter of law. Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007).
5

ANALYSIS A. Signal's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings Under Rule 12(c)15
Signal seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for recruitment fees, visa expenses, and travel expenses, asserting these fees and expenses are not recoverable under FLSA.16
In their complaint, Plaintiffs claim Signal violated FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs
the applicable minimum wage as a result of Signal's unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs'
wages for travel expenses, visa expenses, and recruitment expenses, all of which were allegedly paid entirely by Plaintiffs for the benefit or convenience of Signal.17 Under FLSA,
"wage" is defined as both cash wages and "the reasonable cost ... to the employer of
furnishing such employee with board, lodging, or other facilities, if such board, lodging, or
other facilities are customarily furnished by such employer to his employees." 29 U.S.C. §
203(m). The court in Rivera v. Brickman Group, Ltd. explained how the FLSA minimum
wage is calculated in light of an employer's deductions:
In other words, when the employer pays for "board, lodging, or other facilities," it may add the costs of those facilities to the cash wage for purposes of complying with the FLSA minimum. The Department of Labor has stipulated that an employer may not count as "other facilities" goods or services that are "primarily for the benefit or convenience of the employer," 29 C.F.R. § 531.3(d)(1), and, as a corollary, has provided that employers may not pass along to employees expenses for such goods or services, 29 C.F.R. § 531.35. If an employer does pass along such an expense, then the expense is deducted from the cash wage to determine compliance with the FLSA minimum.
2008 WL 81570 at *7 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2008).
Plaintiffs pray for reimbursement of travel expenses, visa expenses, and recruitment
15R. Doc. 1431. 16R. Doc. 1431, p. 7. Signal also argues Louisiana's choice of law rules require dismissal of Plaintiffs' state law claims. The Court will address this argument in reference to Signal's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss discussed below. 17R. Doc. 1706, pp. 115-116.
6

expenses, arguing these sums were "primarily for the benefit" of Signal and therefore those expenses must be deducted from Plaintiffs' wages to determine whether a minimum wage was paid under FLSA.18 Signal, on the other hand, argues the Fifth Circuit's decision in Castellanos-Contreras v. Decatur Hotels, LLC holds that Plaintiffs are not entitled to be reimbursed for those sums under FLSA. 622 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2010).
In Decatur Hotels, a group of foreign workers brought to the United States under H2B visas sued their employer, a hotel operator. The workers sought to recover from the employer their travel expenses, visa fees, and recruitment payments, arguing such sums must be deducted from the first week's wage before calculating whether a minimum wage, under the FLSA, was paid. Asserting that the deductions took their pay below minimum wage, the workers sued their employer under FLSA to be reimbursed for such expenses.
On appeal from the district court's order granting in part the workers' summary judgment motion and denying the employer's summary judgment motion, the Fifth Circuit addressed whether each category for which the workers claimed reimbursement - inbound travel expenses, visa expenses, and recruitment expenses - should be deducted from the workers' first week's wage under FLSA. The Fifth Circuit held that no statute or regulation expressly required an employer to deduct the cost of inbound travel expenses or visa expenses before determining whether a minimum wage was paid. Id. at 400. As such, the workers were not entitled to be reimbursed for such expenses as a matter of law. Id. Accordingly, to the extent Signal seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs' FLSA claim for inbound travel and visa expenses, Signal's motion is granted.
With respect to recruitment fees, Decatur Hotels held the employer "was not required to reimburse the workers for the fees they paid [recruiters]" because the workers
18R. Doc. 1706, p. 116.
7

had not put forth any "evidence to support the concept that [the employer] required recruitment fees to be paid to the [recruiters] or that it required the workers to use these recruiters to apply." Id. at 403. The Fifth Circuit distinguished Brickman, which held the costs of recruitment fees were found to be "primarily for the benefit of the employer," and that the employer was not allowed to pass those costs along to the employees to the extent that doing so reduced their wages below the FLSA minimum. 2008 WL. 81570 at *14. The Brickman court based its decision on the fact that the employees had no choice but to go through the employer's recruiters. Id. at *13. The Fifth Circuit in Decatur Hotels found the employer and the workers shared the recruitment expenses which were "apportioned to each party appropriately." Id. at 404. As such, the workers did not demonstrate the recruitment fees were "primarily for the benefit" of their employer so those fees were not to be deducted before calculating whether a minimum wage was paid under FLSA. Id.
The Fifth Circuit's determination that recruitment expenses were not reimbursable in Decatur Hotels was based on the lack of evidence put forth by the plaintiffs at the summary judgment stage to show: 1) the employer required the workers to pay recruiters or, 2) that the employer required the workers to use recruiters. Id. at 403. Accordingly, Decatur Hotels leaves open the possibility for a plaintiff to recover recruitment fees under FLSA if he or she can show the employer required the employee to use a recruiter and to pay the recruiter.
Unlike Decatur Hotels, this Court must only determine whether the factual allegations in the complaint support Plaintiffs' claim for recruitment fees under FLSA. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c) motion, the Court cannot look beyond the factual allegations in the pleadings to determine whether relief should be granted. See Spivey, 197 F.3d at 774. Based on facts alleged in Plaintiffs' sixth amended complaint, taken as true,
8

Plaintiffs have stated a claim for recruitment fees under the FLSA because Plaintiffs allege Signal required them to pay recruiters and Signal required the Plaintiffs to use recruiters.19 As such, Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim for recruitment fees under FLSA. Signal's request to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for recruitment fees under FLSA is denied. B. Signal's 12(b)(6) Motion20
After Plaintiffs' filed their fifth amended complaint, Signal filed a Motion to Partially Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Rule 12(b)(6) seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' state law claims to the extent they are alternatively based on the state law of Mississippi or Texas.21 Signal does not seek dismissal of claims based on Indian law. Signal argues Plaintiffs' claims under the laws of Texas or Mississippi should be dismissed because under Louisiana's choice-of-law rules, the law of India will apply to these claims and as a result, application of the law of Texas or Mississippi would be extraterritorial. Signal contends these claims are implausible under the laws of Texas and Mississippi due to their extraterritorial nature. Alternatively, Signal asks the Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims.
1. Dismissal of State Law Claims Plaintiffs bring claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract under state law alleging the Defendants made "untrue statements ... regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and
19R. Doc. 1706, p. 42. 20R. Doc. 1594. 21Signal's 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings also requested dismissal of Plaintiffs' state law claims. See R. Doc. 1431.
9

employment in the United States."22 Plaintiffs allege Defendants broke promises and misrepresented the availability of work and immigration opportunities after Plaintiffs paid exorbitant "recruitment fees" to the Defendants for processing immigration documents. Plaintiffs bring these state law claims under Indian law, Mississippi law, or Texas law depending upon the Plaintiff, the defendant, and the actions complained of, and sometimes alternatively. Signal believes the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims because Plaintiffs' claims require the application of "the law of another country."23
Signal's argument is misplaced. Signal has failed to cite a single case or statute demonstrating a Louisiana court, or any court, would dismiss Plaintiffs' claims merely because they arise from events occurring abroad.24 Louisiana's choice-of-law rules are used to determine the law to be applied in any given case, and by themselves, do not provide a basis for dismissing Plaintiffs' state law claims. Louisiana's choice-of-law rules define "state" law to include the law of "any foreign country or territorial subdivision thereof that has its own system of law." La. Civ. Code art. 3516. Indeed, a federal court may apply foreign law to pendant state law claims. See e.g. McGee v. Arkel Int'l LLC, 671 F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 2012). As Signal has noted, choice of law is a legal question to be decided by the Court. The Court has not determined the law to be applied to the state law claims made in this case. As a result, the Court will not dismiss the state law claims based on extraterritoriality.
22R. Doc. 1706, p. 79. 23R. Doc. 1431, p. 19. 24Because this Court has federal question jurisdiction and is exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims, the Court must apply the law of the state in which it sits, Louisiana. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). The Court must also apply Louisiana's choice of law rules. Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941). At this juncture, the parties have not fully briefed, nor has the Court determined, which law applies to Plaintiffs' state law claims based on Louisiana's choice of law rules.
10

Signal's motion, insofar as it seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims, is denied. 2. Supplemental Jurisdiction Signal also asks the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' state law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), "district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law." Signal argues the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because Plaintiffs' complaint alleges their state law claims under Indian law, Texas law, and Mississippi law in the alternative. Signal also asks the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims because, if Indian law applies, differences in Indian law will require additional depositions and research which would undermine judicial economy, convenience, and fairness. 25
Under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when: "(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law; (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction; (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction; or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction." Additionally, the Fifth Circuit has identified "the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity" as relevant in evaluating whether supplemental jurisdiction should be declined. Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. v. Dayco Products, Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 2009).
Contrary to Signal's assertions, Plaintiffs' state law claims are not so "complex" as
25During discovery, "one, maybe two" Plaintiffs asserted the Fifth Amendment at their depositions. R. Doc. 1549-1, p. 18. Signal argues differences between the Fifth Amendment and India's right to be free from self incrimination warrant re-deposing these Plaintiffs.
11

to warrant the Court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. At present, Plaintiffs' state law claims are pled under Indian law, Texas law, and Mississippi law, and sometimes in the alternative. The fact that the claims are pled in the alternative does not render them complex. Once the parties fully brief, and the Court decides, which law applies to which state law claim, Signal's fears of complexity will be abated. Signal has not pointed to any provision of state law which is so "novel" or "complex" as to warrant declining the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). Furthermore, Plaintiffs' state law claims do not predominate over their federal law claims and none of the other grounds for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c) are applicable.
Even if the Court ultimately decides Indian law applies to some or all claims, Signal has failed to show the application of Indian law by this Court undermines judicial economy, convenience, or fairness. The parties have ample time to research any applicable provisions of Indian law prior to the trial date. Further, Signal has not persuaded the Court additional depositions are warranted if Indian law applies. This Court has exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims since this case was filed in March, 2008. Indeed, the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims. Forcing the Plaintiffs' to bring their state law claims in state court, and thereby forcing Signal to defend these claims in a different forum at this time would be a waste of the judicial resources already expended. This Court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims is proper. C. Burnett's 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings26
Burnett moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under TVPA, RICO, and the Klu Klux
26R. Doc. 1582.
12

Klan Act, as well as Plaintiffs' fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims under state law.27 Burnett argues Plaintiffs' complaint does not contain sufficient factual material to support those claims, and Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead fraud under Rule 9. Burnett also asserts Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim with respect to their state law claims because they are grounded in events occurring abroad.
1. Sufficiency of Factual Material Alleged a. TVPA
Burnett argues Plaintiffs' complaint lacks factual allegations sufficient to state a claim under the TVPA. Burnett contends Plaintiffs do not allege that Burnett ever forced Plaintiffs to work for Signal or ever threatened any Plaintiff with deportation if they refused to continue working for Signal. Burnett believes he provided legal and necessary immigration services to allow Plaintiffs to enter the United States.
Plaintiffs' complaints include two related claims under the TVPA: a claim for forced labor under 18 U.S.C. § 1589 ("Section 1589"), and a claim for trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 1590 ("Section 1590"). Plaintiffs' bring suit under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 ("Section 1595"), which allows an individual who is a victim of a violation under the TVPA to bring a civil action against anyone who "knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person know or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of [the TVPA]." 18 U.S.C. § 1595.
Section 1589 prohibits anyone who "knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person by any one of, or by any combination of, the following means: (1) by
27R. Doc. 1582. Burnett does not seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim under state law. See R. Doc. 1582-1, p. 2, n. 1. Burnett's motion seeks to dismiss the claims made in Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint. However, Plaintiffs sought and obtained leave to file a fifth and sixth amended complaint after Burnett filed his motion. Because the factual allegations in Plaintiffs' fifth and sixth amended complaints are identical to those alleged in the fourth amended complaint, the Court will address Burnett's arguments as they relate to those amended complaints.
13

means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, or threats of physical restraint to that person or another person; (2) by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm to that person or another person; (3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process; or (4) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if that person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or restraint." 18 U.S.C. § 1589.
In Plaintiffs' sixth amended complaint and RICO fraud chart, plaintiffs allege Burnett entered into joint venture agreements with other defendants to place advertisements and conduct seminars in Indian cities to recruit workers for Signal, promising permanent residency (green cards) in the United States.28 Plaintiffs claim Burnett knowingly promised them green cards, even though they were ineligible, in order to induce Plaintiffs to pay large fees to travel and work in the United States.29 Plaintiffs allege with great detail Burnett's role in their recruitment: his alleged false advertisement of green cards and permanent residency, his alleged misrepresentations to the workers and U.S. government officials, and his collaborated efforts with Signal to discourage the workers from organizing and to ensure the workers continued to work at Signal without complaint.30 In March 2007, Plaintiffs allege Burnett, in collaboration with Signal, threatened Plaintiffs not to take legal action against Signal, and instructed Plaintiffs "they could depend only on Signal to maintain their H-2B immigration status and pursue their green card applications."31 Burnett is identified specifically in 187 paragraphs in the fifth amended
28R. Doc. 1706, pp. 19-30. 29Id. at p. 29. 30R. Doc. 1706, pp. 27-49. 31R. Doc. 1706, p. 49.
14

complaint and 298 times in the RICO fraud chart.32 Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to state a claim under Section 1589(a)(2) for using "serious harm" to obtain Plaintiffs' labor.
Under Section 1589(c)(2), "serious harm" includes financial harm "that is sufficiently serious ... to compel a reasonable person .. to perform or to continue performing labor services in order to avoid incurring that harm." Courts have found that threats of being in debt and being unable to repay those debts constitutes "serious harm" sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. See Nunag-Tanedo v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd., 790 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (C.D. Cal. 2011); Panwar v. Access Therapies, Inc., 2013 WL 5486783 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 30, 2013). Because Plaintiffs have alleged Burnett induced them into incurring substantial debts and Plaintiffs were compelled to continue working to repay those debts, Plaintiffs' complaints contain sufficient facts to state a claim under Section 1589(a)(2).
Plaintiffs also allege a trafficking claim under Section 1590 of the TVPA. Section 1590 provides a claim against any person who "knowingly recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means, any person for labor or services in violation of this chapter..." 18 U.S.C. § 1590. The violations of Section 1589 are included in the chapter for violations of Section 1590. Thus, because Plaintiffs have alleged Burnett unlawfully recruited them in violation of Section 1589, Plaintiffs also have pled sufficient facts to state a claim under Section 1590 against Burnett. See Nunag-Tanedo, 790 F. Supp. 2d at 1147 ("Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendants are involved in a fraudulent scheme involving forced labor, and with the intentional nature of this matter Plaintiffs have also sufficiently alleged that Defendants recruited, transported, and provided Plaintiffs for that forced labor.").
In sum, Plaintiffs' claims under the TVPA are sufficiently supported by factual
32The substantive allegations in Plaintiffs' sixth amended complaint are identical to those alleged in Plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint. Plaintiffs' sought and obtained leave to file the sixth amended complaint only to add certain Signal entities as named defendants.
15

allegations in the complaint. Burnett insists his actions were not "illegal nor illicit" and his representations were "a correct and proper statement of both the law and the climate with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)."33 However, Burnett's disagreement with the version of the facts alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint is insufficient to support a Rule 12(c) motion. The Court must accept all factual allegations in Plaintiffs' complaints as true, and Burnett has failed to point to any authority to demonstrate Plaintiffs' claims under the TVPA should be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court denies Burnett's request to dismiss Plaintiffs' TVPA claims.
b. RICO Burnett asserts Plaintiffs' RICO claim is not supported by sufficient factual material. RICO imposes criminal and civil liability upon those who engage in certain "prohibited activities" which are listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (a) through (c). Each prohibited activity includes, as one necessary element, proof either of "a pattern of racketeering activity" or of "collection of an unlawful debt." Regardless of which subsection the plaintiff relies upon, all RICO claims under § 1962 have three common elements: (1) a person who engages in (2) a pattern of racketeering activity, (3) connected to the acquisition, establishment, conduct, or control of an enterprise. Abraham v. Singh, 480 F.3d 351, 355 (5th Cir. 2007). The statute specifically defines "racketeering activity"34 and a "pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two acts of racketeering, the last of which must have occurred within ten years of the first. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). Private individuals who are injured by criminal RICO activity may recover damages in a civil action. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
33R. Doc. 1582, pp. 12-13. 34"Racketeering activity" includes offenses indictable under the provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code covering section 1341 (relating to mail fraud) and section 1343 (relating to wire fraud). 18 U.S.C. 1961(1).
16

Plaintiffs allege Defendants, including Burnett, were a part of three distinct enterprises during various stages of the Plaintiffs' recruitment.
Plaintiffs have adequately pled a RICO enterprise and a continuing pattern of racketeering activity. The complaint, supported by the RICO Fraud Chart, is replete with communications sufficient to support the alleged predicate acts of mail fraud, wire fraud, involuntary servitude, and forced labor. Further, this Court already denied a similar motion filed by Burnett seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs' RICO claims.35 The Court is not persuaded it should reach a contrary decision when Plaintiffs' factual allegations have not altered since this Court's previous decision.
c. Klu Klux Klan Act Burnett asserts Plaintiffs' complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim under the Klu Klux Klan Act (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)). In their fourth claim for relief, Plaintiffs allege Burnett conspired with Signal and other defendants to deprive Plaintiffs of their Thirteenth Amendment rights in violation of the Klu Klux Klan Act based upon their alleged confinement at Signal's facilities.36 Individual Plaintiffs Vijayan, Kadakkarapally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan allege the same cause of action in the fifteenth claim for relief based on their alleged detention on March 9, 2007.37 Burnett argues there are no facts alleged indicating he was involved in the Plaintiffs' detention and there is no indication from Plaintiffs' complaint that Burnett was involved in any conspiracy. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), Plaintiffs must allege: (1) a conspiracy involving two or more persons; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly,
35R. Doc. 288. 36R. Doc. 1706, p. 75. 37R. Doc. 1706, p. 119. On March 9, 2007, Vijayan, Kadakkarapally, Singh, Kumar, and Chellappan allege they were detained for several hours after Vijayan had attempted suicide. R. Doc. 1706, pp. 50-52.
17

a person or class of persons of the equal protection of laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) which causes injury to a person or property, or a deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States. Suttles v. U.S. Postal Serv., 927 F. Supp. 990, 1000-01 (S.D. Tex. 1996)(citing United Bhd of Carpenters & Joners of Am. v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 828-29 (1983)).
Contrary to Burnett's argument, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled causes of action under the Klu Klux Klan Act against Burnett. Plaintiffs allege Signal and Burnett "reached an agreement regarding steps that they would take to discourage further worker organization efforts ... and to prevent the Indian H-2B workforce from exercising their legal rights."38 Plaintiffs further allege Burnett attended a meeting at Signal's facilities on March 8, 2007, and 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."39 Plaintiffs claim Signal personnel and Burnett reached agreement about "what should be said" at various meetings with the Indian H-2B workers, and Signal personnel told the workers that Signal would sponsor their green cards if they stayed at Signal and "obeyed Signal's rules."40 The Court finds the facts alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint sufficient to state a claim under the Klu Klux Klan Act for Plaintiffs fourth and fifteenth claims for relief. The facts pled demonstrate a relationship between Signal and Burnett, as well as Burnett's involvement in the Plaintiffs' alleged detention at Signal's facilities. Accordingly, Burnett's motion to dismiss is denied insofar as he seeks to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under the Klu Klux Klan Act.
38R. Doc. 1706, pp. 47-48. 39R. Doc. 1706, p. 49. 40R. Doc. 1706, p. 54.
18

d. State Law Claims Burnett also argues Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim for relief for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Burnett concedes that the portion of Plaintiffs' complaint concerning Plaintiffs' recruitment does contain factual assertions and not merely legal conclusions, but Burnett argues those factual allegations do not comply with Rule 9(b) for alleging fraud with particularity.41 To state a claim for fraud under Rule 9(b), "a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). A plaintiff must "specify the statements contended to be fraudulent, identify the speaker, state when and where the statements were made, and explain why the statements were fraudulent." Herrmann Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Technologies, 302 F.3d 552, 564-65 (5th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs allege Burnett promised, via emails and statements made in person, to obtain green cards for the Plaintiffs.42 Plaintiffs allege Burnett failed to disclose the truth that applying for a green card is "fundamentally incompatible" with applying for the H-2B visas used by the Plaintiffs to work at Signal.43 Plaintiffs' RICO Fraud Chart, accompanying the sixth amended complaint, adequately details with specificity Burnett's representations made in meetings and communications with the Plaintiffs. The Court finds Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 9(b)'s requirement of pleading fraud with particularity. Plaintiffs' state law claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation are adequately supported by factual allegations in the
41R. Doc. 1582-1, p. 28. 42See, e.g. R. Doc. 1706-1, pp. 13, 38, 65. (Plaintiffs' RICO Fraud Chart). 43R. Doc. 1706, p. 30.
19

complaint and the RICO Fraud Chart. Burnett's motion is denied insofar as he seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' state law claims based on Rule 9(b).44
2. Extraterritoriality Burnett also moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims by briefly arguing those state law claims are implausible because they arise from events abroad. Burnett asserts Plaintiffs' state law claims should be dismissed because they do not "implicate Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas law."45 For the reasons set forth above, Burnett's motion, to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' state law claims because Indian law may apply, is denied.
CONCLUSION For the above-stated reasons, Signal's 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent Signal seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim for recruitment fees under FLSA, Signal's motion is DENIED. To the extent Signal seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim for recruitment fees under Section 1981, Signal's motion is DENIED AS MOOT. To the extent Signal seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim for inbound travel and visa expenses under FLSA, Signal's motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Signal's 12(b)(6) Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims be and hereby is DENIED for the reasons set forth above.
44The Court notes that it has previously denied a similar motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for failure to plead fraud with particularity. See R. Doc. 288, p. 13.
45R. Doc. 1582-1, p. 31.
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Burnett's Rule 12(c) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings be and hereby is DENIED for the reasons set forth above.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12th day of August, 2014. ____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 08-1220 SECTION “E”

Related Cases:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-557 SECTION "E"

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732, 14-1818)
SECTION "E"

Applies To: David v. Signal (08-1220); EEOC v. Signal (12-557); Achari v. Signal (13-6218, 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732)

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appe al or Alternatively to Stay P ending Application for Mandamus Relie f filed by Defendants Signal
1

International, L.L.C., Signal International, Inc., and Signal Inter national Texas, G.P.

(collectively "Signal") .1 Defendants Malvern Burnett, the Law Offices of Malver

n

Burnett, A.P.C., and Gulf Coast Immigr ation Law Center, L.L.C. (the "Burnett

Defendants") have filed a similar Motion.2 The question presented is whether the Court

should certify for int erlocutory appeal its orders prohibiting th e discovery of certain

post-Signal informatio n, including immigrat ion status. For the fo llowing reasons, the

Court finds that the criteria for interlocutory appeal are not present and that a

discretionary stay pe nding the outcome of a petition for mandamus relief is not

warranted. The Motions are DENIED.

BACKGROUND3

A protective order in the above-caption ed matters prohibits Signal from

discovering, inter alia , the current immigration status of any plaintiff, the curren t

address or place of res idence of any plainti ff, and the employers or potential employers

of any plaintiff post-termination of employment with Signal. 4 Moving Defendants argue

the protective order u nduly restricts their ability to discover impeachment evidence. 5

The Court has rejected this argument on multiple occasions, finding t

hat the in

terrorem e ffect of producing the requested information outweighs Signal's interest in

unbridled discovery. Recognizing the futi lity of beating a dead hor se, Moving

Defendants now ask the Court to certify its orders upholding the protective order for

1 R. Doc. 1776 in the David Case, R. Doc. 472 in the EEOC Case, and R. Doc. 351 in the Achari Cases. 2 R. Doc. 1808 in the David Case a nd R. Doc. 3 84 in the Achari Cases. The Bur nett Defenda nts incorporate by reference the arguments set forth in Signal's motion. 3 The facts of the related cases have been detailed ad nauseum in previous orders. Familiarity is assumed. 4 R. Docs. 367 and 4 76 in the David Case, R. D oc. 285 in the EEOC Case, and R. Doc. 307 in the Achari Cases. 5 The Burnett Defenda nts also argue the protect ive order preclu des them fro m assessing the economic harm, if any, suffered by the plaintiffs.
2

interlocutory appeal. In the alternative, Moving Defendants request a discretionary stay of the above-captioned matters while they petition the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus.
LEGAL STANDARD An interlocutory appeal from a n on-final order in a civil case is permissible when (1) the order involves "a controlling question of law," (2) there is "substantial ground for difference of opinion" on the question pres ented, and (3) an immediate ap peal would "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." 6 The district court cannot certify an order for interlocutory appe al unless all three cr iteria are present. 7 In determining whether certification is appropriate, the Court is min dful that interlocutory appeal is "exceptional " and "does not lie simply to determine t he correct ness of a judgment."8
LAW AND ANALYSIS The partie s spill much ink arguing wh ether the protective or der involves a controlling question of law on which there ex ists a substantial ground for difference of opinion. The Court need not dec ide these issues today. For the reasons explained more fully below, certificat ion is not warranted because an immediate appeal would hinder— rather than hasten—the ultimate termination of the related cases. An immediate appeal materially advances the termination of litigation if it would eliminate t he need for trial, simplify the i ssues for trial, or reduce the burden of
6 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 7 See A paricio v. Swan Lake, 643 F.2 d 110 9, 1 110 n.2 (5 th Cir. 1981) ( "Section 12 92(b) s ets ou t three criteria all of which must be m et before the district court may properly certify an interlocutory order for appeal.") (emphasis added). 8 Clark-Dietz & Assocs.-Eng'rs, Inc. v. Basic Constr. Co., 702 F.2d 67, 68—69 (5th Cir. 1983).
3

discovery.9 Certification of the protective order would accomplish none

of these

objectives.10 As a non-dispositive order, the revers al or affirmance of a discovery order

would seldom (if ever) eliminate the need for trial. Nor would a decision from the Fifth

Circuit simplify the issues for trial or redu ce the burden of dis covery. If anything,

vacature of the protective order would make discovery even more onerous and unwieldy.

Rather than expediting a final disposition, an interlocutory appeal would actually

delay resolution of the related cases. The David Case is set for trial in less than three

months. Even if the Fifth Circuit chose to hear the interlocutory appeal, the parties

could not realistically expect a de cision for at least six months. 11 Regardless of the Fifth

Circuit's ruling, the David Case would the n have to be returned to the Court's jur y

docket, resulting in an addition al lengthy de lay. Moreover, an extensive delay in the

David Case would likely produce a ripple effect of con tinuances in the EEOC Case and

the Achari Cases. A nd once the David Case and the related cases are finally tried,

appealable issues will almost undoubtedly still exist, 12 which co uld lead to another

round of appeals and remands.13

9 B&B Advisory Servs., LLC v. Bombardier Aerospace Corp., No. Civ. A. 02-2695, 2003 WL 22326511, a t *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 9, 2003); see also Panda Energy Int'l, Inc. v. Factory Mut. Ins., Nos. 3:11–CV–003–K, 3:10–CV–2541–K, No. 09–30453 (SGJ), and No. 09–30453 (SGJ), 2011 WL 610016, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2011) ("A n appeal materially adva nces the termination of liti gation wh en it accelerates or simplifies trial proceedings."). 10 Courts i n the Fifth C ircuit ha ve recogniz ed that a dis covery order is s eldom appropriate for interlocutory appeal. See, e.g., In re Tullius, No. EP-11-mc-365-KC., 2011 WL 50 06673, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 20 , 20 11) ( "District courts in th e Fifth Circui t are hesi tant to gran t l eave to appeal interlocutory orders relating to discovery."); Decena v. Am. Int'l Cos. (AIG), No. 11-1574, 2012 WL 1640455, at *2 (E.D. La. May 9, 2o12) ("As several courts have recognized, pretrial discovery orders will seldom meet the requirements for interlocutory appeal."). 11 As the David Plaintiffs note in their opposition memorandum, the average time for dispo sition in the Fifth Circuit is 9.3 months. See R. Doc. 1811-3 at p. 13. 12 The related cases present many issues of first impression, which increases the likelihood of appeal. 13 Such piec emeal appeals are disfavored. See Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. C arpenter, 558 U .S. 100, 106 (2009) ( "Permitting pie cemeal, preju dgment appeal s . . . under mines ' efficient ju dicial ad ministration' and encroaches upon the prerogativ es of distri ct court judges, who play a 'special role' in ma naging ongoing li tigation.) (quo ting Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ris jord, 449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981)); ClarkDietz, 702 F.2d at 69 ("The basic rule of appellate jurisdiction restricts review to final judgments, avoiding the delay and extra effort of piecemeal appeals.").
4

Having declined to certify the protective order for interlocutory appeal, the Court
now considers the alternative r elief reques ted by Moving Defendants—a stay pending
resolution of an as-of-yet-filed p etition for mandamus relief in the Fifth Circuit. There
is no automatic stay of district proceeding s while a petition for writ of mandamus is pending.14 Accordingl y, any such stay is i mposed under the dis trict court' s genera l discretionary authority.15
A district court has inherent authority to manage its docket, which includes the power to stay proceedings. 16 The moving par ty bears a " heavy burden" to dem onstrate that a stay is appropriate. 17 "Where a d iscretionary stay is proposed, something close to genuine necessity should be the mother of its invocation."18
For largely the reason s set forth above, Signal has failed to mak e the necessary
showing. The hardship and in convenience th at would result fro m a stay substantially outweighs any benefit,19 especially in light of the fact th at mandamus relief is unlikely to be granted.20 Accordingly, the Court will not issue a stay.
CONCLUSION
Signal seeks to appeal an interlo cutory ruling, the resolution of which will not
materially advance the related cases to fina l judgment. Accordin gly, the Court will not
certify the ruling for interlocutory appeal. Th e Court also finds that Signal has failed to
demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances warrant a discretionary stay.
14 Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1416 (5th Cir. 1995). 15 See id. 16 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 17 Costal (Bermuda) Ltd. v. E.W. Saybolt & Co., 761 F.2d 195, 203 n.6 (5th Cir. 1985) 18 Id. 19 See L andis, 299 U. S. at 254 (instruc ting lower co urts to "wei gh competi ng i nterests an d mainta in an even balance" in deciding whether to issue a stay). 20 See In re LeBlanc, 559 F. App'x 389, 392—93 (5th Cir. 2014) (noting that writ of mandamus is rarely issued with respect to discovery orders).
5

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of October, 2014.

_________________

_______________

SUSIE

MORGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs
VERSUS SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff VERSUS SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants
LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 08-1220 SECTION “E”
CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-557 SECTION "E"
CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732, 141818) SECTION "E"

Applies To: David v. Signal (No. 08-1220)

1

ORDER

Before the Court is Signal's Moti on for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs'

First Claim for Reli ef under the Traffickin g Victims Protection Reauthorization Act

("TVPA").1 Signal appears to seek summa ry judgment on three gr ounds:2 (1) the TVPA

claims are extraterrit orial; ( 2) fin ancial ha rm is a not a component of "serious harm"

under the pre-amend ment version of the TVPA ; and (3) there is no evidence of the

requisite scienter to support a TVPA claim.

I. Extraterrit oriality

On December 23, 2008, Congress amende d the TVPA to provide federal courts

with extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain cl

aims.3 Signal argues the 20 08

amendment is not retroactive. Accordingl y, Plaintiffs' claims are governed by the pre-

amendment version of the TVPA, which Signal argues is restricted to "purely domestic"

trafficking claims. Signal contends Plainti ffs' claims are extraterritorial, because they

rely extensively on ev ents that occurred outs ide the U nited States. Accordingly, Signal

argues the claims are not cognizable as a matter of law.

The Court need not d ecide whether the amendment to the TVPA was retroactive,

because Plaintiffs' claims are not extraterritorial. As one court has observed: "the TVPA

is not applied extraterritorially wh en it addresses trafficking people into the United

States to perform forced labor here, even if done by means of threats of serious harm in

1 R. Doc. 1871. In light of a recent voluntary dismissal, Plaintiff s have clarifi ed their o nly remaining trafficking claim against Signal falls under Section 1589 of the TVPA. R. Doc. 1942, p. 4. n.4. 2 Signal's brief is prolix and often difficult to follow. 3 See 18 U.S.C. § 1596.
2

part made elsewhere." 4 Moreo ver, courts regularly entertain suits under the preamendment TPVA alleging trafficking into the United States from a foreign country.5
Although certain elements of the alleged trafficking scheme occurred abroad, "the focus and the touchstone of the territorialit y inquiry of the TVPA is where the forced labor occurred and to where the victims were trafficked, and not from where the victims were trafficked or whether some of th e means used to compel the la bor occurred abroad."6 It is undisputed that Plaintiffs were trafficked from India to the United States and performed labor for Signal while in the United States.
These facts distinguish this case from others in which courts have dismissed preamendment TVPA cl aims as ex traterritorial. In those cases, the alleged traffick ing occurred outside the United States. 7 For ex ample, in Adhikari v. Daoud & Partners — cited heavily in Signa l's brief—the plaintiffs alleged a scheme to traffic workers from Nepal to Iraq.8 II. Financial Harm as "Serious Harm"
The pre-amendment version of Section 1589 of the TVPA proscribed the knowing provision of labor by "threats of serious ha rm to, o r physical restraint against, [the victim].9 T he new ver sion of Sec tion 1589 r eads simila rly and prohibits the knowing provision of labor by "means of serious ha rm or threats of serious harm to [the
4 Tanedo v. E. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., No. SA CV10–01172 JAK (ML Gx), 2012 WL 5378742, at * 6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2012) (emphasis in original). 5 See, e.g., United States v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 20 04); United States v. C alimlim, 53 F.3 d 706 (2008); United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2010). 6 Tanedo, 2012 WL 5378742, at *6. 7 See, e.g., Naattah v. Bush, 541 F. Supp. 2d 223 (D. D.C. 2008); John Roe I v. Bridgestone C orp., 492 F. Supp. 2d 988 (S.D. Ind. 2007). 8 994 F. Supp. 2d 831, 832 (S.D. Tex. 2014). 9 18 U.S.C. § 1589(1) (2000).
3

victim]."10 Unlike pre-amendment Section 1589, the new versi on contains a broad definition of "serious harm," which includes "financial" harm. 11 Signal argues the
addition of this definition demonstrates that "serious harm" under pre-a mendment
Section 1589 did not include financial harm. The Court disagrees for multiple reasons.
First, Sign al's argument belies the plai n language of the statute. That the pre-
amendment version distinguished betwee n "s erious harm" and "physical restraint"
suggests " Congress intended that serious ha rm not be limited to physical harm, and instead inc lude at least some non-physical harm, e.g., financial harm." 12 Moreover,
"[s]tandard definitions of 'harm' do not rest rict the term to physical har m, but also encompass economic injury." 13 Second, the legislative history suggests Congress
intended pre-amend ment Section 1589 to cov er a "broad array of harms," such as causing the victim to believe he or she woul d face "bankruptcy in their home country. "14
Third, at least two courts have squarely he ld that "financial h arm was cognizable as serious harm prior to the December 23, 2008 amendment."15 This Court joins their lead
and holds that serious harm under pre-am endment Section 1 589 includ es financia l
harm.
III. Scienter
In order to prevail under pre-amendment Section 1589, a plaintiff must prove the
defendant knowingly provided or obtained labor in one of three ways:
(1) by threats of se rious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person;
10 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(1). 11 18 U.S.C. § 1589(c)(1). 12 Tanedo, 2012 WL 5378742, at *5; see also United States v. Sou, No. 09-00345 SOM, 2011 WL 3207625, at *3 (D. Haw. July 26, 2011). 13 Sou, 2011 WL 3207625, at *4. 14 Tanedo, 2012 WL 5378742, at *4 (quoting H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106–939, at 101 (2000)). 15 See id. at *2; Sou, 2011 WL 3207625, at *3—5.
4

(2) by me ans of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, i f the pe rson di d no t perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or (3) by means of the a buse or th reatened abuse of law or the legal process[.]16
Signal arg ues there is no evid ence it ac ted with the requisite intent. The Court
disagrees. Plaintiffs have introduced evid ence from which a jury could infer Signal
knowingly threatened immigration consequence s in or der to maintain its labor force. 17
Plaintiffs have also introduced evidence tending to establish Signal was aware its
workers had limited f inancial resources and in tentionally leveraged this situation to its
advantage.18 Accordingl y, there are genuine is sues of material fact, which preclude the
entry of summary judgment.
For the reasons previously stated;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED in its entirety.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of January, 2015.
__________ _ _______ __________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (2000). 17 The thr eat of immigrat ion sa nctions cons titutes "abuse of the law or leg al process" under pre amendment Section 1589(3). See United States v. Cali mlim, 538 F.3d 70 6, 713 (7th Cir. 20 08) ("[T]he immigration laws do not ai m to help em ployers retain secret employees by threats of deportation, and so their 'warnings' about the consequences were . . . an abuse of th e legal process."); Dann, 652 F.3d at 1172 (finding serious harm where defendant "intended to inspire two related immigration fears in [the victim]: that she woul d be forced t o leave th e country or that she would no t be ab le to le ave the cou ntry because she had no documents."); Augir v. Bes t Care A gency, Inc. , 961 F. Supp. 2d 427, 444 (E.D. N.Y. 2013) ("The threat of deportation alone may support a claim for forced lab or."); Nunag-Tanedo v. E. Bato n Rouge Paris h Sch. Bd. , 790 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1146 (C.D. Ca l. 2011) (fi nding s erious harm wher e defendants threatened "to fire Plaintiffs, sue them, allow their visas to expire, or deport them over various issues that generally concerned complaints about living conditions and pay."). 18 See Dann, 652 F.3d at 1171 ("For an immigrant without access to a bank account and not a dollar to her name, a juror could conclude that the failure to pay he r—and thus the lack of money to l eave or live—was sufficiently serious to compel [her] to continue working.").
5

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs
VERSUS SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff VERSUS SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants
LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 08-1220 SECTION “E”
CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-557 SECTION "E"
CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732, 141818) SECTION "E"

Applies To: David v. Signal (No. 08-1220)

1

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Part ial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice
of Law filed by Signa l.1 The issues have been briefe d and argued extensively on the
record.2 For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART.
A federal court exercising supplemental jurisdiction ov er state law claims applies
the forum state's choice-of-law rules. 3 Before engagin g in a choice-0f -law analysis,
however, the Court must first determine whet her there is a "true conflict" between the
laws of t he interested jurisdictions. 4 The Court finds the states with an interest in thi s
dispute are Mississippi and Ind ia. Accord ingly, the threshold issue is whether the laws
of these jurisdiction s differ with respect to Plaintiffs' claims for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract/qua si contract, and agency. If there is a
difference, the Court will apply Louisiana's choice-of-law rules—set forth in Book IV of
the Louisiana Civil Code—to determine the applicable substantive law.5
I. Fraud
Plaintiffs and Signal agree, as do es the Court, that ther e are material differences
between the laws of Mississippi and India with respect to fraud. Accordingl y, a choice-
of-law analysis is warranted. Plaintiffs an d Signal also agree that article 3543 is the
applicable conflicts rule for Plaintiffs' fraud claims and that under this article, the law of
India should apply. Article 3 543 provid es in pertinent part as follows: "[i]ssues
1 R. Doc. 1762. The parties have also briefed choice of law on agency issues raised in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Certain Principal-Agent Relationships. R. Doc. 1847. 2 The Parties have su bmitted supplem ental memoranda. Fo llowing a sta tus c onference on January 5, 2015, the Court requested additional briefing from Plaintiffs. See R. Doc. 2076. Plaintiffs submitted their brief via electronic mail. Counsel for both parties subsequently exchanged emails. The emails will be filed in the record. 3 See Janvey v. Brown, 767 F.3d 430, 434 n.10 (5th Cir. 2014) 4 See Champagne v. Ward, 893 So . 2d 773, 786 (La. 2005); Schneider Nat'l Transp. v. Ford Motor Co., 280 F.3d 532, 536 (5th Cir. 2002). 5 La. Civ. Code. art. 3515 et seq.
2

pertaining to standards of conduct and safety are gov erned by the law of the state in

which the conduct that caused the injury oc curred, if the injury occu rred in that state or

in another state whose law did not provi de for a higher standard of conduct." The

primary conduct that caused Plaintiffs' injuri es occurred in Ind ia. Moreover, Plaintiffs'

injuries were primar ily suffered in India. Accordingly, the law of Ind ia governs

Plaintiffs' fraud claims.

II. Negligent Misrepresentation

The parties disagree w hether there is di fference between the laws of Mississi ppi

and India regarding negligent misrepresent ation. The Court finds the laws o

f

Mississippi and India are different with respect to this tort. Accordingly, a choice-of-law

analysis is warranted.

As with the fraud claim, Plaintiffs and Signal agree a rticle 3543 is the relevant

choice-of-law provision. The primary conduct that caused Plaintiffs' injuries occurred in

India. Because the Plaintiffs' injuries were also primarily suffered in India, the la w o f

India governs Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claims.

III. Breach of Contract and Quasi-Contract

The parties disagree whether the laws of India and Mississippi differ with resp ect

to Plaintiff s' breach of contract and quas i-contract claims. Having reviewed the

submissions of the parties, the Court concludes there is no difference. When there is no

true conflict, courts ordinarily apply the la w of the forum state. 6 In this case, however,

the parties agree—an d so does the Court—th at Louisiana does not have a substantial

interest in the outcome of this case.

Therefore, the Court must choose between

Mississippi and India law. Because Mississippi law is more familiar to all parties, the

6 See, e.g., Mumblow v. Monroe Broad., Inc., 401 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 2005). 3

Court will apply Mississippi la w to Plaint iffs' breach of contract and quasi-contract

claims.

IV. Agency

The parties agree and the Court finds that the law of agency is the same in both

India and Mississippi . For the reasons just explained, Mississip pi law will govern all

issues in this case regarding agency.

CONCLUSION

The law of India governs Plainti

ffs' claims of fraud and negligent

misrepresentation, and the law of Mississi ppi governs Plaintiffs' claims of breach of

contract, quasi-contract, and agency.7

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of January, 2015.

______________ _______ _________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 This ruling does not cover the applicable substantive law for Signal's crossclaims. The Court will address that issue upon receipt of further briefing. See R. Doc. 2075. Moreover, the pa rties agree Mississippi law governs Plaintiff Jacob J oseph Kadakkarappally's claims under Counts 16- 19 of the Sixth Amend ed Complaint.
4

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs
VERSUS SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff VERSUS SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants
LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 08-1220 SECTION “E”
CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-557 SECTION "E"
CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732, 141818) SECTION "E"

Applies To: David v. Signal (No. 08-1220)

1

ORDER Before the Court is Signal's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiffs' Second an d Fifteenth Claim for Relief. 1 Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their Fifteenth Claim and portions of their Second claim.2 In light of this dismissal, only three elem ents of Sig nal's Motion remain in dispute: (1) whether the RICO persons identified in the Sixth Amended Complaint are sufficiently dis tinct from the alleged RICO enterprises; (2) whether t he RICO cl aims are impermissibly extraterritorial ; and (3) whether there is sufficient evidence that Signal conspired to violate the RICO statute. The Court addresses each argument in turn. I. Distinction Between RICO Persons and RICO Enterprises 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) prohibits "any person employed by or associated with any enterprise" from "participat[ing] . . . in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeer ing activity . . . ." Unde r this subsection, the Fifth Circuit requires the RICO "person" be distinct fro m the RICO "enterprise." 3 The R ICO person(s) is the named defendant(s), while the RICO enterpri se can be either a legal entity or an association-in-fact.4 The seminal Fifth Circuit case regarding the RICO person-RICO entity distinction is St. Paul Mercury I nsurance Co. v. Williamson . The plaintiff in St Paul filed a civil RICO suit against t hree indiv iduals who a llegedly comprised an association-in-fact enterprise.5 Summarizing its prior case law, the Fifth Circuit distinguished between corporate entities an d individu als: where a single entity is named as both a RICO
1 R. Doc. 1873. 2 See R. Doc. 1914. 3 In re Burzynski, 989 F.2d 733, 743 (5th Cir. 1993). 4 St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 440 (5th Cir. 2000). 5 See id. at 445.
2

defendant and a RICO enterprise, the person-entity distinction is violated. 6 There is no

violation, however, "when individuals have been named as defendants and as members

of an association-in-fact RICO enterprise." 7 Applying this rule to the case before it, the

court vacated the district's court dismissal of the plaintiff's Section 1962(c) claim.8

In the case at bar, the Sixth Amended Complaint names each Defendant as a

RICO person and alleges three separate

association-in-fact enterprises: "RICO

Enterprise I" is comprised of "[a] ll Defendants and the United States Consular officers

in India;" "RICO Enterprise II" is compris ed of the "Recruiter Defenda nts, Legal

Facilitator Defendants, and Defendant Signal ;" and "RICO Enterprise III" is comprise d

of the "Recruiter Defendants, Defendant Si gnal, Legal Facilitator Defendants, Swetman

Security, and M & M Bank." This case is distinguishable from St. Paul , because

individuals and corporate ent ities are n amed as RICO persons and as part of an

association-in-fact ent erprise. Moreover, u nlike St. P aul, there is no perfect identity

between the RICO persons and any of the a lleged RICO enterprises. Accordingly, St.

Paul does not require dismissal of the RICO claims. 9 Signal has not cited any Fifth

Circuit decisions with even a remotely similarly fact pattern, nor can this Court find any.

6 See id. at 44 6—47; see also In re Mastercard Int'l Inc., Internet Gambling Litig., 132 F. Supp. 2d 468, 491 (E. D. La. 20 01) ("[T ]he strict rea ding of the e nterprise/person distinctnes s requirement origina lly contemplated cases where a single corporate en tity was the defendant, and that same single corporate entity was alleged to be the enterprise."). 7 See id. at 447 (emphasis added). 8 See id. 9 The St. Paul court noted in dicta that "[c]ourts have roundly criticized" charging "a corporation as being part of an ass ociation-in-fact enterprise and also as a RICO defendant." 224 F.3d at 447 n.16. The cour t explained the rationale behind this criticism by quoting the following excerpt from Brittingham v. Mobil Corp., 943 F.2d 297, 301 (3d Cir. 1991): "a § 1962(c) enterprise must be more than an association of individuals o r ent ities co nducting the normal affairs of a defenda nt corporation." 225 F.3d at 447 n.16 (quoting Brittingham, 943 F.2d at 301). This rationa le clearly does not apply t o the cas e at bar for two reasons. Fir st, Brittingham presupposes the RICO defendants a re all corporations. Ther e are several non-corporate RICO d efendants in this case. Second, the Six th A mended C omplaint ascribes a specifi c "common purpose" for each enterprise sufficiently distinct from the "normal affairs" of any of the corporate defendants.
3

II. Extraterritoriality The Fifth Circuit has not ye t addressed wh ether RICO a pplies extraterrit orially
but two other circuits have. T he Ninth Circuit focuses on whether the pattern of racketeering activity has a sufficient nexus to the United States. 10 Under this approach, even a pattern of racketeering "c onceived and planned overseas" has the requisite nexu s if it was ultimately "executed and perpetuated in the United States." 11 Unlike the Ninth Circuit, the Second Circuit focuses on the relevant predicate s tatutes underlying the alleged RICO violation. 12 If t he predic ate statut e evinc es an "unmistakable congressional intent to apply extraterritori ally, RICO will apply to ext raterritorial conduct, too, but only to the ex tent that the predicate would." 13 If the predica te statute does not m anifest such intent, then the court examines whether "plaintiffs have alleged conduct in the Unite d States that satisfie s every essential element of the [predicate statute]."14 Such allegations are c ognizable unde r RICO "even if some further conduct contributing to the violation occurred outside the United States."15
Under either the Second Circuit approach or the Ninth Circuit approach, the Court finds that application of RICO in this case is not extraterritorial. The Sixth Amended Complaint alleges a p attern of rack eteering activity sufficiently domestic in nature. Furthermore, the allegations and evidence supporting a violation of the predicate statutes demonstrate that Plaint iffs bring domestic—rather than foreign— RICO claims.
10 See United States v. Chao Fan Xu, 706 F.3d 965, 979 (9th Cir. 2013). 11 See id. 12 See European Cmty. v. RJR Nabisco, 767 F.3d 129, 136 (2d Cir. 2014). 13 Id. 14 Id. at 142. 15 Id.
4

III. RICO Conspiracy "To demonstrate a c ivil RICO co nspiracy, a claimant must show that: (1) t wo or
more persons agreed to commit a substantive RICO offense, and (2) the defendant knew of and agr eed to the overall objective of th e RICO offense." 16 These elements may be established by circumstantial evidence. 17 In other words, "[t]he agreement, a defendant's guilty knowledge and a defendant's participation in the conspiracy all may be inferred from the development and collocation of cir cumstances."18 Having reviewed the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to both elements of the conspiracy claim. Summary judgment is not appropriate.
CONCLUSION For the reasons previously stated; IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of January, 2015.
_______ _____ ______ _________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16 Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Moreno, 667 F.3d 539, 551 (5th Cir. 2012). 17 United States v. Delgado, 401 F. 3d 290, 296 (5th Cir. 2005). 18 United States v. Posadas-Rios, 158 F.3d 832, 857 (5th Cir. 1998).
5

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2161 Filed 01/19/15 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs
VERSUS SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff VERSUS SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants
LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 08-1220 SECTION “E”
CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-557 SECTION "E"
CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732, 141818) SECTION "E"

Applies To: David v. Signal (No. 08-1220)

1

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2161 Filed 01/19/15 Page 2 of 6
ORDER On January 14, 2015, 1 the Co urt ordered Plaintiffs and Sig nal to submit memoranda addressing the follo wing: (1) the defendants against whom the parties may seek default judgment in this trial, (2) the issues on which the parties may seek default judgment, and (3) whether the allegation s in the Sixth Amended Complaint (fo r Plaintiffs) and the cross claim (for Signal) are sufficient to support a default judgment under Wooten v. McDonald Transit Ass ociates., Inc.2 Plaintiffs and Signal have filed their briefs.3 The Court addresses Signal's crossclaims in this Order. On July 29, 2014, Sig nal answered the Sixt h Amended Complaint and asserted crossclaims against the Recruiter Defendants , the Legal Facilitator Defendants, and the Labor Broker Defendants. 4 Upo n motion of Signal, the clerk of court entered default against J&M Associates, Inc., J&M Marine, LLC, and Billy Wilks (collectively "J&M") on January 5, 2015. 5 T he only crossclaim remaining against J&M is for tortious interference with co ntractual relations. 6 The question presented is whether the allegations in the crossclaim adequately st ate a claim upon which default judgment can be entered under Wooten. Wooten involved a claim under the Age Di scrimination in Employment Act.7 The district clerk entered default, and the plaintiff moved for default judgment.8 The district court held a hearing to determine damages. 9 In addition to presenting evidence of
1 R. Doc. 2147. 2 No. 13-11035, 2015 WL 51251 (5th Cir. 2015). 3 R. Docs. 2151, 2159. 4 Signal borrowed these groupings from Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. 5 R. Doc. 2063. 6 See R. Doc. 2148 (dismissing certain claims against Labor Broker Defendants); R. Doc. 2151, p. 2 (acknowledging sole remaining crossclaim against J&M). 7 29 U.S.C. §§ 621—634. 8 Wooten, 2015 WL 51251, at *1. 9 Id at *2.
2

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2161 Filed 01/19/15 Page 3 of 6

damages at the hearing, the plaintiff al

so elabora ted on th e allegat ions in his

complaint.10 The district court entered defa ult judgment, which the defendant

eventually moved to set aside.11 The district court denied the motion.12

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit addressed whether the district court erred in entering

default judgment. 13 The analysis proceeded in three parts. The court first addressed

whether the complaint adequatel y pleaded a prima facie case of age discrimination. 14

Concluding that it did not, the court th en consider ed whether the testimony at t he

damages hearing pro vided a suf ficient basis to suppo rt default judgment. 15 The court

answered this question in the affirmative, which then teed up the following issue: can

testimony at a damages hearin g "cure fatally deficient pleadings for the purpose of

entering a default judgment[?]" 16 The panel majority answer ed this question with a

resounding "no."17

Wooten instructs that a district court must examine the complaint (or crossclaim)

before entering default judgment.18 While the lesson is clear, the lesson plan is not. The

Fifth Circuit identified three possible

approaches for determining whether the

allegations of a complaint will adequately su pport default judgment: (1) inquire whether

"the facts a s painted by the complaint 'might [ . . . ] have been the case;'" 19 (2) examine

10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. at *3. 14 See id. at *4–5. 15 Id. at *5–8. 16 Id. at *8. 17 Id. at *8–12. Judge Wiener dissented. 18 See id. at *12 ("[W]e cannot uphold the entry of default judgment on pleadings that are infirm . . . ."). 19 Id. at *5 (alterations and emphasis in original) (quoting Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes, 449 F.2d 51, 64 (2d Cir. 1971)).
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2161 Filed 01/19/15 Page 4 of 6
whether the allegations merely "parrot the la nguage" of the statute creating liability; 20
and (3) assess the fa ctual allegations "under the familiar analysis used to evaluate
motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." 21 Unfortunately for district courts, the pane l
majority did not endorse any one of these approaches over the others. Instead, the court
concluded all three approaches were "broad ly similar" and analyzed the allegations
before it under each.22
With this g uidance in mind, the Cour t must now determine whether Signal has
met the Wooten standard for pleading a cause of action against J&M for tortious
interference with contractual relations. Mississippi la w govern s this crosscl aim.23 In
order to prevail on a theory of tortious inte rference with contractual relations, a plaintiff
must prove:
(1) that the acts were intentional and willful; (2) that the y were calculated to cause damage to the plaintiffs in their lawful busi ness; (3) that they were done w ith the unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause on the part of the defendant (which constitutes malice); and (4) that actual damage an d loss resulted.24
The third element—scienter—can be inferred "when a d efendant knows a contract exists
between two parties and does a wrongful act th at he is certain o r reasonably certain will
interfere with the contract."25 In addition to t hese elements, a plaintiff must also prove
that a valid contract existed between the plai ntiff and a third party and that the contract
would have been performed "but for the alleged interference."26
20 Wooten, 20 15 WL 5 1251, at *5 (quoting DirecTv, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh , 503 F.3d 847, 85 4 (9th Cir. 2007)). 21 Wooten, 2015 WL 51251, at *5. 22 See id. 23 See R. Doc. 2143. 24 Coleman & Coleman Enters. v. Waller Funeral Home, 106 So. 3d 309, 315—16 (Miss. 2012). 25 Id. at 316. 26 Id.
4

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2161 Filed 01/19/15 Page 5 of 6
The Court has reviewed the allegations in the cro ssclaim and is unable to determine what J&M is alleged t o have done. Count 8 merely regurgitates the elements of a cause of action for tortio us interference with contractual relations. The body of the crossclaim consists largely of broad allegation s against large grou ps of defendants. At most, Signal alleges J&M formed contracts with Indian workers long before Signal came into the picture. These allegation s cannot support a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Simply put, a third party cannot interfere with a con tract that does not yet exist. Furthermore, Signal has not pleaded that the Indian workers would have stayed with Signal but for the action s of J&M. In fact, Signal specifically pleads "that the H-2B workers left its employ for a variety of reasons, some of them leaving for more than one reason ."27 Some of these reasons are wholly independent o f J&M's alleged contracts.28
Signal's brief further underscores the plea ding deficiencies in t he crossclaims. Rather than undertake the paragr aph-by-paragraph analysis that Wooten requires— leaving this task instead to the Court—Si gnal merely points "to the threadbare recitat[ion] of the elements of [its] cause of action" and hopes for the best. 29 Signal's inability to specifically identify the relevant allegations in its own crossclaim is telling.
27 Id. at ¶579. 28 See, e.g., id. at ¶579(a), (b), (d). 29 See Wooten, 2015 WL 51251, at *5 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S, 662, 678 (2009)); R. Doc. 2151, p. 10; R. Doc. 1748 at ¶¶ 626—32.
5

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2161 Filed 01/19/15 Page 6 of 6

CONCLUSION

Signal's crossclaim allegations ar e fatally detective and therefore cannot support

the entry of default judgment against J&M.

Accordingl

y;

IT IS ORDERED that Signal's crossclaims against J&M are DISMISSSED

WITHOUT PREJU DICE.30 Signal may amend its crossclaim within 30 days of this

Order. The amended crossclaim must be properly served on J&M.31

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of January, 2015.

________________________ _______ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

30 Where, as here, a pleading is fatally deficient, a district court may sua sponte dismiss without prejudice and order a curative amendment. See Wooten, 2015 WL 51251, at *12. 31 See id. (instructing that a d efective pleading su bsequently a mended mus t be serve d to al low "a corresponding opportunity to answer (or properly default) . . . before judgment."
6

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Cases:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant

SECTION “E”

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,

No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732, 14-1818)

SECTION “E”

Applies To: David v. Signal (08-1220)

______________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ TRIAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING FORCED LABOR AND TRAFFICKING FOR FORCED LABOR CLAIMS
______________________________________________________________________________

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 15
By way of its January 22, 2015 Minute Entry, the Court ordered the parties to “submit memoranda addressing the following: (1) whether punitive damages are available under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA); (2) whether the standard for obtaining punitive damages is the same for all causes of action; (3) whether in pari delicto is a cognizable affirmative defense under the TVPRA, and, if so, whether that defense is appropriate in this case; and (4) whether reputational harm and psychological harm are components of ‘serious harm’ under the pre-amendment version of Section 1589 of the TVPRA.” Rec. Doc. 2189. Plaintiffs address each of these questions, seriatim.
ARGUMENT A. Punitive Damages Are Available Under the TVPRA. Thus far, every court that has addressed the question of whether punitive damages are available under the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. § 1595, have answered in the affirmative. See Francisco v. Susano, No 12-1376, 525 Fed. Appx. 828, 833-35 (10th Cir. May 28, 2013); Ditullio v. Boehm, 662 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2011); Carazani v. Zegarra, 972 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013); Doe v. Howard, No. 1:11-cv-1105, 2012 WL 3834867 (E.D. Va. Sept. 4, 2012). These decisions, spanning four circuits, adopt the inquiries set forth in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992) and Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002): 1
First, we are invited to determine whether there is any clear indication of congressional intent to limit the presumption in favor of any and all appropriate damage remedies; second, absent any such indication, we are invited to determine whether the remedy in question is ‘appropriate.’
1 One additional court allowed for an award of punitive damages under the TVPRA, but without analysis. See Canal v. Dann, 09-03366 CW, 2010 WL 3491136, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2010) amended, 09-03366 CW, 2011 WL 3903166 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2011).

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 3 of 15
Francisco, 525 Fed. Appx. at 832 (quoting Moreno v. Consol. Rail Corp., 99 F.3d 782, 789 (6th Cir.1996).2
Starting with the first step, the courts have agreed that punitive damages are available under the TVPRA, which indicates that a plaintiff may recover “damages and reasonable attorneys fees,” 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a), because they are presumptively available for federal statutory violations. Francisco, 525 Fed. Appx. at 833 (citing Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992); citing and distinguishing Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002)). Indeed, “traditional [common law] remedies are available ‘absent clear direction to the contrary by Congress.’ Ambiguity is not clear direction.” Francisco, 525 Fed. Appx. at 833 (quoting Franklin, 503 U.S. at 70-71))(emphasis included). The availability of punitive damages under the TVPRA is further bolstered, the courts argue, by the fact that that Congress conceived of the TVPRA as a punitive statute, intended to address “conduct so reprehensible Congress made it criminal before adding the civil remedy in 2003.” Francisco, 525 Fed. Appx. at 834.
As for the second Franklin inquiry – the appropriateness of the remedy – the courts have similarly agreed that punitive damages are appropriate under the TVPRA. The Tenth Circuit in Francisco, following the lead of the Ninth Circuit in Ditullio and the Eastern District of Virginia in Doe v. Howard, found that “punitive damages are available under the TVPA because the Act’s civil remedy provision creates a cause of action that sounds in tort.” Francisco, 525 Fed. Appx. at 835 (quoting Doe v. Howard, 2012 WL 3834867, *4; citing Dutillio 662 F.3d at 1097). This is because
the traditional use of punitive damages is to punish and deter misconduct involving an element of outrage. The TVPA “creates a cause of action for
2 The courts in Carazani and Doe did not directly reference the Franklin inquiry, but nevertheless followed the same reasoning in allowing for an award of punitive damages. Carazani, 972 F.Supp.2d at *26; Doe, 2012 WL 3834867, *4-5.
2

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 4 of 15

tortious conduct that is ordinarily intentional and outrageous”—what “Congress described as ‘a contemporaneous manifestation of slavery.’” 9 Id. at 1098 (quoting Pub.L. No. 106–386, § 102, 114 Stat. 1464, 1466 (2000)). “Such conduct *835 obviously meets the common law standards for award of punitive damages[.]” Id. And the purpose and policy of the statute require no modification of the common law understanding: “permitting punitive damages is consistent with Congress' purposes in enacting the TVPA [and later including a civil remedy in the TVPRA], which include increased protection for victims of trafficking and punishment of traffickers.” Id.

Francisco, 525 Fed. Appx. at 834-35.

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue

an instruction for the jury allowing for an award of punitive damages under the TVPRA.

B. A Similar Standard for an Award of Punitive Damages is Applicable Across the Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action
The following chart provides a comparison of the standards for punitive damages across

Plaintiffs’ claims:

Claim TVPRA
42 U.S.C. § 1981 discrimination
India fraud7

Standard for Punitive Damages Preponderance of the evidence3 that Defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights.4 Preponderance of the evidence5 that Defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights6
Malicious, reckless, abusive, fraudulent, or oppressive conduct8

3 See White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R. Co., 364 F.3d 789, 805-06 (6th Cir. 2004) aff'd sub nom. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (discussing general presumption that punitive damages in civil cases are to be assessed under a preponderance of the evidence standard unless the applicable law specifies otherwise). 4 Abner v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 513 F.3d 154, 160 (5th Cir. 2008); Court’s Instructions to the Jury, Ramos v. Hoyle, No. 08-21809, Rec. Doc. 171 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2009). 5 White, 364 F.3d at 805-06. 6 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (b)(1). 7 In Indian law, punitive damages are frequently referred to as “exemplary damages.” See Common Cause v. Union of India, 1996 AIR 3538; see also Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 491 (2008) (explaining that, at common law, punitive damages awards were “generally dubbed ‘exemplary,’ implying that these verdicts were justified as punishment for extraordinary wrongdoing”). 8 Sheikh Jaru Bepari v. AG Peters, AIR 1942 Cal 493.
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 5 of 15

Claim Mississippi Contract and Quasi Contract Claims 42 U.S.C. § 1981 retaliation for Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally Mississippi False imprisonment for Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally Mississippi Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress for Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally

Standard for Punitive Damages Clear and convincing evidence of malice, fraud, gross negligence, or reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights9 Preponderance of the evidence10 that Defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights11
Clear and convincing evidence of malice, fraud, gross negligence, or reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights12
Clear and convincing evidence of malice, fraud, gross negligence, or reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights13

As indicated above, the claims for which Plaintiffs seek punitive damages have highly similar standards that apply to the determinations of punitive damages, but distinctions exist. The applicable standards can be grouped into three categories: the standard for Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the standard for Plaintiffs’ India law claim, and the standard for Plaintiffs’ Mississippi law claims. Accordingly, Plaintiffs suggest that a question about punitive damages be set forth in each claim for which punitive damages is available. Plaintiffs propose punitive damage questions with language along the following lines for each of the claims specified below: Forced Labor and Trafficking in Forced Labor
1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence, that in subjecting Plaintiff [name] to forced labor, the [name] Defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiff [name] rights? YES ______ NO ________
9 Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(a) (2002). 10 White, 364 F.3d at 805-06. 11 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 12 Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(a). 13 Id.
4

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 6 of 15
If you marked “yes,” please specify the amount of punitive damages to be assessed against Defendant [name] $_____________________TOTAL against [name] Defendants. 2. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence, that trafficking Plaintiff [name] for forced labor, the [name] Defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiff [name]’s rights? YES ______ NO ________ If you marked “yes,” please specify the amount of punitive damages to be assessed against Defendant [name] $_____________________TOTAL against [name] Defendants. Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981
1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that in discriminating against Plaintiff [name], the Signal Defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiff [name]’s rights? YES ______ NO ________ If you marked “yes,” please specify the amount of punitive damages to be assessed against the Signal Defendants: $_____________________TOTAL against Signal Defendants
Retaliation Against Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally 1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that in discriminating against Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, the Signal Defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to Plaintiff Kadakkarappally’s rights not to be retaliated against? YES ______ NO ________ If you marked “yes,” please specify the amount of punitive damages to be assessed against the Signal Defendants:
5

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 7 of 15
$_____________________TOTAL against Signal Defendants India Fraud
1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that in committing fraud against Plaintiff [name] in violation of the laws of India, the [name] Defendants’ conduct was malicious, reckless, abusive, fraudulent, or oppressive?
YES ______ NO ________ If you marked “yes,” please specify the amount of punitive damages to be assessed against the [name] Defendants: $_____________________TOTAL against [name] Defendants Mississippi Law Contract and Quasi-Contract Claims 1. Do you find that by clear and convincing evidence that in breaching their contracts or quasi-contracts with Plaintiff [name], the [name] Defendants’ conduct was malicious, fraudulent, grossly negligent, or recklessly disregarded Plaintiff [name]’s rights?
YES ______ NO ________ If you have marked “yes,” please specify the amount of punitive damages to be assessed against the [name] Defendants: $_____________________TOTAL against [name] Defendants Mississippi Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims 1. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that in intentionally inflicting emotional distress on Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, the Signal Defendants’ conduct was malicious, fraudulent, grossly negligent, or recklessly disregarded Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally’s rights?
YES ______ NO ________ If you have marked “yes,” please specify the amount of punitive damages to be assessed against the Signal Defendants: $_____________________TOTAL against Signal Defendants
6

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 8 of 15
Mississippi False Imprisonment 1. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that in falsely imprisoning Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally, the Signal Defendants’ conduct was malicious, fraudulent, grossly negligent, or recklessly disregarded Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally’s rights? YES ______ NO ________ If you have marked “yes,” please specify the amount of punitive damages to be assessed against the Signal Defendants: $_____________________TOTAL against Signal Defendants C. In Pari Delicto Is Not a Congizable Affirmative Defense Under the TVPRA. During the initial TVPRA charging conference, counsel for Signal acknowledged that he
had “made up” the in pari delicto TVPRA jury charge. Indeed, to allow an in pari delicto charge under the TVPRA not only would be unprecedented; it would eviscerate the important remedial purpose of the statute. For example, threats of deportation as a form of abuse of legal process that violates the forced labor provision of the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. § 1589, would become meaningless if a defendant could merely place blame on the plaintiff for contributing to the immigration status that made her vulnerable to the threat. Similarly, in a TVPRA sex trafficking case under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, a victim of forced prostitution could be prevented from recovering because she engaged in an illegal activity.
If, however, the Court did find that there is a basis to consider allowing an in pari delicto instruction for the TVPRA claims, Plaintiffs nevertheless object to the inclusion of the instruction for the same reasons it would not be proper under TVPRA.
Two requirements must be satisfied before an in pari delicto defense may be applied: (1) the plaintiffs’ “active participation in the violation vel non and (2) the policy goals of the federal statute.” Rogers v. McDorman, 521 F.3d 381, 389 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Official Comm. of
7

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 9 of 15
Unsecured Creditors of PSA, Inc. v. Edwards, 437 F.3d 1145, 1154 (11th Cir. 2006)). The standard for active participation is a showing of “substantially equal responsibility”.
Rogers v. McDorman, 521 F.3d 381, 390 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner, 472 U.S. 299, 306, 310-11 (1985)). A showing of equal responsibility simply cannot be made on the facts of this case. Assuming that Signal’s argument is based on its speculation that some Plaintiffs lied at the US Consulate in India, that does not even approach the TVPRA violations at issue in this case. The supposed lies have no relevance to – much less active participation in – forced labor, or trafficking for the purpose of forced labor. But putting aside the absence of a connection between the purported in pari delicto conduct and the TVPRA, there is no reasonable basis to find that the purported lies are even approaching an “equal” amount of culpability for the predicate acts at issue. By contrast, in Rogers, a RICO case, the legal theory was premised on a check kiting scheme, wherein the RICO plaintiffs’ – successors to a bank – involvement in the very check kiting racketeering at issue was the basis for an in pari delicto defense. Such unity between the supposed in pari delicto conduct and the relevant TVPRA violations does not exist here.
Further, in Bateman, the Supreme Court recognized that simple involvement in a deceptive scheme – there, the violation of securities laws – would not be a basis to advance an in pari delicto defense: “There is certainly no basis for concluding at this stage of this litigation that the respondents were in pari delicto with Lazzaro and Neadeau. The allegations are that Lazzaro and Neadeau masterminded this scheme to manipulate the market in TONM securities for their own personal benefit, and that they used the purchasing respondents as unwitting dupes to inflate the price of TONM stock.” The Court recognized that “[t]he respondents [i.e. plaintiffs] may well have violated the securities laws, and in any event we place no ‘stamp of approval’ on their
8

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 10 of 15
conduct” but held that the scheme’s masterminds were “far more culpable under any reasonable view than the respondents’ alleged conduct.” Bateman, 472 U.S. at 314. The Court therefore rejected the in pari delicto defense.
Additionally, as to the second (policy goals) prong, TVPRA is designed to “combat trafficking in persons, a contemporary manifestation of slavery[.]” Nunag-Tanedo v. E. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 790 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1143 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. 106–939, at 3 (2000). In pari delicto should not be used here to deprive plaintiffs from a TVPRA remedy. As the Fifth Circuit in Rogers noted in the RICO context, the lower court appropriately concluded that in pari delicto should not be used against “even negligent plaintiffs or plaintiffs who are slow on the uptake and, based on Bateman Eichler, even plaintiffs who had unclean hands.” Rogers v. McDorman, 521 F.3d 381, 390, n.45 (5th Cir. 2008).
For the reasons set forth above. An in pari delicto jury charge is not appropriate for the TVPRA claims – or any claim – in this action.
D. Reputational Harm and Psychological Harm are Components of ‘Serious Harm’ Under the Pre-Amendment Version of Section 1589 of the TVPRA
From the inception the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, bolstered by case law since, reputational harm and psychological harm have cognizable as forms of serious harm under the forced labor statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1589. Signal, however, takes an overly restrictive view of serious harm, contending that the Court should apply a narrow meaning to claims arising before the 2008 TVPRA reauthorization because it was only then that Congress expressly defined serious harm to include reputational, psychological, and financial harm, among others.
Signal attempts to couch this as a retroactivity issue. However, the TVPA legislative history and case law demonstrate that 2008 reauthorization language memorialized – as opposed to supplementing – existing law. Therefore, there is no retroactivity issue. See, e.g., Nuñag-
9

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 11 of 15
Tanedo v. E. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., No. SA CV10-01172 JAK (MLGx), 2012 WL
5378742, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2012) (“Financial harm was cognizable as serious harm
prior to the December 23, 2008 amendment.”).
This Court, however, already has found that the definition of serious harm should not be
limited as Signal would like. In denying Signal’s summary judgment motion for claims under
the TVPRA, the Court found in the context of financial harm as a form of serious harm,
That the pre-amendment version distinguished between “serious harm” and “physical restraint” suggests “Congress intended that serious harm not be limited to physical harm, and instead include at least some non-physical harm, e.g., financial harm.” Moreover, “[s]tandard definitions of ‘harm’ do not restrict the term to physical harm, but also encompass economic injury.” Second, the legislative history suggests Congress intended preamendment Section 1589 to cover a “broad array of harms,” such as causing the victim to believe he or she would face “bankruptcy in their home country.” Third, at least two courts have squarely held that “financial harm was cognizable as serious harm prior to the December 23, 2008 amendment.” This Court joins their lead and holds that serious harm under pre-amendment Section 1589 includes financial harm.
David v. Signal Int'l, LLC, CIV.A. 08-1220, 2015 WL 75276, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 6, 2015)
(internal citations omitted). Therefore, this Court already recognized that one form of serious
harm set forth in the 2008 TVPRA reauthorization – financial harm – applied to claims arising
before 2008.
Therefore, the issue before this Court is simply whether the other two forms of serious
harm Plaintiffs seek in include in the jury instruction (in addition to financial harm) –
reputational and psychological harm – are supported by the pre-Amendment version of the
forced labor statute.
1. Psychological Harm
The question of whether psychological coercion is an element of serious harm has been
resolved by the Fifth Circuit. See United States v. Nnaji, 447 Fed.Appx. 558, 559 (5th Cir.2011)
10

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 12 of 15
(“serious harm can include psychological coercion”)14 (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106–939, at *91 (2000); United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145, 150 (1st Cir.2004), vacated on Booker grounds, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
Plaintiffs’ proposed jury instruction provides that “the term ‘serious harm’ means any harm, whether physical or non-physical harm, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm… .” Because the Congressional Record and its case law progeny speak of psychological coercion, rather than psychological harm, Plaintiffs would not oppose changing the jury instruction to “the term ‘serious harm’ means any harm, whether physical or non-physical harm, including psychological coercion, financial harm, or reputational harm… .”
2. Reputational Harm In setting forth what may constitute “serious harm” when it enacted the TVPA in 2000, the House Conference Report provided that it included “a broad array of harms.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106–939, at 101, 2000 WL 1479163, at *101. Encapsulated in these harms is reputational harm. Thus, for example, Congress recognized that causing the victim to believe his family will suffer “banishment … in their home country” would be a form of serious harm. In U.S. v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2011), a case involving conduct that pre-dated the 2008 TVPRA reauthorization, see Nunag-Tanedo, 2012 WL 5378742, at *3 (Dann “concerned trafficking that occurred between 2006 and 2008, i.e., before the December 23, 2008 amendment.”), the Ninth Circuit expressly recognized that reputational harm – in that case an accusation that the victim was a thief – may be an element of serious harm. In the instant case, Plaintiffs have testified extensively about the severe reputational harm they feared they would suffer if they were forced to return to India without repaying their debts.
14 Nnaji involved conduct that occurred entirely before the 2008 TVPRA reauthorization and does not reference the reauthorization language. Id.
11

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 13 of 15

This testimony was bolstered by Amy Mowl, Plaintiffs’ expert on India debt and financing. Plaintiffs feared banishment and alienation from their communities and families, and this was one of the principal reasons understood that they could not leave Signal. As Ms. Mowl testified, for workers from Plaintiffs’ cultural background, the shame associated with the loss of family assets (primarily gold jewelry and land) was particularly pronounced.
Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that the Court include reputational harm as an element of serious harm in the TVPRA jury instruction.

Respectfully submitted this 26th day of January, 2015,

s/_Kristi Graunke____________ Kristi L. Graunke (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 305653 s/ Daniel Werner____________ Daniel Werner (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 422070 Naomi Tsu (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 507612 Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center 1989 College Ave. Atlanta, Georgia 30317 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Facsimile: (404) 221-5857 daniel.werner@splcenter.org naomi.tsu@splcenter.org kristi.graunke@splcenter.org
Meredith B. Stewart Louisiana Bar No. 34109 Southern Poverty Law Center 1055 St. Charles Ave., # 505 New Orleans, LA 70130 504-486-8982 meredith.stewart@splcenter.org
Anjali J. Nair (pro hac vice) Alabama Bar No. 1160K42Y

s/ Tracie L. Washington_________ Tracie L. Washington, Esq. Louisiana Bar No. 25925 Louisiana Justice Institute 1631 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70117 Telephone: 504.872.9134 Facsimile: 504.872.9878 tracie@LouisianaJusticeInstitute.org tlwesq@cox.net
Joseph Bjarnson (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4774055 Sahn Ward Coschignano & Baker 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., # 601 Uniondale, NY 11553 516-228-1300 jbjarnson@swcblaw.com
Alan B. Howard, T.A. (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 2173268 Hugh Sandler (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4712584 Melia Amal Bouhabib (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4878468. Chiemi Suzuki (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4330569 Crowell & Moring, LLP
12

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 14 of 15

Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104 334-956-8255 Facsimile: 334-956-8481 anjali.nair@splcenter.org
Ivy O. Suriyopas (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4406385 Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund 99 Hudson Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212)966-5932 isuriyopas@aaldef.org

590 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10022 212-803-4042 ahoward@crowell.com hsandler@crowell.com abouhabib@crowell.com
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4136966 Human Rights Program American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street – 18th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 519-7840 cbhatnagar@aclu.org

13

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2202 Filed 01/26/15 Page 15 of 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 26th of January, 2015, I filed the foregoing document using the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system, which will provide service on counsel for all ECFregistered parties. I further certify that the attached has been deposited in a U.S. Mail receptacle for delivery by first class mail, properly addressed and with postage pre-paid to: Global Resources, Inc. 13 Herring Road Beaumont, MS 39423 Indo-Ameri Soft L.L.C. c/o Kevin K. Gipson, Esquire (bankruptcy counsel) 3920 General DeGaulle Drive New Orleans, LA 70114 Kurella Rao c/o Kevin K. Gipson, Esquire (bankruptcy counsel) 3920 General DeGaulle Drive New Orleans, LA 70114 Billy Wilks, J&M Assoc of Mississippi J&M Marine & Industrial 9136 Heather Lane Moss Point MS 39562.
/s/ Kristi Graunke Kristi Graunke
14

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2213 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs
VERSUS SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff VERSUS SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants
LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 08-1220 SECTION “E”
CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-557 SECTION "E"
CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732, 141818) SECTION "E"

Applies To: David (08-1220)

1

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2213 Filed 01/28/15 Page 2 of 5

ORDER

The Court previously ordered Plaintiffs and Signal to sub

mit memoranda

addressing the following: (1) whether pu nitive damages are available under the

Trafficking Victim Protection A ct ("TVPA"); 1 (2) whether the sta ndard for obtaining

punitive damages is the same for all causes of act ion; (3) whethe r in pari delicto is a

cognizable affirmativ e defense under the TVPA , and, if so, whether that defense is

appropriate in this case; and (4) whether re putational harm and psychological harm are

components of "serious harm" under the pre- amendment version of Section 1589 of the

TVPA. The parties submitted their memoranda on January 26, 2015.2

I. Punitive Damages under the TVPA

The TVPA does not explicitly allow punitive damages in civil cases.3 Nonetheless,

every court to consider the issue has held that punitive damages are available. 4 The

Court finds these cases persuasive and ther efore h olds that a plaintiff may recov er

punitive damages under the TVPA.

II. Punitive Damages for All Causes of Action

The Court will address this issue at the charge conference on January 28, 2015 at

5:30 p.m.

1 18 U.S.C. § 1581 et seq. 2 See R. Docs. 2202, 2204. 3 See 18 U.S.C. § 1595 ("An individual who is a vi ctim of a viola tion may bri ng a civil action . . . and may recover damages and reasonable attorneys fees.”). 4 See, e.g., Ditullio v. Boehm, 662 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) ("We . . . hold that punitive damages are available under 18 U.S.C. § 1595."); Francisvo v. Susano, 525 F. App'x 828, 835 (10th Cir. 2013) ("We . . . agree with the only other circuit to ad dress the matter and hold puniti ve damages to be ava ilable under § 1595."); Carazani v. Zegarra, 972 F. Supp. 2d 1, 26 (D. D.C. 2013) ("Punitive damages are . . . available under the TVPA."); Doe v. Howard, No. 1:11-cv-1105, 2012 WL 3834867 , at *4 (E.D. Va. Sep t. 24, 2012) ("Punitive damages are available under the TVPA . . . .").
2

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2213 Filed 01/28/15 Page 3 of 5

III. In Pari Delicto and the TVPA

In pari delicto is an affirmative defense that ba rs recovery based on a plaintiff's

own misconduct.5 As a preliminary matter, the Court' s research indicates that no court

has ever applied in pari delicto to a civil case under the TVPA. Signal thus invites this

Court to break new ground.

Whether

in pari delicto is an available d efense to a federal c ause of action

depends on two factors: "(1) the plainti ffs' active participation in the violation vel non

and (2) the policy goals of the federal statute." 6 The first fa ctor requires that the

plaintiff bear "substantially equal responsibili ty for the violations he seeks to redress." 7

The parties' relative levels of responsibility for any alleged violat ion of the TVPA is a

clearly a question of fact. 8 The Court does not reach this question, however, because it

finds in pari delicto squarely at odds with the policy goals of the TPVA.

"The purposes of [the TVPA] are to comba t trafficking in persons, to ensure just

punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims." 9 Allowing a human trafficker to

wash its hands with in pari delicto accomplishes none of these goals, because "[e]xisting

legislation and law enforcement in the United States and other countries are inadequate

to deter trafficking[,] . . . bring traffickers to justice[,] [and] . . . protect victims of

trafficking."10

In drafting the TVPA, Congress found tha t (1) "[t[ra fficking in persons . . .

involves significant violations of labor, public health, and human rights standards

5 In re Royale Airlines, Inc., 98 F.3d 852, 855 (5th Cir. 1996). 6 Rogers v. McDorman, 521 F.3d 381, 389 (5th C ir. 2008) (quoting Official C omm. of Uns ecured Creditors of PSA, Inc. v. Edwards, 437 F.3d 1145, 1154 (11th Cir. 2006)). 7 Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner, 472 U.S. 299, 310–11 (1985); Rogers, 521 F.3d at 390. 8 See P ackard v. OCA, Inc ., 624 F.3d 726, 734 (5th Cir. 2010). As the presentation of evidence is still ongoing, this question is not ripe for consideration. 9 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106–939, at *89 (2000)) 10 Id. at *5.
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2213 Filed 01/28/15 Page 4 of 5
worldwide;" (2) "[t]ra ffickers often transpo rt victims from their home communities to unfamiliar destinatio ns, including foreign countries away from family and friend s, religious in stitutions, and other sources of protection and support, leaving the victims defenseless and vulnerable;" (3) "[v]ictims are often f orced . . . t o . . . perform slaverylike labor. . . [through] threats, psychologi cal abuse, an d coercion;" (4) "[t]rafficking in persons is increasingl y perpetrated by organi zed, sop histicated criminal e nterprises"); and (5) "[ t]rafficking . . . inv olves violations of o ther laws, including labor an d immigration codes and laws against . . . false imprisonment . . . [ and] fraud."11 Some of these findings closely mirror the allegations in the Sixth Amended Complaint. Allowin g in pari delicto would turn the TVPA on its head. The affirmative defense is not available in this case. IV. Psychological Harm and Reputational Harm
The pre-amendment version of Section 1589 of the TVPA proscribed the knowing provision of labor by "threats of serious ha rm to, o r physical restraint against, [the victim].12 T he new ver sion of Sec tion 1589 s imilarly prohibits the knowing provision of labor by "means of serious harm or thre ats of serious harm to [the victim]." 13 Unlike pre-amendment Section 1589, the new version contains a broad definition of "serious harm," which includes "psychological, financial, [and] reputational harm."14
Signal previously argued the inclusion of "financial harm" in the new version o f Section 1589 implies it was not part of the pre-amendment version of Section 1589. The Court has already rej ected this argument. 15 Signal no w appears to advance the same
11 Id. at *4. 12 18 U.S.C. § 1589(1) (2000). 13 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(1). 14 18 U.S.C. § 1589(c)(1). 15 See R. Doc. 2077.
4

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2213 Filed 01/28/15 Page 5 of 5
argument with respect to psycho logical harm and rep utational harm.16 That argument is rejected for the reasons previously stated.17
CONCLUSION Punitive d amages are available unde r the TVPA. Signal may not assert in pari delicto as an affirmat ive defense. The Cou rt will charge the jury that "serious harm" under the TVPA includes psychological harm and reputational harm. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 27th day of January, 2015.
_______________________ ________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16 The Court is una ble to discer n from Sig nal's brief wheth er it opposes Plai ntiffs' p osition on psychological and reputation harm, and, if so, the basis for that opposition. 17 See id. Additionally, the Court notes the Fifth Circuit has ruled in an unpublished opinion that "serious harm" under the pre-amen dment versio n of Sec tion 1589 inc ludes "psychologi cal coerci on." See United States v. Nnaji, 447 F. App'x 558, 559 (5th Cir. 2011). In holding that serious harm includes psychological harm, the court cited the legislative history for the pre-amendment version of S ection 1589. See id. This confirms the court was indeed applying the pre-amendment version of the statute, rather than the current version.
5

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2234 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs,
-againstSIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants.

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Plaintiffs,

and

SABULAL VIJAYAN, et al.

Plaintiffs

-

Intervenors -against-
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant.

Related Case: LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al. Plaintiffs,
-againstSIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants.

Applies To: David, No. 08-1220

CIVIL ACTION No. 08-1220-SM-DEK SECTION “E”
CIVIL ACTION No. 12-557-SM-DEK SECTION “E”
CIVIL ACTION No. 13-6218-SM-DEK (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732 and 14-1818) SECTION “E”

TRIAL BRIEF REGARDING IN PARI DELICTO
1

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2234 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 8

Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court deny Defendant Signal’s request for the inclusion of an in pari delicto charge to Plaintiffs’ Racketeering and Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) jury instructions and verdict forms, Rec. Doc. 2230. As set forth herein, this defense is not appropriate as Signal cannot show the requisite elements for the charge, namely that (1) Plaintiffs were bear substantial equal responsibility for the alleged scheme in this case or (2) that the federal goals of the RICO statute would not be inhibited by the application of defense for the case at hand. Because Signal cannot meet its burden under these two elements, and there is in fact no third element related to causation as suggested by Signal, the charge cannot be properly applied here.

ARGUMENT

An

in pari delicto defense may only be applied to causes of action created by federal

statutes when two factors are met. See Rogers v. McDorman, 521 F.3d 381, 389 (5th Cir. 2008)

(quoting Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of PSA, Inc. v. Edwards, 437 F.3d 1145, 1154

(11th Cir. 2006)). Although Signal attempts to conflate their affirmative defense with Plaintiffs’

burden to show causation by suggesting a “[c]onfluence of in pari charge and but for causation,”

see Doc. at 9-10, the in pari delicto defense is only appropriate if a defendant can show: (1) the

plaintiffs’ active participation in the violation vel non and (2) the policy goals of the federal

statute. Rogers, 521 F.3d at 389. Although in pari delicto is a cognizable defense to RICO

claims, the Defendants cannot show the aforementioned elements here.

The Plaintiffs did not Participate in the Scheme or Predicate Acts Alleged Here.

Defendants’ burden to show the vel non argument requires a showing that “the plaintiff[s] bear[] at least substantially equal responsibility for the violations he seeks to redress Bateman

2

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2234 Filed 02/03/15 Page 3 of 8
Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner, 472 U.S. 299, 306, 310-11 (1985). Firstly, as set forth in the parties’ proposed jury instruction and verdict forms, the predicate acts upon which Plaintiffs’ RICO claims are based on are immigration document fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, forced labor, and labor trafficking. Signal’s only attempt to tie Plaintiffs to any wrongdoing they allege appears to be, evidenced primarily through the attachment of two plaintiffs’ testimony at trial but with no substantive discussion, is primarily the argument that two Plaintiffs’ statements at the U.S. consulate evidence “conscious and deliberate complicity in actually perceived wrongdoing,” Doc. at 2, and that the “the Second Claim for relief [RICO] would not exist but for this complicity.” Id. Neither facially nor substantively, do the supposed wrongdoing supposedly done by the two Plaintiffs, mention, approach, or reflect relevance to the specific predicate acts at issue in this case. This is illustrated most simply in Signal’s attempts to tie in defenses to common law fraud in India and the Fifth Circuit as a basis for the in pari delicto defense to Plaintiffs’ RICO claim. See Doc. at 9. However, as the parties have repeatedly agreed and in fact, Defendants have repeatedly stressed, simple common law actions do not constitute an actionable predicate act or have relevance to a RICO claim; accordingly such acts cannot therefore now form the basis for a RICO defense.
Moreover, Signal’s repeated statements of Plaintiffs’ supposed-“complicity” highlights the inappropriateness of this defense as raised in connection to the alleged predicate acts. As the Fifth Circuit has noted, in pari delicto would be an appropriate RICO defense in a case only when the “[p]laintiff was not a passive participant in the fraudulent scheme giving rise to the lawsuit but an active one, ” or otherwise bears “substantially equal responsibility for the violations he seeks to redress.” Rogers, 521 F.3d at 390 (quoting Bateman Eichler, 472 U.S. 299 at 310-11). Signal’s attempts to tie plaintiffs’ supposed-wrongdoings for the scheme and
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2234 Filed 02/03/15 Page 4 of 8
predicate actions is therefore based in part on an argument that there would be no labor trafficking in this case if Plaintiffs hadn’t supposedly trafficked themselves by following Defendants’ instructions or pursuing Defendants promises. See Doc. at 9. However, beyond conclusory statements suggesting this incredulous argument, Defendants have provided no basis to show Plaintiffs’ supposed wrongdoings approach an equal amount of culpability for the predicate acts at issue or the scheme giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims.
The Fifth Circuit’s analysis of a RICO claim Rogers is instructive here. In analyzing “equal” culpability in a RICO case, the Fifth Circuit held that because the RICO theory was premised on a check kiting scheme, wherein the RICO plaintiffs’ -- successors to a bank – were affirmatively involved in the very check kiting racketeering forming the basis for plaintiffs’ RICO claim, there was a basis for the in pari delicto defense. See Rogers, 521 F.3d at 390. However, no such unity between the supposed in pari delicto conduct, or equal or affirmative participation in the relevant RICO acts at issue in this case exist here.
Further, in Bateman, the Supreme Court recognized that sim ple involvem ent in a deceptive scheme – there, the violation of securities laws – would not be a basis to ad vance an in pari delicto defense: “There is certainly no basis for concluding at this stage of this litigation that the respondents were in pari delicto with Lazzaro and Neadeau. The allegations are that Lazzaro and Neadeau m asterminded this schem e to m anipulate the market in TONM securities for their own personal benefit, and that they used the purchasing respondents as unwitting dupes to inflate the price of TONM stock.” The Court recognized that “[t]he respondents [i.e. RICO plaintiffs] may well have violated the securities laws, and in any event we place no ‘stam p of approval’ on their conduct” but held that the schem e’s m asterminds were “far m ore culpable under any reasonable view than the respondents’ alleged conduct.” Bateman, 472 U.S. at 314. The Supreme
4

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2234 Filed 02/03/15 Page 5 of 8
Court in held the masterminds’ were far more culpable because the defendants’ “[c]onduct [was] particularly egregious when committed by a [pro fessional], who owes a dut y of honesty and fair dealing tow ard his c lients.” Id. at 314-315. T he Court th erefore rejected the in pari de licto defense. The similar reasoning holds true to this case as the Pl aintiffs’ testimony cited by Signal shows that Plaintiffs simply alleged in any su pposed-wrongdoing on account of the instructions provided to them by Defendant Sachin Dewan, Defendant Signal’s repr esentative and labor recruiter at the relevant times.
The reality is, by raising some sort of alleged wrongdoing by two Plaintiffs, Signal is attempting to assert an “unclean hands” defense in the guise of its in pari delicto charge. However, as this court has held, the “’in pari delicto doctrine “is a corollary of the unclean hands maxim, the principal difference being that the in pari delicto doctrine technically applies only when the plaintiff's fault is substantially equal to the defendants,’” Stanley v. Trinchard, No. CIV.A. 02-1235, 2010 WL 3168113, at *7 (E.D. La. Aug. 9, 2010) (internal citations omitted). As the Fifth Circuit in Rogers noted, the lower court appropriately concluded that in pari delicto should not be used against “even negligent plaintiffs or plaintiffs who are slow on the uptake and, based on Bateman Eichler, even plaintiffs who had unclean hands.” Rogers 521 F.3d 381 at 390, n.45.
The Public Interest Would be Injured by the Application of an In Pari Delicto Charge.
Additionally, as to th e second policy prong, RICO is “des igned to prevent and punish racketeering.” Rogers, 521 F.3d at 390 n.45. Signal overstates the need for judici al wariness of RICO claims. See Mot. 7-9. In Bateman, the S upreme Court uphel d the denial of the in pari delicto defense despite the plain tiffs’ supposed wrongdoings, because such a denial would “best
5

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2234 Filed 02/03/15 Page 6 of 8
promote the primary objective of the federal” securities laws since otherwise barring such private actions would result in “a num ber of alleged fraudulent practi ces going undetected,” and the need to maximize deterrence of the relevant wr ongdoings by bringing ”enf orcement pressures to bear on th e sources. ” See Bateman Eichler , 472 U.S. 299 at 15-318. The sam e policy considerations should apply here. In pari delicto should not be used here to deprive Plaintiffs – who Signal has not alleged to be racketeers o r perpe trators of any of the predicate acts in question in this case – from a RICO remedy against the alleged racketeers.
Finally, Signal attempts to distinguish Hills Farms from the case at hand, see Doc. at 1011, but if anything, Hills Farm is not indistinguishable; omitted from Signal’s cites is the analysis holding the in pari delicto defense inapplicable since although the plaintiffs could be “on the hook” for potential IRS tax issues, these acts were because “[plaintiffs] participated in or based deductions on the scheme provided to them by Defendants.” W. Hills Farms, LLC v. Classicstar (In re Classicstar Mare Lease Litig.), 823 F. Supp. 2d 599, 637-38 (E.D. Ky. 2011)), aff'd, 727 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 2013). The same reasoning should apply here since as stated testimony offered by Signal, see Docs. 2230-1 and Docs. 2230-2, Plaintiffs’ allegedwrongdoings were a result of following the instructions of the racketeers named to be in Signal’s RICO enterprises.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Signal’s request to include an in pari delicto charge to Plaintiffs’ RICO jury instructions or verdict forms.
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of February, 2015,
6

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2234 Filed 02/03/15 Page 7 of 8

s/_Daniel Werner____________ Daniel Werner (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 422070 Naomi Tsu (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 507612 Kristi L. Graunke (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 305653 Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center 1989 College Ave. Atlanta, Georgia 30317 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Facsimile: (404) 221-5857 daniel.werner@splcenter.org naomi.tsu@splcenter.org kristi.graunke@splcenter.org
Meredith B. Stewart Louisiana Bar No. 34109 Southern Poverty Law Center 1055 St. Charles Ave., # 505 New Orleans, LA 70130 504-486-8982 meredith.stewart@splcenter.org
Anjali J. Nair (pro hac vice) Alabama Bar No. 1160K42Y Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104 334-956-8255 Facsimile: 334-956-8481 anjali.nair@splcenter.org
Ivy O. Suriyopas (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4406385 Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund 99 Hudson Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212)966-5932 isuriyopas@aaldef.org

s/ Tracie L. Washington_________ Tracie L. Washington, Esq. Louisiana Bar No. 25925 Louisiana Justice Institute 1631 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70117 Telephone: 504.872.9134 Facsimile: 504.872.9878 tracie@LouisianaJusticeInstitute.org
Joseph Bjarnson (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4774055 Sahn Ward Coschignano & Baker 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., # 601 Uniondale, NY 11553 516-228-1300 jbjarnson@swcblaw.com
Alan B. Howard, T.A. (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 2173268 Hugh Sandler (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4712584 Melia Amal Bouhabib (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4878468. Chiemi Suzuki (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4330569 Crowell & Moring, LLP 590 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10022 212-803-4042 ahoward@crowell.com hsandler@crowell.com abouhabib@crowell.com
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4136966 Human Rights Program American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street – 18th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 519-7840 cbhatnagar@aclu.org

7

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2234 Filed 02/03/15 Page 8 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of February, 2015, I filed the foregoing document using the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system, which will provide service on counsel for all ECF-registered parties. I further certify that the attached has been deposited in a U.S. Mail receptacle for delivery by first class mail, properly addressed and with postage pre-paid to: Global Resources, Inc. 13 Herring Road Beaumont, MS 39423 Indo-Ameri Soft L.L.C. c/o Kevin K. Gipson, Esquire (bankruptcy counsel) 3920 General DeGaulle Drive New Orleans, LA 70114 Kurella Rao c/o Kevin K. Gipson, Esquire (bankruptcy counsel) 3920 General DeGaulle Drive New Orleans, LA 70114 Billy Wilks, J&M Assoc of Mississippi J&M Marine & Industrial 9136 Heather Lane Moss Point MS 39562.
/s/ Daniel Werner Daniel Werner
8

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2254 Filed 02/08/15 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs

CIVIL

ACTION

VERSUS

No.

08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,

SECTION

“E”

Defendants

Related Cases:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No.

12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant

SECTION “E”

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No.

(c/w

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., 13-6221,

13-6218 13-6219, 13-6220,
14-732, 14-1818)

SECTION “E”

Applies To: David v. Signal, 08-1220 TRIAL BRIEF ON RICO JURY CHARGE REGARDING THIRD PARTY RELIANCE Plaintiffs respectfully submit this brief to urge this Court to include a third-party reliance
instruction within the RICO jury charge to b e read to th e ju ry. The Suprem e Court expressly authorizes third-party reliance as a basis to establish the re quisite causation to ground RICO liability. Plaintiffs’ proposed language is provided in Part III below.
1

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2254 Filed 02/08/15 Page 2 of 6

I. Third Party Reliance Is Adequate to Meet the Causation Standard Under RICO

In Bridge v. Phoenix B ond & Indem. Co., the Suprem e Court unanimously held that

because reliance was not an elem ent of mail fraud it is also n ot an element for a RICO violatio n

premised on mail fraud. 553 U.S. 639, 661 (2008). The Court noted that the mail fraud statute – a

predicate act of racketeering – m ay be violated “even if no one relied on any misrepresentation.”

Id. at 648. And the Court further reasoned that “one can [also] conduct the affairs of a [RICO]

enterprise . . . without anyone relying on a fraudulent misrepresentation.” Id. at 649.

While under RICO’s private right of action, a pl aintiff must show injury “by reason of” a

violation of § 1962 “a person can be injured

. . . even if he has not relied on any

misrepresentations.” Id. The Court further added that “there is no genera l common law principle

holding that a fraudulent m isrepresentation can cause legal injury only to those who rely on it.”

But the Court did r ecognize that “none of this is to say tha t a RICO plaintif f who alleges in jury

‘by reason of’ a pattern of mail fraud can prev ail without showing that som eone r elied on the

defendant’s m isrepresentations.” Id. at 658 (em phasis in original). Therefore, while at least a

third party’s reliance on a m isrepresentation may be necessary, no more than that is required: “it

may well b e tha t a RI CO plain tiff alleging injury by reason of a pattern of m ail fraud m ust

establish at least third-party reliance in order to prove causation.” Id. at 659.

One of Plaintiffs’ Theories of RICO Liability is Premised on Third-Party Reliance

In granting the H-2B visas on which Plaintiffs trave led to the United State s, the U.S.

government relied on S ignal’s and Burnett’s false at testations to the U.S. Department of Labor

and U.S. Custom s and Imm igration Service. As part of the H2B visa applications, these

defendants falsely attested, under pain of perjur y, that Signal had a 10 -month labor need. These

applications were then m ailed to th e relevant government agency notwithstanding S ignal’s and

2

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2254 Filed 02/08/15 Page 3 of 6
Burnett’s knowledge, expressed over email and other means, that Signal’s labor need was not ten months but rather two-to-three years. These false attestations were made because the Defendants concluded, in part via comm unications over email, that the H2B vi sas would not be granted if a need longer than ten months were revealed to the U.S. government.
As a result of this m ail and wire fraud, Plai ntiffs suffered pecuniary losses directly. But for the governm ent’s granting of the H-2B visas predi cated on this fraud, Plaintiffs would not have, at the very leas t, m ade their last in stallment payment to Defendants Dewan, Pol and Burnett. The trial testimony (consis tent with the allegations in Pl aintiffs’ complaint) establishes that the H-2B visa iss uance – the specific g oal and res ult of th e m ail f raud on the U.S. government – directly caused not only Plaintiffs’ last recruiting fee installment payment but also Plaintiffs traveling to the Unite d States and working for Signal. The direct connection between the result of the U.S. governm ent’s reliance on the defendants’ m isrepresentation and the Plaintiffs’ p ecuniary lo sses satisfies RICO’s proximate cause requirem ent. Hol mes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 259 (1992) (Plaintiffs must show that there is “som e direct relation[ship] between the [money they lost] and the injurious conduct alleged.”).
Because there is a direct relationsh ip between the injury – Plaintiffs’ paym ent of part of the fees and other injuries suffe red at Signal – and the RIC O mail and wire fraud, the Plaintiffs, under Bridge, need not de monstrate that they re lied on Defendants’ false statem ents to the government. “[A] plaintiff asserting a RICO cl aim predicated on m ail fraud need not show, either as an elem ent of its claim or as a prereq uisite to establishing pr oximate causation, that it relied on the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations.” Bridge, 553 U.S. at 661; see also W arnock v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 08cv01, 2008 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 81507, at *16-18 (S.D. Miss.
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2254 Filed 02/08/15 Page 4 of 6

Oct. 14, 2008) (in civil RICO action, paym ent of attorneys’ fees were proxim ately caused by fraud on court by way of defendants’ filing frivolous lawsuits).1 III. Proposed Jury In struction Encapsulatin g Availability o f Third Party R eliance as Establishing Causation.
Plaintiffs request the following instruction for both mail and wire fraud: THE PERSON WHO WAS INJU RED BY THIS SECTION OF RICO DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW HE RELIED UPON THE FRAUD. IN OTHER WORDS, THE FRAUD D OES NOT HAVE TO BE DIRECTED AT A PERSON FOR THAT PERSON TO BE INJURED BY THE FRAUD.
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of February, 2015,

s/_Daniel Werner____________ Daniel Werner (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 422070 Naomi Tsu (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 507612 Kristi L. Graunke (pro hac vice) Georgia Bar No. 305653 Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center 1989 College Ave. Atlanta, Georgia 30317

s/ Tracie L. Washington_________ Tracie L. Washington, Esq. Louisiana Bar No. 25925 Louisiana Justice Institute 1631 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70117 Telephone: 504.872.9134 Facsimile: 504.872.9878 tracie@LouisianaJusticeInstitute.org
Joseph Bjarnson (pro hac vice)

1 Plaintiffs recognize that, after Bridge, the Suprem e Court weighed in again on indirect fraud in Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 130 S. Ct. 983, 99 0-991 (2010). In Hemi, New York City claimed that it lost sales tax revenue from customers based on defendants’ failure to report tobacco sales to the State of New York. The Court found t hat, in part because the allegation was of fourt h-party fraud (Defendant fraud on state resulting in customers’ failure to pay taxes to city), proximate causation was too attenuated. Id. at 990. The Court als o em phasized that a ke y test for RICO causation is “whether better situated plaintiffs would have an i ncentive to sue.” Id. In Hemi, the Court held that the State of New York, which had lost $2.75 per cigarette pack as a result of the alleged fra ud, would have possess ed a stronge r incentive to sue. In the instant case, Plaintiffs are alleging injuri es as a re sult of third-party fraud (Defendants’ fraud on fed eral governme nt resulted in Plaintiffs’ payments to defendants). Further, the federal government suffer ed no pecuni ary losses as a result of Defendants’ fraud. Therefore, unlike the Plaintiffs, the government has no incentive whatsoever to file suit under civil R ICO. In fact, Plaintiffs are the only parties who suffered pecuniary losses as a result of the fraud and therefore are uniquely situated to bring this claim.

4

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2254 Filed 02/08/15 Page 5 of 6

Telephone: (404) 521-6700 Facsimile: (404) 221-5857 daniel.werner@splcenter.org naomi.tsu@splcenter.org kristi.graunke@splcenter.org
Meredith B. Stewart Louisiana Bar No. 34109 Southern Poverty Law Center 1055 St. Charles Ave., # 505 New Orleans, LA 70130 504-486-8982 meredith.stewart@splcenter.org
Anjali J. Nair (pro hac vice) Alabama Bar No. 1160K42Y Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104 334-956-8255 Facsimile: 334-956-8481 anjali.nair@splcenter.org
Ivy O. Suriyopas (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4406385 Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund 99 Hudson Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212)966-5932 isuriyopas@aaldef.org

New York Bar No. 4774055 Sahn Ward Coschignano & Baker 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., # 601 Uniondale, NY 11553 516-228-1300 jbjarnson@swcblaw.com
Alan B. Howard, T.A. (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 2173268 Hugh Sandler (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4712584 Melia Amal Bouhabib (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4878468. Chiemi Suzuki (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4330569 Crowell & Moring, LLP 590 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10022 212-803-4042 ahoward@crowell.com hsandler@crowell.com abouhabib@crowell.com
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (pro hac vice) New York Bar No. 4136966 Human Rights Program American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street – 18th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 519-7840 cbhatnagar@aclu.org

5

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2254 Filed 02/08/15 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 7th day of February, 2015, I filed the foregoing document using the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system, which will provide service on counsel for all ECF-registered parties. I further certify that the attached has been deposited in a U.S. Mail receptacle for delivery by first class mail, properly addressed and with postage pre-paid to: Global Resources, Inc. 13 Herring Road Beaumont, MS 39423 Indo-Ameri Soft L.L.C. c/o Kevin K. Gipson, Esquire (bankruptcy counsel) 3920 General DeGaulle Drive New Orleans, LA 70114 Kurella Rao c/o Kevin K. Gipson, Esquire (bankruptcy counsel) 3920 General DeGaulle Drive New Orleans, LA 70114 Billy Wilks, J&M Assoc of Mississippi J&M Marine & Industrial 9136 Heather Lane Moss Point MS 39562.
/s/ Daniel Werner Daniel Werner
6

 
 JURY FOREPERSON Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al.
Plaintiffs VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants
LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 08-1220 SECTION "E"
CIVIL ACTION
No.12-557 SECTION "E"
CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (cfw 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732, 141818) SECTION "E"

Applies To: David v. Signal (No. 08-1220)

I

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 2 of 40 JURY VERDICT FORM-STAGE 2
2

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 3 of 40 PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 4 of 40

CLAIM ONE: All Plaintiffs

Trafficking Victims Protection Act-Signal

A. Compensatory Damages

Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Signal's violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act:

Sony Sulekha

$. __1-{_.ufJ:.L,·,_~.[" ';fv:.c,;Y.'.:_;_ _ _ _ __

-

I

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally

$· -

___1-f_,_:LI<O~·LfiJ.:."'Jf-'-Z.t-2_ _ _ _ _ __

Palanyandi Thangamani Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$____j/L'_.]_,j".c.1-'["-rn-"'--·;',"-!_ _ _ _ __
I
$._ _ _/,__'.:..:.75::.··r-·-"-(7.-"'-~'i)=:::__ _ _ _ __

Hemant Khuttan

$·_----I-/-'7L.'='5+,_;;,()]_~;]L.i)"'--------

If in Section A you filled out a dollar amount greater than zero for any Plaintiff(s), please proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s). If you did not, please do not proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant on page 6.

B. Punitive Damages

1. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Signal acted with malice or reckless indifference when it subjected any Plaintiff to forced labor?

Sony Sulekha

YES.__..~ NO

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES NO ~...--~·

Palanyandi Thangamani Andrews Padavettiyil Hemant Khuttan

YES YES

v· NO

1- .....

~·'""-

NO

YES ~/NO

4

' )

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 5 of 40

2. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Signal acted with malice or reckless indifference when it trafficked any Plaintiff for forced labor?

Sony Sulekba Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally

YES v-· NO

t-.--~-··

YES

NO

Palanyandi Thangamani Andrews Padavettiyil

YES t--/No YES . ....--:No

Hemant Khuttan

YES .......--No

If you answered ''Yes" to Questions 1 andjor 2 above for any Plaintiff(s), please enter the amount ofpunitive damages below for that Plaintiff(s). Ifyou have answered "No" to both questions for any Plaintiff(s), do not award any punitive damages for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant on page 6.

Sony Sulekba Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally Palanyandi Thangamani Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$___-5---'-'.0=-·-=c,;r-'0"-···-"'-c--}-'· ._""~)'------
'1+. '
$___ -"'D--'i:"'"'r-"('_.·J:'-'j._.)'-._ _ _ __ i
$____--<_.q,"'(._)..,0:,'_.D'"'l"":r-'··7:=-)_ _ _ _ __ I
$_ _ _4:--"-u==-··,-'-C.'.._,_t'_""~-=-"'-'1.""'=-)_ _ _ __

HemantKhuttan

$_ _ _ _:i_uC~'~(~)-~t~~1~il-'-~=-'-----
'

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 6.

5

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 6 of 40

Trafficking Victims Protection Act-Malvern C. Burnett ("Burnett")
A. Compensatory Damages
Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Burnett's violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act:

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

ty

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

~

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Q

Hemant Khuttan

$

0

If in Section A you filled out a dollar amount greater than zero for any Plaintiff(s), please proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s). If you did not, please do not proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant on page 8.

B. Punitive Damages

1. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Burnett acted with malice or reckless indifference when he subjected any Plaintiff to forced labor?

Sony Sulekha

YES

NO

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES

NO

Palanyandi Thangamani

YES

NO

Andrews Padavettiyil

YES

NO

Hemant Khuttan

YES

NO

6

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 7 of 40

2. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Burnett acted with malice or reckless indifference when he trafficked any Plaintiff for forced labor?

Sony Sulekha

YES

NO

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES

NO

Palanyandi Thangamani

YES

NO

Andrews Padavettiyil

YES

NO

Hemant Khuttan

YES

NO

If you answered ''Yes" to Questions 1 andjor 2 above for any Plaintiff(s), please enter the amount ofpunitive damages below for that Plaintiff(s). Ifyou have answered "No" to both questions for any Plaintiff(s), do not award any punitive damages for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant on page 8.

Sony Sulekha

$_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Palanyandi Thangamani

$_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Hemant Khuttan

$._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 8.

7

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 8 of 40

T("rBafufricnkeitnt gLVawictOimffiscPesr"o)tection Act-Law Offices ofMalvern C. Burnett, APC

trer-n A. Compensatory Damages
POSJPAlHaofeafcnnaeilodcaysmebernSesayeJ'wunsaonltnsvetsediKkeIorisphhlatTahauhathtcieKtoaaPaannndmagodaaofkamutvkhnaeaenttrtaTioipyrfpiaclafoflimlcykpienn$g$$$s$VatiocrtyimdsadmP-~4-cr=ta1coQg)D0t.eeC,lIsc,e)tvrlyt-i:lr-oo.-zJzun'-._";'A1-aL;-o~)wccta: rd

(if

any)

for

Burnett

Law

IptofleiSnaesSecetpcirotoincoeBneAdfotroyotShueafcitltlPieoldanionButitfffao(srd)ot,hlalaantrdPaplmaroioncuteinfeftd(sgt)ro.etIahfteeyrnoutehxdatinDdzeneforeton, dfpoalrenatasonenydpoPanlgaoient pt1ir.0fof.(cse),ed

B. Punitive Damages

1. Do you malice or

friencdklfersosminadpifrfeepreonncdeewrahnecne

iotfstuhbejeecvtieddenacneytPhlaatinBtuifrfnteottfoLracwedOlfafbicoers?acted

with

YES !-.....,.~- NO

Sony Sulekha

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES L..-J~..-. NO

Palanyandi Thangamani

YES t-·~-" NO

Andrews Padavettiyil Hemant Khuttan

YES ,__./ NO YES ~,.o/NO

8

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 9 of 40

2. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Burnett Law Offices acted with malice or reckless indifference when it trafficked any Plaintiff for forced labor?

Sony Sulekha Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally Palanyandi Thangamani Andrews Padavettiyil

YES VNO YES !.--···· NO YES ~.--..- NO YES V......-NO

Hemant Khuttan

YES VNo

If you answered "Yes" to Questions 1 and/or 2 above for any Plaintiff(s), please
enter the amount ofpunitive damages belowfor that Plaintiff(s). Ifyou have answered
"No" to both questionsfor any Plaintiff(s), do not award any punitive damages for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant on page 10.

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

~
l 00. M"'!<.-' I

J trt' I

t]J-L)
..

I{'JC) l 07D.)

I()(~ t!-tv I LCuJ L"'1!1.)

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 10.

9

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 10 of 40

Trafficking Victims Protection Act - Sachin Dewan ("Dewan")

A. Compensatory Damages

Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Dewan's violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act:

Sony Sulekha

... ...,

$

)

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

\
' '

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

'\",'

'[,)

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

&

If in Section A you filled out a dollar amount greater than zero for any Plaintiff(s),
please proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s). If you did not, please do not proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant on page 12.

B. Punitive Damages

1. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Dewan acted with malice or reckless indifference when he subjected any Plaintiff to forced labor?

Sony Sulekha

YES

NO

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES

NO

Palanyandi Thangamani

YES

NO

Andrews Padavettiyil

YES

NO

Hemant Khuttan

YES

NO

10

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 11 of 40

2. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Dewan acted with malice or reckless indifference when he trafficked any Plaintiff for forced labor?

Sony Sulekha

YES

NO

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES

NO

Palanyandi Thangamani

YES

NO

Andrews Padavettiyil

YES

NO

Hemant Khuttan

YES

NO

If you answered "Yes" to Questions 1 andjor 2 above for any Plaintiff(s), please
enter the amount ofpunitive damages belowfor that Plaintiff(s). Ifyou have answered
"No" to both questionsfor any Plaintiff(s), do not award any punitive damages for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant on page 12.

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 12.

II

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 12 of 40

Trafficking Victims Protection Act- Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k/a Medtech Consultants) ("Dewan Consultants")
A. Compensatory Damages
Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Dewan Consultants's violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act:

Sony Sulekha Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally

$_ _ =C+,'! ____cd(,.,·· .:::Ci__,()::::.V..;.._:_._ _ _ __
$_ _ _-L._:f:&.-:[._.;'-t-J--'("-:L""--L--'=')'------

Palanyandi Thangamani Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil Hemant Khuttan

$_ _ __.,c=9"".J:,.)_.,.::G'--·.:::lc_'-<--=;J::....·_ _ _ __
I
$_ _ _:4--!.-.~....C"-1\r-"-{j-'["'-'-_,7..'""_.~'-------
$_ _ _--'=c:L"""'t.""()'-1·-'L..cr_,t:i..-==1--::1_-·_ _ __
1

If in Section A you filled out a dollar amount greater than zero for any Plaintiff(s), please proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s). If you did not, please do not proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to CLAIM TWO on page 14.

B. Punitive Damages

1. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Dewan Consultants acted with malice or reckless indifference when it subjected any Plaintiff to forced labor?

Sony Sulekha

YES L/_....- NO

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES ~..-......-- NO

Palanyandi Thangamani

YES ,__..--·-·-, NO

Andrews Padavettiyil Hemant Khuttan

YES NO ~,.-----
YES V'No

12

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 13 of 40

2. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Dewan Consultants acted with malice or reckless indifference when it trafficked any Plaintiff for forced labor?

Sony Sulekha

YES .__.........-NO

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES ~_.........NO

Palanyandi Thangamani Andrews Padavettiyil

YES ._,......--NO YES ~NO

Hemant Khuttan

YES ./No

If you answered "Yes" to Questions 1 andjor 2 above for any Plaintiff(s), please
enter the amount ofpunitive damages below for that Plaintiff(s). If you have answered "No" to both questionsfor any Plaintiff(s), do not award any punitive damages for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to CLAIM TWO on page 14.

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

I 00 o-n=v I
I t'=DI 0TD)
-, ton1 t1YD
t.ou DJ)c' I
LOD rrKD

Please proceed to CLAIM TWO on page 14.

13

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 14 of 40

CLAIM TWO: All Plaintiffs Discriminatory Terms and Conditions of Employment-Signal

A. Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for

Signal's discriminatory terms and conditions of employment:

Sony Sulekha

-\~ ~·

$

C>ZZ)~"

I

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $__~,2<~~~~~3~£L'==s~·---------

Palanyandi Thangamani

$____21~0~-~z~)rL~. LLis~~------

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$____~~~0~3~~4~~~sL·______

Hemant Khuttan

$_______q~~~~~L·,~~L'=c~:)________

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice (except for mental anguish). For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally Palanyandi Thangamani Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$. _ _ _----'=,;;)_==·CJ.I-.--'Lf""·--'D""' --·,_-"G==-·>_ _ _ _ _ __ _ I

$·-------"l-"'15,_·~8--::::·"=0"-'___,C._.)""______

I

$._ _ _ _S.c:::'_Z~..,-..~.C"-o_,("'-;_,["")_ _ ___

I

$.
-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _c;...1(J:O,:_I,_:C""·;J:tc:..:·..::,C~J_ _ _ _ _ __ _

Hemant Khuttan

$. _______...:;Siuc.'..!.,.,..-L.l.fLCL)C;.,)::..______

-

I

If in SectionA.1 you filled out a dollar amount greater than zero for any Plaintiff(s),
please proceed to Section Bfor that Plaintiff(s). If you did not, please do not proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to "Harassing Living Conditions" onpage16.

14

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 15 of 40

B. Punitive Damages

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Signal acted with malice or reckless indifference when it subjected any Plaintiff to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment?

Sony Sulekha

YES ........-- NO

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES ~- NO

Palanyandi Thangamani Andrews Padavettiyil Hemant Khuttan

YES .__-- NO YES v ..--No
YES ~-NO

If you answered ''Yes "for any Plaintiff(s), please enter below the amount ofpunitive damages for that Plaintiff(s). If you answered "No, "for any Plaintiff(s), please do not award any punitive damages for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to "Harassing Living Conditions" on page 16.

In the event you award punitive damages under a different claim (such as the Forced Labor Claim), please indicate below only the punitive damages you are awarding as a result of Signal's discriminatory terms and conditions of employment:

Sony Sulekha

$

2 0.. 0 D-o-c)

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

2CD L\c'~ I
2L'D oe o~

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

2c(~) znti> )
2 "' __,___(J_,./ I!,) LrtD

Please proceed to "Harassing Living Conditions" on page 16.

15

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 16 of 40

Harassing Living Conditions-Signal

A. Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Signal's harassing living conditions:

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

.2~) ci]5
<~) ~S5 I
1t2, <6i2' I 1£)3, 475
ql 'b s· "(._

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice (except for mental anguish). For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

21 t.R D, c~"' I
J 'Q' . 2_D Lc-, '
Ct7 'C ~ ~./ _) t I Cto [)0 0

Hemant Khuttan

$

1SCJI <{00

If in Section A.1 you filled out a dollar amount greater than zero for any Plaintiff(s), please proceed to Section B for that Plainti.ff(s). If you did not, please do not proceed to Section B for that Plaintijf(s), and proceed to CLAIM THREE on page 18.

16

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 17 of 40

B. Punitive Damages

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Signal acted with malice or reckless indifference when it subjected any Plaintiff to harassing living conditions?

Sony Sulekha

YES v NO

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES L.- NO

Palanyandi Thangamani

YES ~----~0

Andrews Padavettiyil

YES L----NO

Hemant Khuttan

YES ~0

If you answered ''Yes"for any Plaintiff(s), please enter below the amount ofpunitive
damages for that Plaintiff(s). Ifyou answered "No, "for any Plaintiff(s), please do not
award any punitive damages for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to ClAIM THREE on
page18.

In the event you award punitive damages under a different claim (such as the Forced Labor Claim), please indicate below only the punitive damages you are awarding as a result of Signal's harassing conditions:

Sony Sulekha

$

2''f" ' (. / _,...- u--z;-u

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

2'.-0() {)-{'?_"---;>

c"') t-., [\ /)0::1.)

£_

J.

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

ZOe') O-z"L)
I ~-- .......
2_CJ{) oc-0

Please proceed to ClAIM THREE on page 18.

17

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 18 of 40

CLAIM THREE: PlaintiffJacob Joseph Kadakkarappally ("Mr. Jacob")

Retaliation-Signal

A. Compensatory Damages

Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Signal's unlawful retaliation:

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally

$,_ __._l_..:::,5~D::....,,r-'o-v!L.krt...::::J:....___ __

If in Section A you filled out a dollar amount greater than zero, please proceed to Section B. If you did not, please do not proceed to Section B, and proceed to CLAIM FOUR on page 19.

B. Pnnitive Damages

Has Mr. Jacob proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Signal acted with malice or reckless indifference to his right to be free from unlawful retaliation?

V YES

NO- - -

If you answered "Yes," please enter below the amount ofpunitive damages. If you answered "No," please do not award any punitive damages, and proceed to CLAIM FOUR on page 19.

In the event you award punitive damages under a different claim (such as the Forced Labor Claim), please indicate below only the punitive damages you are awarding as a result of Signal's unlawful retaliation:

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally

<f '5 D l)ll-D $----~~~~~-------

18

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 19 of 40

CLAIM FOUR: All Plaintiffs

RICO-Signal

Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Signal's RJCO violation(s):

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

,cJ. 0 ou (-/~ )
,_:lu cv--L)
3<-U c-oc:) I
~'5' c---c--[_1 I 31 U"-'LTi:) I

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice. For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

c~

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

"&

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

't,

Hemant Khuttan

$

(\

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 20.

19

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 20 of 40

RICO-Malvern C. Burnett ("Burnett")

Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Burnett's RICO violation(s):

Sony Sulekha

"' $______~~)~------------

Palanyandi Thangamani

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

Hemant Khuttan

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice. For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$

C'

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

(\~,

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

~

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 21.

20

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 21 of 40

RICO-Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC ("Burnett Law Offices")

Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Burnett Law Offices's RICO violation(s):

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

20 (!DO

i

'}J, itO<.~J

!
2--DDO U'

I

-.,

2Dmsu

"I

2-.D ()[)--l)

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice. For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$

D

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

0

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

c•'

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

)

Hemant Khuttan

$

{)

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page .2.2.

21

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 22 of 40

RICO-Sachin Dewan ("Dewan")

Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for

Dewan's RICO violation(s):

,.,._

Sony Sulekha

$

_.'

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

c

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

'./

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

/ '

Hemant Khuttan

$

D

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice. For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award

for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any

other claim: Sony Sulekha

$

(._·")

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

0

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

n

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

0

Hemant Khuttan

$

c l

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 23.

22

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 23 of 40

RICO-Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k/a Medtech Consultants) ("Dewan Consultants")

Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Dewan Consultants's RICO violation(s):

Sony Sulekha Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally Palanyandi Thangamani Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil Hemant Khuttan

$_ _----"2=-'-C"-r.:_.f""J1"'"::)'-'C:::.-'_·_ _ _ __
I
$_ _ _,.t.2;...,1'-"-)--,--4,[,:;\C'"'->-"'('._ "'- _ _ _ __
1 $_ _ _ _.::2""1:."I"),,~"--;"-'z;.::..:Q=)'--------
$_ _ _......~;2.~./.J.::..:'r-"'o'-'-7J1"u-_,:·:..:'_ _ _ _ __
I
$___~2"=..!0='-"-r-'-"(y-'z.::..)v_._ , ____
t

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice. For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

,~-.,
$_ _ _ _--'C-=-J_ _ _ _ _ _ __

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $_ _ _ __,("'-)_ _ _ _ _ _ __

Palanyandi Thangamani

.-, $_ _ _ _____,_"'-!_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil Hemant Khuttan

$_ _ _ _____,(1""-/_ _ _ _ _ _ __ $_ _ _ _ _L_:__ ) _ _ _ _ _ __

Please proceed to CLAIM FIVE on page 24.

23

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 24 of 40

CLAIM FIVE: All Plaintiffs

Fraud-Signal

Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for

Signal's fraudulent conduct:

Sony Sulekha

$ 2D Q<._;D

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

'_J cn/ I rnv

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

3CDDD
2 ~-); ODD I
.3\ ('CC· I

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice. For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$

()

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

"'\

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

c

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

D

Hemant Khuttan

$

D

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 25.

24

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 25 of 40

Fraud-Malvern C. Burnett ("Burnett")

Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Burnett's fraudulent conduct:

Sony Sulekha

$

0

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

0

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

0

Hemant Khuttan

$

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice. For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

0

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

0

Hemant Khuttan

$

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 26.

25

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 26 of 40

Fraud-Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC ("Burnett Law Offices")

Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Burnett Law Offices's fraudulent conduct:

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

2o r:cD I
2-D tD1u I ZU LhW 1
2n c:-bn I
2D 1 ID'iI :J I

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice. For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$_ _ ____.:("")o:::.__ _ _ _ _ __

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally PruanyandiThangamani Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil Hemant Khuttan

$_ _ _ _- l . , . , , . . L . . . - - - - - - -
$--------~~\----------------
$_ _ _ _ _~0::::...__ _ _ _ _ __
$_ _ _ _ _l_J. __ _ _ _ _ __

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 27.

26

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 27 of 40

Fraud-Sachin Dewan ("Dewan")

Compensatory Damages

t. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Dewan's fraudulent conduct:

Sony Sulekha

$

0

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

0

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

0

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

0

Hemant Khuttan

$

~l\!

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice. For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$

{)

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

0

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

'

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

0

Hemant Khuttan

$

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 28.

27

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 28 of 40

Fraud- Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k/a Medtech Consultants) ("Dewan Consultants")

Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Dewan Consultants's fraudulent conduct:

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

211 oDD I 2{) ·b·'\r~' u.' '-- z._..\I ') L~ L_)
2D onD I
uDD ---;_~-}

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light ofthe compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice. For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$

[)

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

(\

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

c

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

(';

Hemant Khuttan

$

0

Please proceed to CLAIM SEVEN on page 29.

28

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 29 of 40

CLAIM SEVEN: All Plaintiffs against Signal, Burnett, and Dewan

Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel-Signal

A. Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Signal's breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel:

Sony Sulekha Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally Palanyandi Thangamani

$____s...~.··c..".1..).'-'('"-)-r-=-l>_,v'-'-L=-)_ _ _ __
I
$___--"'r:;'--'0'-"f'-;r"'-t-"'JJ.Z.-..2. ,___ _ __ I
$_ _ _~SL---"C'-''t."--)-;--·"-(j-"1)'-=iJ::_·_ _ _ _ __

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil Hemant Khuttan

$_ _ _ _L)--"l'-"0•'---r'c"->t:-"'l)c.:::__ _ _ __
I
$____-"t/~:;---"D"-'L"'-)--rI"(._.'C'-'V::::.'_ _ _ _ __

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice (except for mental anguish). For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$

iJ·c·D. u·t--z_!

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

1,7-bD ! rxz-...;;_,
SuO {)[_,()

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

t:JDD oi>i)

Hemant Khuttan

$

c::;i) {'J )L)Ll

If in Section A.1 you filled out a dollar amount greater than zero for any Plaintiff(s), please proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s). If you did not, please do not proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant on page 31.

29

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 30 of 40

B. Punitive Damages

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Signal acted with malice or reckless indifference with respect to the breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel claim?

Sony Sulekha

YES NO ~-,.-."··

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES v NO

Palanyandi Thangamani

YES v~ NO

Andrews Padavettiyil

YES -~' NO

Hemant Khuttan

YES \/" NO

Ifyou answered ''Yes"for any Plaintiff(s), please enter below the amount ofpunitive damages for that Plaintiff(s). Ifyou answered "No, "for any Plaintiff(s), please do not
award any punitive damages for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant onpage31.

In the event you award punitive damages under a different claim (such as the Forced Labor Claim), please indicate below only the punitive damages you are awarding as a result of Signal's breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel:

Sony Sulekha

$

50() \)(}0

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

I
s-T)D Oo D
t;; oD oDD

Hemant Khuttan

$

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 31.

30

'

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 31 of 40

Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel-Malvern C. Burnett ("Burnett")

A. Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Burnett's breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel:

Sony Sulekha

$

0

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

0

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

D
u.,

Hemant Khuttan

$

D

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice (except for mental anguish). For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$

0

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

D

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

()

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

[)

Hemant Khuttan

$

0

!fin SectionA.1 you.filled out a dollar amount greater than zero for any Plaintiff(s), please proceed to Section Bfor that Plaintiff(s). If you did not, please do not proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant on page 33.

31

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 32 of 40

B. Punitive Damages

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Burnett acted with malice or reckless indifference with respect to the breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel claim?

Sony Sulekha

YES

NO

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES

NO

Palanyandi Thangamani

YES

NO

Andrews Padavettiyil Hemant Khuttan

YES

NO

YES

NO

Ifyou answered "Yes"for any Plaintiff(s), please enter below the amount ofpunitive
damages for that Plaintiff(s). If you answered "No, "for any Plaintiff(s), please do not award any punitive damages for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant onpage33.

In the event you award punitive damages under a different claim (such as the Forced Labor Claim), please indicate below only the punitive damages you are awarding as a result of Burnett's breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel:

Sony Sulekha

$_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Palanyandi Thangamani

$_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Hemant Khuttan

$_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 33·

32

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 33 of 40

Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel-Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC ("Burnett Law Offices")

A. Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Burnett Law Offices's breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel:

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

t:;" D0 D

s·- oo o

c.-·
')

ODD

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

5 oo() I ~ DOD

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice (except for mental anguish). For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$

c; vD D

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

c:;; or~u
c;I ,uoa
ODD -I
L. ./

Hemant Khuttan

$

ODD ('~
;:J

If in Section A.1 you filled out a dollar amount greater than zero for any Plaintiff(s),
please proceed to Section Bfor that Plaintiff(s). Ifyou did not, please do not proceed
to Section B for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant on page 35·

33

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 34 of 40

B. Punitive Damages

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Burnett Law Offices acted with malice or reckless indifference with respect to the breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel claim?

Sony Sulekha

YES J...-::: NO

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES v:= NO

Palanyandi Thangamani

YES 1/-- NO

Andrews Padavettiyil

YES L....-- NO

Hemant Khuttan

YES ,_.,..---NO

If you answered "Yes"for any Plaintiff(s), please enter below the amount ofpunitive damages for that Plaintiff(s). If you answered "No,"for any Plaintiff(s), please do not award any punitive damages for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant onpage35.

In the event you award punitive damages under a different claim (such as the Forced Labor Claim), please indicate below only the punitive damages you are awarding as a result of Burnett Law Offices's breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel:

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

10 DOU
10 DD()
c I
tO D -, .I '(_! I
tD r..,[/ ·/z~~/
([i i_.; [) ()

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 35·

34

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 35 of 40

Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel-Sachin Dewan ("Dewan")

A. Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Dewan's breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel:

Sony Sulekha

$

')

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

('\ ./

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

V'

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

0

Hemant Khuttan

$

0

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light ofthe compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice (except for mental anguish). For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$

{)

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

0

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

0

()

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

{\

$

~c...)

Ifin SectionA.1 you filled out a dollar amount greater than zero for any Plaintiff(s),
please proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s). If you did not, please do not proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant on page 37·

35

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 36 of 40

B. Punitive Damages

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Dewan acted with malice or reckless indifference with respect to the breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel claim?

Sony Sulekha

YES

NO

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES

NO

Palanyandi Thangamani

YES

NO

Andrews Padavettiyil

YES

NO

Hemant Khuttan

YES

NO

If you answered "Yes"for any Plaintiff(s), please enter below the amount ofpunitive
damages for that Plaintiff(s). If you answered ''No, "for any Plaintiff(s), please do not award any punitive damages for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to the next Defendant onpage37.

In the event you award punitive damages under a different claim (such as the Forced Labor Claim), please indicate below only the punitive damages you are awarding as a result of Dewan's breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel:

Sony Sulekha

$_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Palanyandi Thangamani

$_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Hemant Khuttan

$_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Please proceed to the next Defendant on page 37·

36

•

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 37 of 40

Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel-Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k/a Medtech Consultants) ("Dewan Consultants")

A. Compensatory Damages

1. Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Dewan Consultants's breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel:

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

5'"2!oD I S~ f;OU .-I ;DD
,;:- -;ou
c;- flOc)

2. Now consider the amount of compensatory damages awarded above (if any) in light of the compensatory damages awarded for any other claim. You may not award the same damages twice (except for mental anguish). For example, if you have awarded recruitment fees under another claim, you may not award those same fees under this claim.

With these instructions in mind, please indicate below the damages you award for this claim (if any) that are not duplicative of damages awarded under any other claim:

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

,;:;;- DO()
c;- DD2)

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

5- DO lJ
c7 DDU

Hemant Khuttan

$

s / D{)Z)

If in Section A.1 youfilled out a dollar amount greater than zero for any Plaintiff(s), please proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s). If you did not, please do not proceed to Section B for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to ClAIM EIGHT on page 39·

37

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 38 of 40 •

B. Punitive Damages

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Dewan Consultants acted with malice or reckless indifference with respect to the breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel claim?

Sony Sulekha

YES ............, NO

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally YES L---"/ NO

Palanyandi Thangamani

YES ~NO

Andrews Padavettiyil Hemant Khuttan

YES v----·No YES ....----~NO

If you answered ''Yes"for any Plaintiff(s), please enter below the amount ofpunitive damages for that Plaintiff(s). If you answered "No, "for any Plaintiff(s), please do not
award any punitive damages for that Plaintiff(s), and proceed to CLAIM EIGHT on page39.

In the event you award punitive damages under a different claim (such as the Forced Labor Claim), please indicate below only the punitive damages you are awarding as a result of Dewan Consultant's breach of contract and/or promissory estoppel:

Sony Sulekha

$

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally $

Palanyandi Thangamani

$

Andrews Isaac Padavettiyil

$

Hemant Khuttan

$

1 0 k.'__.l-~ · L~- -, ',
I

lD t7:0

I
JO

cn..,'_v/

!D 8-H.i

[{) o'-"L;]), I

Please proceed to CLAIM EIGHT on page 39·

38

.. •' •

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 39 of 40

CLAIM EIGHT: Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally ("Mr. Jacob") against Signal

False Imprisonment

Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Signal's false imprisonment of Mr. Jacob:

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally

$__~/_s~~~o~o~c~~)~()2._______
I

If in Section A you filled out a dollar amount greater than zero, please proceed to Section B. If you did not, please do not proceed to Section B, and proceed to CLAIM NINE on page 40.

B. Punitive Damages

Has Mr. Jacob proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Signal acted with malice or reckless indifference to his right to be free from false imprisonment?

vNO YES

---

If you answered ''Yes," please enter below the amount ofpunitive damages. Ifyou answered ''No," please do not award any punitive damages, and proceed to CLAIM NINE on page 40.

In the event you award punitive damages under a different claim (such as the Forced Labor Claim), please indicate below only the punitive damages you are awarding as a result of Signal's false imprisonment:

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally

Please proceed to CLAIM NINE on page 40.

39

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2272-3 Filed 02/18/15 Page 40 of 40

CLAIM NINE: Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally ("Mr. Jacob") against Signal

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Please enter the amount of compensatory damages you award (if any) for Signal's intentional infliction of emotional distress on Mr. Jacob:

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally

Ifin Section A you.filled out a dollar amount greater than zero, please proceed to
Section B. If you did not, please do not proceed to Section B, and please sign and
date this Stage 2 Jury Verdict Form.

B. Punitive Damages
Has Mr. Jacob proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Signal acted with malice or reckless indifference to his right to be free from intentional infliction of emotional distress?
-__.....
YES'\/ NO_ __

If you answered "Yes," please enter below the amount ofpunitive damages. If you answered "No," please do not award any punitive damages, and please sign and date this Stage 2 Jury Verdict Form.

In the event you award punitive damages under a different claim (such as the Forced Labor Claim), please indicate below only the punitive damages you are awarding as a result of Signal's intentional infliction of emotional distress:

Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally

$___4~S:~C~)~f~J~O~(L)_______
I

Please sign and date this Stage 2 Jury Verdict Form.
jc:;+h
New Orleans, Louisiana this ...!....Q_ day of February, 2015.

-I~"'--~ I
Jury ForepersJll

40

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: Kurian David et al v. Signal International, LLC et al (Civil Action No. 08-1220) (“David”)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is defendant Signal International, LLC’s (“Signal”) motion to sever.1

Plaintiffs oppose Signal’s motion.2 Signal has filed a reply infurther support of its motion3.

For the reasons set forth below, Signal’s motion to sever is denied.

BACKGROUND

On January 4, 2012, while this case was pending in Section “A” of this Court, Judge

Zainey denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify this case as a class action under Rule 23 of the

1 R. Doc. 1196. 2 R. Doc. 1203. 3 R. Doc. 1207.
1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 Signal now moves for severance of the twelve named
plaintiffs’ claims under Rules 20 , as it claims the plaintiffs are misjoined under Rule 21.
However, as Signal recognizes inits motion to sever, after dneying class certification, Judge
Zainey determined that this matter will continueto move forward with all twelve plaintiffs,
beginning with a trial involving five of the twelve named plaintiffs. 5 This Cour t adopted
Judge Zainey’s plan at a June 15, 2012 status conference.6
ANALYSIS
There are three interrelated rules of civil procedure at play in Signal’s motion. Rule
20 provides, in pertinent part, that:
Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if:
(A) they assert any right torelief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of l aw or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.
FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a). Rule 21 provides that “[m]isjoinder of parties is not a ground for
dismissing an action,” but that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on
4 R. Doc. 1117. 5 See Civil Action No. 12-557, R. Doc. 78. Judge Zainey issued this Order, which is dated March 16, 2012, after reviewing proposed case management orders submitted by the parties in this case and in Civil Action No. 12-557. See Civil Action No. 08-1220, R. Doc. 1147 (order instructing parties to file proposed case management orders after denial of class certification). It is not clear why this Order was not docketed in both cases, as it clearly applies to both. In addition, while a formal motion to sever was not in front of Judge Zainey at the time he issued the March 16, 2012 Order, Signal had raised the issue of severance in its proposed case management order, so Judge Zainey engaged in a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of severance of the plaintiffs’ claims and determined that proceeding with five named plaintiffs was the best solution, unless the parties could agree otherwise. The parties never agreed on a different solution, so Judge Zainey’s plan stands. 6 R. Doc. 1178.
2

just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.” FED.
R. CIV. P. 21. Rule 42(b) provides that “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite
and economize, the court may order a separate tiral of one or more separate issues, claims,
crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.” FED. R. CIV. P. 42(b).
Signal is correct in stating that, after class certification is denied, the district court
is required to evaluate the case to determin e if the named plaintiffs’ claims are properly
joined under Rule 20.See, e.g., Acevedo v. Allsup’s Convenience Stores, Inc, .600 F.3d 516,
521 (5th Cir. 2010). The decision whether toallow permissive joinder under Rule 20 or to
order severance of misjoined plaintiffs under Rules 21 and 42(b) is left to the discretion of
the trial court. See Williams v. Hoyt,556 F.2d 1336, 1341 (5th Cir. 1977) (the district court
has “broad discretion” in determining the propriety of permissive joinder of parties under
Rule 20);see also Applewhite v. Reichhold Chemicals, In.c, 67 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 1995).
In Applewhite, the Fifth Ci rcuit explained the interp lay of Rules 20, 21, and 42, in the
context of a case in which class certificat ion was denied, leaving a number of named
plaintiffs asserting similar claims against one defendant:
Generally, permissive joinder of plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 is at the option of the plaintiffs, assuming they meet the requirements set forth in Rule 20. Under Rules 20 and 21, the district court has the discretion to seve r a n action if it is misjoined or might otherwise cause delay or prejudice. F urther, the district court also has discretion to sever claims unde r Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), in furtherance of convenience or economy, or to prevent prejudice. This discretion, however, should be exercised after an examination of the individual case.
Id. (internal citations omitted). As evidenced by this passage, the Court’s discretion in
managing a case after the denial of class certification is very broad.
3

Despite Signal’s protestations to the contrary, Judge Zainey’s finding that plaintiffs’

claims are unsuitable for class certification under Rule 23 is not ta ntamount to a finding

that only sever ance of all claims will afford the parties a fair and just trial of plaintiffs’

claims against Signal. As the district court in Fisher v. Ciba Specialty Chems. Corp., 245

F.R.D. 539 (S.D. Ala. 2007) explained, in anoht er case involving a severance issue after the

denial of class certification:

The Rule 20 inquiry is distinct from that under Rule 23, and a

ruling against the plaintiffs on the latter in no way suggests

(much less mandates) a like outco me with respect to the

former. Stated differently, there i s no predomination

prerequisite for joinder of multiple plaintiffs' claims, and Rule

20 contemplates a muchlower threshold for allowing plaintiffs'

claims to proceed to trial together than is required by Rule 23

for class certification. The touchstone of the Rule 2

0

joinder/severance analysis is whether the interests of efficiency

and judicial economy would be advanced by allowing the

claims to travel together, and whether any party would be

prejudiced if they did.

Id. at 542. Again, Rule 20 creates a two-prongtest, “allowing joinder of plaintiffs when (1)

their claims arise out of the ‘same transactio n, occurrence, or series of transacti ons or

occurrences’ and when (2) there is at least one common question of law or fact linking all

claims.” Acevedo, 600 F.3d at 521 (citations omitted). Signal’s severance argument takes

far too strict an approach to this liberal twop-rong test, which the Court finds is clearly met

in this case. The first prong is met because plaintiffs’ claims a ll arise out of the same

allegedly discriminatory practices and policies, and all the plani tiffs claim to have suffered

damage as a result of similar, if not identical, alleged misrepresentations and fraudulent

schemes orchestrated by Signal. In additi on, plaintiffs’ claims share severa l c ommon

questions of both law a nd fa ct, a nd thus th e second prong of the Rule 20 test - which

4

requires only one such common question - is easily met. Acevedo, 600 F.3d at 521. Not only is the Rule 20 test met in this case, such that permissive joinder of
plaintiffs under Rule 20 is appropriate, the Court also finds that severance under Rule 21 or 42(b) is likely to have the oppo site effect from what Signal claims to seek, causing the individual plaintiffs’ cases against Signal to beco me h opelessly mi red in inefficiency, redundance, and delay. The Court further finds that severance would surely result in prejudice to the plaintiffs, while the risk of prejudice to Signal i f severance is denied is minimal.
Signal’s motion to sever, which is essentially a motion to reconsider Judge Zainey's and the Court's decision regarding severance in this case, fails to provide any compelling reason for the Court to revisit the issue. Both Judge Zainey and this Court have already evaluated this case and determined that it will proceed under one case number with twelve named plaintiffs, and that the first trial in this matter will have fivenamed plaintiffs; three chosen by plaintiffs and two chosen by defe ndants. The Court, in its discretion, denies Signal’s motion to sever.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Signal’s motion to sever be and hereby is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1_1_t_h day of June, 2013.
_____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court to Notify: Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles
5

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al. Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 08-1220 SECTION “E”

Related Cases:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-557 SECTION "E"

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732, 14-1818)
SECTION "E"

REJI SAMUEL, et al., Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 14-2811 SECTION "E"

1

BIJU MAKRUKKATTU JOSEPH, et al., Plaintiffs
VERSUS SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,

CIVIL ACTION
No. 14-2826 SECTION "E"

Applies To: David v. Signal (08-1220)

ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a Motion for Entry of Final Judgment under Rule 54(b).1 The questions presented are interrelated. The preliminary issue is whether there is any just reason to delay entering final judgment. If there is no such reason, the Court must determine whether the judgment should be stayed pending appeal.2 If a stay is granted, the final question is whether Signal should be required to post security. For the reasons explained below, the Motion is GRANTED. There is no just reason to delay final judgment. Once entered, the Court will not stay enforcement pending appeal. Accordingly, the Court need not address the security issue.3
BACKGROUND4 This civil action stems from the recruitment of approximately five hundred migrant workers from India in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Twelve plaintiffs asserted various claims against Signal, Burnett, Dewan, and others. The claims of five

1 R. Doc. 2299. 2 The parties spill much ink arguing whether Signal may raise this issue in an opposition memorandum or instead whether Signal was required to file a separate motion. Both parties have addressed this relatively simple issue in their briefs. It makes little sense to require Signal to file an affirmative motion, only for the parties to copy-and-paste what is already in their briefs. 3 In the event the Court enters final judgment, Signal has also requested a stay of all related cases. Unlike whether the Court should stay execution of judgment, the issue of staying litigation is too broad and complex to casually mention in an opposition memorandum. The Court will not address this issue absent a properly supported motion. 4 The facts of this case are discussed in previous orders. Familiarity is assumed.
2

Plaintiffs (the "Trial Plaintiffs") proceeded to trial on January 12, 2015. 37 days later, the jury returned its verdict and awarded the Trial Plaintiffs over $14 million in damages against Signal, Burnett, and Dewan. The Trial Plaintiffs now move for entry of final judgment. Only Signal has opposed the motion.5
DISCUSSION The primary issue is whether the Court should enter final judgment even though multiple claims of seven plaintiffs (the "non-Trial Plaintiffs"), and claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),6 remain pending. Rule 54(b) allows the district court to enter judgment in this scenario if two requirements are met.7 First, the Court must determine "it is dealing with a 'final judgment.'"8 Next, the Court must determine there is "no just reason for delay."9 The first requirement bifurcates into separate elements. The decision on which appeal is sought "[1] must be a 'judgment' in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and [2] it must be 'final' in the sense that it is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action."10 The claims of the Trial Plaintiffs—other than the FLSA claims—have been tried to a jury. The jury returned a verdict on liability and damages. There can be little doubt the first requirement is met.11 Accordingly, the Rule 54(b) determination turns on whether there is a just reason to delay final judgment.
5 Burnett and Dewan do not oppose the motion. See R. Docs. 2299, 2304. 6 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. 7 See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7–8 (1980); Briargrove Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters., Inc., 170 F.3d 536, 539 (5th Cir. 1999). 8 Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 7. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P 54(b); Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8. 10 Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). 11 Signal has not argued to the contrary.
3

In making this determination, the district court should consider "judicial administrative interests" and "the equities involved."12 The former turns on whether certification for interlocutory appeal would violate "the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals."13 Signal argues the non-Trial Plaintiffs "intend to try the same claims . . . on the basis of the same evidence . . . under the same theories and conditions," which creates a substantial risk of piecemeal appeals.14
Signal's premise is greatly exaggerated. Unlike the Trial Plaintiffs, all of whom worked at Signal's facility in Mississippi, two of the non-Trial Plaintiffs—Kurian David and Murugananatham Kandhasamy—worked at Signal's facility in Texas. Thus, the evidence presented with respect to these non-Trial Plaintiffs will differ substantially from the evidence presented by the Trial Plaintiffs. Furthermore, the evidence will differ for all non-Trial Plaintiffs on the claims of forced labor, trafficking for forced labor, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, as each of these claims requires an individualized finding by the jury regarding each Plaintiff's state of mind. Finally, as to all non-Trial Plaintiffs on all claims, the evidence on damages will differ from the Trial Plaintiffs' evidence on damages.
To the extent there is overlap between the claims of the Trial Plaintiffs and the non-Trial Plaintiffs, that overlap is not dispositive for two reasons. First, "the Supreme Court and [the Fifth Circuit] have long recognized that claims arising out of the same transaction or sharing certain factual elements may be appealed separately under Rule 54(b)."15 Thus, a certain amount of overlap is permissible. Second, the Supreme Court has explicitly found that the specter of piecemeal appeals may be "offset by a finding
12 Id. at 8. 13 Id. 14 R. Doc. 2302, p.3. 15 H & W Indus., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 860 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1988).
4

that an appellate resolution of the certified claims would facilitate a settlement of the remainder of the claims."16 If, as Signal suggests, the claims of the Trial Plaintiffs and the non-Trial Plaintiffs are virtually indistinguishable, a ruling by the Fifth Circuit will help establish each party's relative chances of success on the remaining claims. By further defining the litigation playing field, the parties will be in a better position to determine whether the costs of continued litigation are outweighed by the benefits of settlement.
The second component of the no-just-reason-for delay analysis is whether the equities weigh in favor of certification. Such equities include delay in payment, ability to collect on a judgment, and solvency of the parties.17 Trial of the remaining non-FLSA claims is set for September 2016 and will likely conclude sometime in October.18 If the Court does not enter final judgment now, the Trial Plaintiffs will be forced to wait an extraordinary amount of time to proceed—approximately 19 months.19
Further exacerbating this prejudice is the "virtual[] certain[ty]" that Signal will declare bankruptcy in the next month or so.20 The Supreme Court has explicitly found that if the debtor's "financial position were such that a delay in entry of final judgment . . . would impair [the prevailing party's] ability to collect on the judgment, that would weigh in favor of certification."21 Signal's precarious financial position further militates in favor of certification.
16 Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8 n.2. 17 Offshore Marine, Inc. v. Associated Gas & Oil Co., No. 11-755, 2011 WL 4595251, at *4 (W.D. La. Sept. 29, 2011). 18 The FLSA claims will be decided on cross motions for summary judgment, or, if necessary, in a separate proceeding. 19 See Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 11 (finding Rule 54(b) certification proper where plaintiffs "would not be paid for many months, if not years" if judgment was not entered). 20 See R. Doc. 276, Joseph v. Signal, No. 13-324 (E.D. Tex. 2015). 21 Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 12.
5

Consistent with the Supreme Court's mandate, this Court has carefully "weigh[ed] and balance[ed] the contending factors."22 The scales tip heavily in favor of certification. There is no just reason to delay entry of final judgment.
The Court must now determine whether execution should be stayed pending appeal. This issue is governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 62(d) and 62(h). Rule 62(d) allows the losing party to obtain a stay pending appeal by posting a supersedeas bond.23 The losing party is excepted from this bond requirement if (a) it "objectively demonstrates a present financial ability to facilely respond to a money judgment and presents to the court a financially secure plan for maintaining the same degree of solvency during the period of the appeal," or (b) "the relief sought by the prevailing party on appeal is inconsistent with enforcement of the lower court's judgment."24 Neither of these unique circumstances is present in this case, nor has Signal argued to the contrary. Accordingly, the propriety of a stay in this case is governed by Rule 62(h).
Rule 62(h) vests the district court with discretion to stay enforcement of a final judgment entered under Rule 54(b).25 This discretion is tempered by four considerations: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies."26 The first two
22 Id. 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). 24 Enserch Corp. v. Shand Morahan & Co., 918 F.2d 462, 464 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(h). 26 Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); Freret Marine Supply v. M/V ENCHANTED CAPRI, No. 00-3805, 2002 WL 31324042, at *3–4 (E.D. La. Oct. 16, 2002).
6

factors are the most important.27 As the party requesting a stay, Signal bears the burden of proof.28
Signal has not attempted to make any showing of likelihood of success, much less a strong showing. Signal has equally failed to address whether it would be irreparably injured absent a stay.29 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that a stay would substantially injure the Trial Plaintiffs by delaying—if not effectively eliminating—their ability to collect over $12 million from Signal. Finally, Signal has presented no evidence that the judgment should be stayed in the interest of the public.
CONCLUSION The Trial Plaintiffs have been waiting since the George W. Bush Administration for their day in court. After six long weeks of trial, the Trial Plaintiffs prevailed. Only the appellate courts can determine whether the jury verdict—and the rulings that preceded it—are legally sound. There is no just reason to delay this determination. Accordingly, the Court will enter final judgment. Signal has failed to prove this judgment should be stayed pending appeal. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of March, 2015.
________________________ _______ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). 28 See id. at 433–34. 29 Signal presents several inchoate arguments regarding prejudice, see R. Doc. 2302, p. 6, and R. Doc. 2315, p. 5–6, but makes no attempt to connect those arguments to irreparable injury.
7

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2406 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs,
-against-
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. 08-1220 (SM/DEK) SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION No. 12-0557 (SM/DEK)

and

SECTION “E”

SABULAL VIJAYAN, et al. PlaintiffsIntervenors

-against-

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant.

Related Case:

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al.
Plaintiffs, -againstSIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (SM/DEK) (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 136221, 14-732, 14-1818)
SECTION “E”

Applies To:

David, No. 08-1220

JUDGMENT

1

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2406 Filed 05/11/15 Page 2 of 11
In accordance with the verdict the jury rendered on February 18, 2015,1 and this Court’s March 20, 2015 Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b),2 the Court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC and SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., jointly and severally (“Signal”) in the amount of $12,258,600, plus pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest as awarded in this Court's May 11, 2015 Order,3 as follows:
1. For Plaintiff JACOB JOSEPH KADAKKARAPPALLY and against Signal: $3,716,400, consisting of a. For Signal’s violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $40,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $400,000 as punitive damages. b. For Signal’s violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Discriminatory Terms and Conditions of Employment (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM TWO”), i. $21,385 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $3,185, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $18,200; ii. $200,000 as punitive damages. c. For Signal’s violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Harassing Living Conditions (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM TWO”),
1 R. Doc. 2272-3. 2 R. Doc. 2336. 3 R. Doc. 2404.
2

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2406 Filed 05/11/15 Page 3 of 11
i. $21,385 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $3,185, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $18,200;
ii. $200,000 as punitive damages. d. For Signal’s violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Retaliation (Rec. Doc. 2272-
3, “CLAIM THREE”), i. $150,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $450,000 as punitive damages.
e. For Signal’s violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; ii. $40,000 as the trebled amount of compensatory damages before set-offs.
f. For Signal’s Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”), i. $20,000, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0.
g. For Signal’s Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $500,000 as compensatory damages; 3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2406 Filed 05/11/15 Page 4 of 11
ii. $500,000 as punitive damages. h. For Signal’s False Imprisonment (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM EIGHT”),
i. $150,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $450,000 as punitive damages. i. For Signal’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM NINE”), i. $150,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $450,000 as punitive damages. 2. For Plaintiff SONY VASUDEVAN SULEKHA and against Signal: $1,923,200, consisting of a. For Signal’s violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $40,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $400,000 as punitive damages. b. For Signal’s violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Discriminatory Terms and Conditions of Employment (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM TWO”), i. $25,275 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for
duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $3,675, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $21,600; ii. $200,000 as punitive damages. c. For Signal’s violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Harassing Living Conditions (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM TWO”),
4

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2406 Filed 05/11/15 Page 5 of 11
i. $25,275 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $3,675, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $21,600;
ii. $200,000 as punitive damages. d. For Signal’s violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM
FOUR”), i. $20,000 (TWENTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS) as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; ii. $40,000 as the trebled amount of compensatory damages before set-offs.
e. For Signal’s Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”), i. $20,000, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0;
f. For Signal’s Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $500,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $500,000 as punitive damages.
3. For Plaintiff PALANYANDI THANGAMANI and against Signal: $2,210,200, consisting of
5

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2406 Filed 05/11/15 Page 6 of 11
a. For Signal’s violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $175,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $400,000 as punitive damages.
b. For Signal’s violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Discriminatory Terms and Conditions of Employment (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM TWO”), i. $102,812 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $15,212, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $87,600; ii. $200,000 as punitive damages.
c. For Signal’s violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Harassing Living Conditions (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM TWO”), i. $102,812 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $15,212, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $87,600; ii. $200,000 as punitive damages.
d. For Signal’s violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”), i. $30,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $30,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; 6

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2406 Filed 05/11/15 Page 7 of 11
ii. $60,000 as the trebled amount of compensatory damages before set-offs.
e. For Signal’s Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”), i. $30,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $30,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0;
f. For Signal’s Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $500,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $500,000 as punitive damages.
4. For Plaintiff PADAVETTIYIL ISAAC ANDREWS and against Signal: $2,211,000, consisting of a. For Signal’s violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $175,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $400,000 as punitive damages. b. For Signal’s violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Discriminatory Terms and Conditions of Employment (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM TWO”), i. $103,475 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $13,475, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $90,000; ii. $200,000 as punitive damages. 7

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2406 Filed 05/11/15 Page 8 of 11
c. For Signal’s violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Harassing Living Conditions (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM TWO”), i. $103,475 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $13,475, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $90,000; ii. $200,000 as punitive damages.
d. For Signal’s violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”), i. $28,000, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $28,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; ii. $56,000 as the trebled amount of compensatory damages before set-offs.
e. For Signal’s Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”), i. $28,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $28,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0.
f. For Signal’s Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $500,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $500,000 as punitive damages.
8

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2406 Filed 05/11/15 Page 9 of 11
5. For Plaintiff HEMANT KHUTTAN and against Signal: $2,197,800, consisting of a. For Signal’s violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $175,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $400,000 as punitive damages. b. For Signal’s violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Discriminatory Terms and Conditions of Employment (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM TWO”), i. $91,880 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $11,480, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $80,400; ii. $200,000 as punitive damages. c. For Signal’s violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Harassing Living Conditions (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM TWO”), i. $91,880 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $11,480, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $80,400; ii. $200,000 as punitive damages. d. For Signal’s violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”),
9

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2406 Filed 05/11/15 Page 10 of 11
i. $31,000, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $31,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0;
ii. $62,000 as the trebled amount of the compensatory damages before set-offs.
e. For Signal’s Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”), i. $31,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $31,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0;
f. For Signal’s Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $500,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $500,000 as punitive damages.
6. Pre-judgment interest is awarded on all claims except RICO.4 Pre-judgment interest will accrue from March 7, 2008 at the Louisiana judicial interest rate.
7. Post-judgment interest will accrue at the federal rate. 8. Costs and Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees shall be taxed against Signal.
The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enter a separate judgment against Signal for costs and Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees. 9. There is no just reason to delay entry of final judgment.
4 See R. Doc. 2404.
10

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2406 Filed 05/11/15 Page 11 of 11 New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of May, 2015. _______ ______ _________________ SUSIE MORGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2408 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs,
-against-
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. 08-1220 (SM/DEK) SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION No. 12-0557 (SM/DEK)

and

SECTION “E”

SABULAL VIJAYAN, et al. PlaintiffsIntervenors

-against-

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant.

Related Case:

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al.
Plaintiffs, -againstSIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (SM/DEK) (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 136221, 14-732, 14-1818)
SECTION “E”

Applies To:

David, No. 08-1220

JUDGMENT

1

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2408 Filed 05/11/15 Page 2 of 7
In accordance with the verdict the jury rendered on February 18, 2015,1 and this Court’s March 20, 2015 Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b),2 the Court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C. BURNETT, APC in the amount of $915,000, plus pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest as awarded in this Court's May 11, 2015 Order,3 as follows:
1. For Plaintiff JACOB JOSEPH KADAKKARAPPALLY and against Defendant LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C. BURNETT, APC (“Burnett Law Offices”): $195,000, consisting of a. For Burnett Law Offices’ violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $40,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $100,000 as punitive damages. b. For Burnett Law Offices’ violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; ii. $40,000 as the trebled amount of compensatory damages before set-offs. c. For Burnett Law Offices’ Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”),
1 R. Doc. 2272-3. 2 R. Doc. 2336. 3 R. Doc. 2404.
2

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2408 Filed 05/11/15 Page 3 of 7
i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0.
d. For Burnett Law Offices’ Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $5,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $10,000 as punitive damages.
2. For Plaintiff SONY VASUDEVAN SULEKHA and against Defendant LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C. BURNETT, APC (“Burnett Law Offices”): $175,000, consisting of a. For Burnett Law Offices’ violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $100,000 as punitive damages. b. For Burnett Law Offices’ violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; ii. $40,000 as the trebled amount of compensatory damages before set-offs. c. For Burnett Law Offices’ Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”),
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2408 Filed 05/11/15 Page 4 of 7
i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0.
d. For Burnett Law Offices’ Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $5,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $10,000 as punitive damages.
3. For Plaintiff PALANYANDI THANGAMANI and against Defendant LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C. BURNETT, APC (“Burnett Law Offices”): $175,000, consisting of a. For Burnett Law Offices’ violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $100,000 as punitive damages. b. For Burnett Law Offices’ violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; ii. $40,000 as the trebled amount of compensatory damages before set-offs. c. For Burnett Law Offices’ Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”),
4

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2408 Filed 05/11/15 Page 5 of 7
i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0.
d. For Burnett Law Offices’ Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $5,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $10,000 as punitive damages.
4. For Plaintiff PADAVETTIYIL ISAAC ANDREWS and against Defendant LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C. BURNETT, APC (“Burnett Law Offices”): $195,000, consisting of a. For Burnett Law Offices’ violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $40,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $100,000 as punitive damages. b. For Burnett Law Offices’ violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; ii. $40,000 as the trebled amount of compensatory damages before set-offs. c. For Burnett Law Offices’ Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”),
5

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2408 Filed 05/11/15 Page 6 of 7
i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0.
d. For Burnett Law Offices’ Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $5,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $10,000 as punitive damages.
5. For Plaintiff HEMANT KHUTTAN and against Defendant LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C. BURNETT, APC: $175,000, consisting of a. For Burnett Law Offices’ violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $100,000 as punitive damages. b. For Burnett Law Offices’ violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; ii. $40,000 as the trebled amount of compensatory damages before set-offs. c. For Burnett Law Offices’ Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”),
6

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2408 Filed 05/11/15 Page 7 of 7
i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0.
d. For Burnett Law Offices’ Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $5,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $10,000 as punitive damages.
6. Pre-judgment interest is awarded on all claims except RICO.4 Pre-judgment interest will accrue from March 7, 2008 at the Louisiana judicial interest rate.
7. Post-judgment interest will accrue at the federal rate. 8. Costs and Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees shall be taxed against Burnett
Law Offices. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enter a separate or amended judgment against Burnett Law Offices for costs and Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees. 9. There is no just reason to delay entry of final judgment. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of May, 2015.
___________ _______ __ ______ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 See R. Doc. 2404.
7

 
 Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2409 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs,
-against-
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. 08-1220 (SM/DEK) SECTION “E”

Related Case:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION No. 12-0557 (SM/DEK)

and

SECTION “E”

SABULAL VIJAYAN, et al. PlaintiffsIntervenors

-against-

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant.

Related Case:

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al.
Plaintiffs, -againstSIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (SM/DEK) (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 136221, 14-732, 14-1818)
SECTION “E”

Applies To:

David, No. 08-1220

JUDGMENT

1

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2409 Filed 05/11/15 Page 2 of 7
In accordance with the verdict the jury rendered on February 18, 2015,1 and this Court’s March 20, 2015 Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b),2 the Court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant DEWAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD in the amount of $915,000, plus pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest as awarded in this Court's May 11, 2015 Order,3 as follows:
1. For Plaintiff JACOB JOSEPH KADAKKARAPPALLY and against Defendant DEWAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD (“Dewan Consultants”): $195,000, consisting of a. For Dewan Consultants’ violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $40,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $100,000 as punitive damages. b. For Dewan Consultants’ violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; ii. $40,000 as the trebled amount of compensatory damages before set-offs. c. For Dewan Consultants’ Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”),
1 R. Doc. 2272-3. 2 R. Doc. 2336. 3 R. Doc. 2404.
2

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2409 Filed 05/11/15 Page 3 of 7
i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0.
d. For Dewan Consultants’ Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $5,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $10,000 as punitive damages.
2. For Plaintiff SONY VASUDEVAN SULEKHA and against Defendant DEWAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD (“Dewan Consultants”): $175,000, consisting of a. For Dewan Consultants’ violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $100,000 as punitive damages. b. For Dewan Consultants’ violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; ii. $40,000 as the trebled amount of the compensatory damages before set-offs. c. For Dewan Consultants’ Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”),
3

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2409 Filed 05/11/15 Page 4 of 7
i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0.
d. For Dewan Consultants’ Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $5,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $10,000 as punitive damages.
3. For Plaintiff PALANYANDI THANGAMANI and against Defendant DEWAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD (“Dewan Consultants”: $175,000, consisting of a. For Dewan Consultants’ violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $100,000 as punitive damages. b. For Dewan Consultants’ violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; ii. $40,000 as the trebled amount of compensatory damages before set-offs. c. For Dewan Consultants’ Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”),
4

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2409 Filed 05/11/15 Page 5 of 7
i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0.
d. For Dewan Consultants’ Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $5,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $10,000 as punitive damages.
4. For Plaintiff PADAVETTIYIL ISAAC ANDREWS and against Defendant DEWAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD (“Dewan Consultants”): $195,000, consisting of a. For Dewan Consultants’ violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $40,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $100,000 as punitive damages. b. For Dewan Consultants’ violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; ii. $40,000 as the trebled amount of compensatory damages before set-offs. c. For Dewan Consultants’ Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”),
5

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2409 Filed 05/11/15 Page 6 of 7
i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0.
d. For Dewan Consultants’ Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $5,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $10,000 as punitive damages.
5. For Plaintiff HEMANT KHUTTAN and against Defendant DEWAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD: $175,000, including a. For Dewan Consultants’ violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM ONE”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $100,000 as punitive damages. b. For Dewan Consultants’ violations of the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FOUR”), i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0; ii. $40,000 as the trebled amount of compensatory damages before set-offs. c. For Dewan Consultants’ Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM FIVE”),
6

Case 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK Document 2409 Filed 05/11/15 Page 7 of 7
i. $20,000 as compensatory damages, reduced by a set-off for duplicative damages awarded under other claims in the amount of $20,000, resulting in net compensatory damages in the amount of $0.
d. For Dewan Consultants’ Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272-3, “CLAIM SEVEN”), i. $5,000 as compensatory damages; ii. $10,000 as punitive damages.
6. Pre-judgment interest is awarded on all claims except RICO.4 Pre-judgment interest will accrue from March 7, 2008 at the Louisiana judicial interest rate.
7. Post-judgment interest will accrue at the federal rate. 8. Costs and Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees shall be taxed against Dewan
Consultants. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enter a separate or amended judgment against Dewan Consultants for costs and Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees. 9. There is no just reason to delay entry of final judgment. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of May, 2015.
____________ _______ __________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 See R. Doc. 2404. 7

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al., Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 08-1220 SECTION "E"

Related Cases:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff VERSUS SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-557 SECTION "E"

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al., Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-6218 (c/w 13-6219, 13-6220, 13-6221, 14-732, 14-1818)
SECTION "E"

1

REJI SAMUEL, et al., Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION
No. 14-2811 c/w 14-2826,
15-2295, 15-2296 15-2297
SECTION "E"

Applies to: David v. Signal (08-1220) ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) Motion to Amend or Alter the May 14, 2015 Judgments Against Plaintiffs and in Favor of Defendants Malvern Burnett and Sachin Dewan.1 Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ motion.2 Plaintiffs have also filed a Reply Memorandum in further support of their Rule 59(e) motion.3
For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will enter amended judgments by separate order in accordance with the following.
BACKGROUND On January 13, 2015, after years of motion practice, this matter proceeded to a trial by jury, which lasted approximately five weeks. At the conclusion of trial, the jury was instructed to deliberate and render its verdict in two distinct stages. In stage one, the jury answered “yes” to questions asked with respect to Defendants Malvern C. Burnett (“Burnett”) and Sachin Dewan (“Dewan”) under the

1 R. Doc. 2445. 2 R. Doc. 2452. 3 R. Doc. 2464.
2

Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”),4 the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”),5 and state-law concepts of fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and breach of contract.6 In stage two, however, the jury did not
award damages against Burnett and Dewan personally, instead entering an award of $0
for all claims listed above.7
After holding a status conference on April 27, 2015, to address the jury’s verdict
and other unrelated concerns, the Court entered judgments on May 14, 2015.8 In light of
the jury’s $0 finding on damages as to Burnett and Dewan, the Court entered judgments
in favor of Defendants Burnett and Dewan and against Plaintiffs, dismissing with
prejudice all claims against Burnett and Dewan personally.9
Plaintiffs subsequently filed the instant motion under Rule 59(e), requesting that
the Court amend the May 14, 2015 judgments against Plaintiffs and in favor of
Defendants Burnett and Dewan.10
DISCUSSION
On June 6, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Rule 59(e) motion, seeking an amendment
of, or a new trial regarding, the Court’s May 14, 2015 judgments in favor of Burnett and
Dewan and against Plaintiffs.11 In that motion, Plaintiffs set forth several theories on
why the Court’s judgments should be altered or amended, or in the alternative, why the
Court should order a new trial on damages.12 Principally, the Plaintiffs argue that the
Court’s judgments should be amended because (1) the jury’s awards of $0 against
4 18 U.S.C. § 1581, et seq. 5 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. 6 See R. Doc. 2268-2 at 7–9, 13–15. 7 See R. Doc. 2272-3; see also R. Doc. 2268-2 at 7–9, 13–15. 8 See R. Docs. 2415–2416. 9 See id. 10 R. Doc. 2445. 11 R. Doc. 2445. 12 See generally id.; R. Doc. 2445-1.
3

Burnett and Dewan were merely an attempt to avoid duplicative damage awards; (2) the Fifth Circuit requires an award of nominal damages when a defendant is found to have violated a civil rights statute; and (3) the jury’s verdicts on liability and damages as to Burnett and Dewan cannot be reconciled.13
I. DUPLICATIVE DAMAGE AWARDS First, Plaintiffs argue that the damages verdicts of $0 against Burnett and Dewan,
personally, were entered due to the jury’s belief that any such damages would be duplicative of those awarded against Burnett’s and Dewan’s corporations.14 The Court finds this argument unpersuasive.
Count 1 in the jury verdict form is the TVPA claim.15 The interrogatories concerning damages awarded against Burnett individually are found on page 6 and are the first interrogatories dealing with Burnett or his law firm.16 Thus, the interrogatories regarding damages against Burnett individually came before the interrogatories concerning Burnett’s corporate law firm.17 If the jury intended to award damages against either Burnett or his law firm, but not both, it is more logical to assume they would have awarded damages against Burnett, and not his law firm, due to the order in which the jury interrogatories are formulated and appear.18 This is not what happened.
The same reasoning is true for the other counts against Burnett and Dewan.19 More specifically, the damages interrogatories concerning those counts, with regard to
13 See R. Doc. 2445-1 at 6, 10, 13. 14 See R. Doc. 2445-1 at 6–9. 15 See R. Doc. 2272-2 at 4. 16 R. Doc. 2272-3 at 6. 17 Compare R. Doc. 2272-3 at 6, with R. Doc. 2272-3 at 8. 18 See id. 19 See R. Doc. 2272-3 at 20–23, 25–28, 31–38.
4

Burnett and Dewan personally, are found before those interrogatories concerning their corporations.20
Thus, the Court finds no support for the argument that the jury found that Burnett and Dewan individually owed damages to Plaintiffs but nevertheless awarded no damages against them. The jury performed its task of assessing damages. The jury’s verdict is not fatally inconsistent. The motion to alter the judgments on this ground is not well-founded. II. NOMINAL DAMAGES AND CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES
a. TVPA Counts Plaintiffs next argue that, because Fifth Circuit precedent mandates an assessment of at least nominal damages when a defendant is found to have violated a civil rights statute, the Court should enter judgments for nominal damages against Burnett and Dewan on Plaintiffs’ TVPA claims.21 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ argument. The Fifth Circuit has consistently held that “a plaintiff is entitled to an award of nominal damages for the violation of his civil rights, even where there is no injury.”22 Although the universe of “civil rights” violations for which nominal damages are appropriate is n0t well defined, the Fifth Circuit has provided some guidance, awarding nominal damages for civil rights violations traceable to the Constitution and to federal civil rights statutes. The Fifth Circuit has held, generally, that the violation of one’s
20 See id. With respect to the RICO count, and those counts pertaining to state-law violations of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract, the damages interrogatories against Burnett and Dewan, personally, appear before those concerning their corporations. See id. 21 R. Doc. 2445-1 at 10. 22 Archie v. Christian, 812 F.2d 250, 252 (5th Cir. 1987). See also Taylor v. Green, 868 F.2d 162, 165 (5th Cir. 1989); Farrar v. Cain, 756 F.2d 1148, 1152 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266– 67 (1978)).
5

constitutional rights is worth, at least, nominal damages.23 The Fifth Circuit in Farrar
v. Cain explained that nominal damages are appropriate when the infringement of a
certain and fundamental right is established, such as a violation of one’s rights under
the First Amendment.24 Courts in the Fifth Circuit and beyond have also awarded
nominal damages to plaintiffs who prove violations of their rights under section 1981
and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.25
In this case, however, Defendants argue that nominal damages are not available
and should not be awarded to Plaintiffs, because the claims of forced labor and
trafficking under the TVPA “do not rise to the level of a violation of a constitutionally
afforded right.”26 The Court disagrees with Defendants’ argument, as it is well accepted
that the TVPA was intended to redress slavery and involuntary servitude, wrongs that
are specifically addressed by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.27 Moreover, the TVPA “represents an effort to increase civil rights
protections,”28 and thus is similar to the civil rights statutes under which nominal
23 Farrar, 756 F.2d at 1152 (quoting Webster v. City of Houston, 689 F.2d 1220, 1230 (5th Cir. 1982)). 24 Id. (citing Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 619 F.2d 391, 402 (5th Cir. 1980)). See also Jackson v. Greyhound Bus Lines, No. 82-1354, 1986 WL 13629, at *1 (E.D. La. Dec. 1, 1986). 25 See, e.g., Jimenez v. Paw-Paw’s Camper City, Inc., No. 00-1756, 2002 WL 257691, at *2–3 (E.D. La. Feb. 22, 2002); see also Robinson v. Cattaraugus County, 147 F.3d 153, 162 (2d Cir. 1998); Kerr-Selgas v. American Airlines, Inc., 69 F.3d 1205, 1215 (1st Cir. 1995); Fyfe v. Curlee, 902 F.2d 401, 406 (5th Cir. 1990); Beckford v. Irvin, 49 F. Supp. 2d 170, 182 (W.D.N.Y. 1999). 26 R. Doc. 2452 at 3. 27 Jeffrey W. Tye, Ninth Circuit Rules Against Scientology Ministers’ Forced-Labor Claims in Headley v. Church of Scientology International, 43 GOLDEN GATE U. L. REV. 135, 135 (2013) (“The [TVPA] . . . is an extension of a long line of judicial and statutory responses to the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against slavery.”). “[T]he TVPA is intended to remedy conduct condemned as outrageous, involving significant violations not only of labor standards but fundamental health and personal rights as well.” Francisco v. Susano, 525 F. App’x 828, 835 (10th Cir. 2013). Thus, the TVPA is intended to provide a private cause of action to redress the violation of constitutionally protected rights. See, e.g., id. 28 Kathleen Kim & Kusia Hreshchyshyn, Human Trafficking Private Right of Action: Civil Rights for Trafficked Persons in the United States, 16 HASTINGS WOMEN’S L.J. 1, 4 (2004). The TVPA permits trafficked persons to “advance their substantive civil rights by enforcing a remedy that targets the actual harm inflicted upon them—modern-day slavery.” Id. at 16.
6

damages have been awarded, inter alia, section 1983, section 1981, and Title VII.29 In
Francisco v. Susano, the Tenth Circuit specifically recognized that nominal damages,
along with compensatory and punitive damages, “are available as a general matter
under the TVPA.”30
For the reasons discussed above, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion with respect
to the award of nominal damages on the TVPA claims. It is of no moment that neither
party raised the issue of nominal damages during trial or requested a jury instruction on
nominal damages.31 This Court may enter a judgment awarding nominal damages, as
the Plaintiffs are entitled to such damages as a matter of law.32 Therefore, the Court will
enter amended judgments by separate order in favor of Plaintiffs and against
Defendants Burnett and Dewan on the TVPA claims, awarding Plaintiffs nominal
damages in the sum of $1.00.
b. Non-TVPA Counts
It should be noted that the Court’s reasoning with regard to nominal damages is
narrow and limited to the TVPA claims. “Rule 59(e) motions may only be granted if the
moving party shows there was a mistake of law or fact or presents newly discovered
29 See supra note 23, 25. 30 Francisco, 525 F.App’x at 835–36. 31 In Jimenez v. Paw-Paw’s Camper City, Inc., the court noted that “neither party requested, nor did the court give, a jury instruction that the jury must award nominal damages if it found liability but no actual injury.” Jimenez, 2002 WL 257691, at *6–7. The court continued:
An appropriate remedy for that error, however, is for the court itself to enter judgment awarding the claimant nominal damages. Although the Seventh Amendment generally prohibits a court from augmenting a jury’s award of damages, that proscription is not violated by the court’s entering judgment awarding nominal damages when the jury has failed or refused to do so and the claimant is entitled to such damages as a matter of law. Id. at *6 (quoting Robinson, 147 F.3d 153, 162 (2d Cir. 1998)). See also Gibeau v. Nellis, 18 F.3d 107, 111 (2d Cir. 1994) (“Because this error may be corrected solely by amending the judgment and without a new trial, we believe that it should be redressed.”); Fyfe v. Curlee, 902 F.2d 401, 406 (5th Cir. 1990). 32 See Jimenez, 2002 WL 257691, at *6–7.
7

evidence that could not have been discovered previously.”33 With respect to the TVPA
claims, Plaintiffs’ identified a mistake of law, in that nominal damages should have been
awarded for the violation of the Plaintiffs’ civil rights.
With respect to the remaining counts, Plaintiffs have not identified a mistake of
law with respect to the entry of the judgments. The RICO, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and breach of contract counts do not encompass or protect civil
rights such that nominal damages must be awarded. An award of $0 in damages on
these counts entitles the Defendants to judgment in their favor and dismissal of the
claims with prejudice. The Court’s prior judgments with respect to those counts were
correct.34
III. NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES
a. TVPA Counts
Plaintiffs also argue that, if the Rule 59(e) motion is not granted, a new trial on
damages should be awarded in the alternative.35 This argument is denied as moot with
respect to the TVPA claims.36 The Court will amend the judgments previously rendered
in favor of Defendants Burnett and Dewan and enter judgments in favor of Plaintiffs.
33 Lee v. Omega Protein Corp., No 10-00387, 2011 WL 4407548, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 21, 2011) (citing Templet v. Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479–79 (5th Cir. 2004)). 34 See R. Docs. 2415, 2416. Although nominal damages are appropriate with respect to Plaintiffs’ TVPA claims due to the unique precedent concerning nominal damages and civil rights violations, which was discussed above, the same reasoning does not apply to the remaining claims of Plaintiffs. See Rogers v. McDorman, 521 F.3d 381, 397 (5th Cir. 2008) (“The zero damages award reflects a failure of proof rather than a jury disregarding its instructions and compromising on the verdict.”); Ruiz-Rodriguez v. ColbergComas, 882 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir. 1989) (“A jury’s award of zero damages, where such has a rational basis in the record, is commonly viewed as, in effect, a judgment for the defendant.”) (citing Poulin Corp. v. Chrysler Corp., 861 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir. 1988)); Ass’n of W. Rys. v. Riss & Co., 299 F.2d 133, 135 (D.C. Cir. 1962) (“The finding that the conspiracy had not damaged the plaintiff was therefore a finding that the plaintiff had not proved its claim. The defendants were therefore entitled to judgment.”). 35 R. Doc. 2445 at 3; R. Doc. 2445-1 at 13–15. 36 Plaintiffs’ argument regarding a new trial on damages is moot, as the Court will enter judgments awarding nominal damages to Plaintiffs against Defendants Burnett and Dewan on the TVPA claims by subsequent order.
8

The Court will award nominal damages in the sum of $1.00 to Plaintiffs on the TVPA claims. For that reason, a new trial on damages is denied as moot.
b. Non-TVPA Counts With respect to the non-TVPA counts, a new trial on damages is likewise not warranted. “The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial is within the sound discretion of the trial court.”37 Moreover, under Rule 59, “[t]he district court abuses its discretion by denying a new trial only when there is an absolute absence of evidence to support the jury’s verdict.”38 In this case, the Court finds no justification for granting a new trial on the nonTVPA counts. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a lack of evidence to support the jury’s verdict. The motion for new trial on the non-TVPA counts is denied.
CONCLUSION For the reasons previously stated, the Rule 59(e) motion to amend the Court’s judgments of May 14, 2015, is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of September, 2015.
_____ _____ ______ _________ SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
37 Morris v. Lee, No.Civ.A. 98-1656, 2001 WL 30199, at *1–2 (E.D. La. Jan. 10, 2001) (citing Pryor v. Trane Co., 138 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 1998)). 38 Jimenez, 2002 WL 257691, at *3 (citing Seidman v. American Airlines, Inc., 923 F.2d 1134, 1140 (5th Cir. 1991)).
9

 
 CLOSED,PROTO
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:08−cv−01220−SM−DEK

David et al v. Signal International LLC et al Assigned to: Judge Susie Morgan Referred to: Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III Case in other court: USCA 5th Circuit, 15−30464
USCA 5th Circuit, 15−30862
USCA 5th Circuit, 15−30862 Cause: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/07/2008 Date Terminated: 03/11/2016 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Kurian David

represented by Daniel Werner Southern Poverty Law Center (Decatur) Immigrant Justice Project 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 404−521−6700 Email: daniel.werner@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Bruce Howard Crowell & Moring, LLP (New York) 590 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10022 212−803−4021 Email: ahoward@crowell.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anita Jain Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP (Los Angeles) 333 South Grand Avenue Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90071−1530 213−621−6000 Email: ajain@dl.com TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE

Anjali J. Nair Southern Poverty Law Center (New Orleans) 201 St. Charles Ave Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 334−414−4756 Email: anjali.nair@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 09/09/2015

Ashleigh Ferris Southern Poverty Law Center (Decatur) Immigrant Justice Project 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 404−221−4036 Email: ashleigh.ferris@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 06/21/2012

Chandra S. Bhatnagar American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (New York/Broad) 125 Broad St. 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−519−7840 Email: cbhatnagar@aclu.org TERMINATED: 02/24/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Chieni D Suzuki Crowell & Moring, LLP (New York) 590 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10022 212−803−4050 Email: csuzuki@crowell.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dahsong Kim Asian American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 99 Hudson St. 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 212−966−5932 Email: skim@aaldef.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 212−702−7057 Email: hsandler@nussbaumpc.com TERMINATED: 09/08/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas Asian American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 99 Hudson St. 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 212−966−5932 x235 Fax: 212−966−4303 Email: isuriyopas@aaldef.org TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice 217 N. Prieur St. New Orleans, LA 70112 504−309−5165 Email: jjrosenbaum@nowcrj.org TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Jennifer Stewart Winston & Strawn, LLP (New York) 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166−4193 212−294−4700

Email: jstewart@winston.com TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Joseph Bjarnson Sahn Ward Coschignano & Baker, PLLC 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard Suite 601 Uniondale, NY 11553 516−228−1300 Email: jbjarnson@swcblaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke Southern Poverty Law Center (Decatur) Immigrant Justice Project 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 404−521−6700 Email: kgraunke@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer Southern Poverty Law Center (Decatur) Immigrant Justice Project 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 404−521−6700 Email: mbauer@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 05/24/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Melia Amal Bouhabib Crowell & Moring, LLP (New York) 590 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10022 212−803−4074 Email: abouhabib@crowell.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart Southern Poverty Law Center (New Orleans) 201 St. Charles Ave Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 504−486−8982 Fax: 504−486−8947 Email: meredith.stewart@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees Southern Poverty Law Center (Decatur) Immigrant Justice Project 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 404−521−6700 PRO HAC VICE
Naomi Tsu Southern Poverty Law Center (Decatur) Immigrant Justice Project

150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 404−521−6700 Email: naomi.tsu@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert P. Wynne Wynne Firm, PC 701 North Post Oak Road Suite 325 Houston, TX 77024 281−813−8959 Email: Bob@thewynnefirm.com TERMINATED: 06/01/2009
Sameer Ahmed Asian American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 99 Hudson St. 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 212−966−5932 Email: sahmed@aaldef.org TERMINATED: 10/28/2011 PRO HAC VICE
Samuel Justin Warf Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP (Houston) 1000 Main St. Suite 2550 Houston, TX 77002 713−287−2000 Email: jwarf@dl.com TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Gorman Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP (Houston) 1000 Main St. Suite 2550 Houston, TX 77002 713−287−2000 TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Shirley Lin Asian American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 99 Hudson St. 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 212−966−5932 Email: slin@aaldef.org TERMINATED: 08/27/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Tracie L. Washington 3157 Gentilly Blvd. No. 132 New Orleans, LA 70122 504−872−9134 Email: tracie.washington.esq@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tushar J. Sheth

Asian American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 99 Hudson St. 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 212−966−5932 Ex. 220 Email: tsheth@aaldef.org TERMINATED: 10/28/2011 PRO HAC VICE

Vincent Davitt Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP (Los Angeles) 333 South Grand Avenue Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90071−1530 213−621−6000 TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff Sony Vasudevan Sulekha

represented by Daniel Werner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anita Jain (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009

Anjali J. Nair (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015

Ashleigh Ferris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/2015 PRO HAC VICE

Chieni D Suzuki (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dahsong Kim (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Jennifer Stewart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Melia Amal Bouhabib (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees (See above for address)
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert P. Wynne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2009
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Samuel Justin Warf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Gorman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Shirley Lin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2013
Tracie L. Washington (See above for address)

Plaintiff Palanyandi Thangamani

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tushar J. Sheth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Vincent Davitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Daniel Werner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anita Jain (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009
Anjali J. Nair (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015
Ashleigh Ferris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Chieni D Suzuki (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dahsong Kim (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Jennifer Stewart

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Melia Amal Bouhabib (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees (See above for address)
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert P. Wynne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2009
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Samuel Justin Warf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Gorman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Shirley Lin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2013
Tracie L. Washington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tushar J. Sheth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Vincent Davitt

Plaintiff
Maruganantham Kandhasamy

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Daniel Werner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anita Jain (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009
Anjali J. Nair (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015
Ashleigh Ferris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Chieni D Suzuki (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dahsong Kim (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Jennifer Stewart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Melia Amal Bouhabib (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees (See above for address)
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert P. Wynne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2009
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Samuel Justin Warf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Gorman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Shirley Lin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Tracie L. Washington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tushar J. Sheth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Vincent Davitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE

Hemant Khuttan

represented by Daniel Werner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anita Jain (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009
Anjali J. Nair (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015
Ashleigh Ferris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Chieni D Suzuki (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dahsong Kim (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Jennifer Stewart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer

Plaintiff
Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Melia Amal Bouhabib (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees (See above for address)
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert P. Wynne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2009
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Samuel Justin Warf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Gorman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Shirley Lin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2013
Tracie L. Washington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tushar J. Sheth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Vincent Davitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Daniel Werner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address)

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anita Jain (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009
Anjali J. Nair (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015
Ashleigh Ferris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Chieni D Suzuki (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dahsong Kim (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Jennifer Stewart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Melia Amal Bouhabib (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Dhananjaya Kechuru on behalf of other similarly situated individuals

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees (See above for address)
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert P. Wynne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2009
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Samuel Justin Warf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Gorman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Shirley Lin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2013
Tracie L. Washington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tushar J. Sheth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Vincent Davitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Daniel Werner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anita Jain (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009

Anjali J. Nair (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015
Ashleigh Ferris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Chieni D Suzuki (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dahsong Kim (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Jennifer Stewart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Melia Amal Bouhabib (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees

Plaintiff Sabulal Vijayan

(See above for address)
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert P. Wynne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2009
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Samuel Justin Warf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Gorman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Shirley Lin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2013
Tracie L. Washington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tushar J. Sheth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Vincent Davitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Daniel Werner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anita Jain (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009
Anjali J. Nair (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015
Ashleigh Ferris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012

Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Chieni D Suzuki (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dahsong Kim (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Jennifer Stewart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Melia Amal Bouhabib (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees (See above for address)
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Krishan Kumar

Robert P. Wynne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2009
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Samuel Justin Warf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Gorman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Shirley Lin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2013
Tracie L. Washington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tushar J. Sheth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Vincent Davitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Daniel Werner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anita Jain (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009
Anjali J. Nair (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015
Ashleigh Ferris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Chieni D Suzuki

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dahsong Kim (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Jennifer Stewart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Melia Amal Bouhabib (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees (See above for address)
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert P. Wynne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2009
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011

Plaintiff
Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally

Samuel Justin Warf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Gorman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Shirley Lin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2013
Tracie L. Washington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tushar J. Sheth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Vincent Davitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Daniel Werner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anita Jain (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009
Anjali J. Nair (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015
Ashleigh Ferris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Chieni D Suzuki (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dahsong Kim (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Jennifer Stewart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Melia Amal Bouhabib (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees (See above for address)
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert P. Wynne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2009
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Samuel Justin Warf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Gorman

Plaintiff Kuldeep Singh

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Shirley Lin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Tracie L. Washington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tushar J. Sheth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Vincent Davitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Daniel Werner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anita Jain (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009
Anjali J. Nair (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015
Ashleigh Ferris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Chieni D Suzuki (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dahsong Kim (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/12/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Jennifer Stewart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Melia Amal Bouhabib (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees (See above for address)
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert P. Wynne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2009
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Samuel Justin Warf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Gorman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Shirley Lin (See above for address)

Plaintiff
Thanasekar Chellappan individually

TERMINATED: 08/27/2013
Tracie L. Washington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tushar J. Sheth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011
Vincent Davitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Daniel Werner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Bruce Howard (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anita Jain (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009
Anjali J. Nair (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2015
Ashleigh Ferris (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2012
Chandra S. Bhatnagar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/24/2015 PRO HAC VICE
Chieni D Suzuki (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dahsong Kim (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hugh Daniel Sandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ivy O. Suriyopas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/14/2011
Jennifer Stewart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Joseph Bjarnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristi L. Graunke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary C. Bauer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/24/2013 PRO HAC VICE
Melia Amal Bouhabib (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Meredith B. Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Morris S. Dees (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Naomi Tsu (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert P. Wynne (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/01/2009
Sameer Ahmed (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011 PRO HAC VICE
Samuel Justin Warf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Sean Gorman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Shirley Lin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2013
Tracie L. Washington (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Signal International LLC

Tushar J. Sheth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/28/2011 PRO HAC VICE
Vincent Davitt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/09/2009 PRO HAC VICE
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 Email: ehangartner@hanrylaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY 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 Fax: 504−581−5983 Email: aweinberger@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian C. Roux Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−522−5690 Email: broux@hanrylaw.com TERMINATED: 11/17/2016
Dominic Joseph Gianna Aaron & Gianna, PLC 201 St. Charles Avenue Suite 3800 New Orleans, LA 70170 (504) 569−1800 Email: dgianna@aarongianna.com TERMINATED: 03/19/2014
Donald C. Douglas , Jr. The Douglas Law Firm, LLC 1070 West Causeway Approach Suite B Mandeville, LA 70471 985−246−3034 Email: ddouglas@thedouglaslawfirm.com TERMINATED: 07/31/2009

Elham Rabbani Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−522−5690 Email: erabbani@hanrylaw.com TERMINATED: 11/17/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elliot Ross Buckley , Jr. Louisiana Department of Justice (New Orleans) Office of the Attorney General − Litigation Division 400 Poydras St. Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70130 504−599−1200 Email: BuckleyR@ag.Louisiana.gov TERMINATED: 02/09/2012
Hal D. Ungar Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart (New Orleans) 701 Poydras St. Suite 3500 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−648−3840 Email: hal.ungar@ogletreedeakins.com TERMINATED: 02/04/2016
James L. Cornblatt Patricia A. Bollman, APLC 3636 S. I−10 Service Road West Metairie, LA 70001 504−218−5887 Email: jcornblatt25@gmail.com PRO HAC VICE 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
Mitchell P. Hasenkampf Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504−522−5690 Email: mhasenkampf@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Anne F. Bollman The Kullman Firm 1100 Poydras Street Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70163

Defendant
Malvern C. Burnett TERMINATED: 04/18/2017

504−596−4123 Email: pab@kullmanlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul John Mirabile Middleberg Riddle Group (New Orleans) 909 Poydras Street Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112−4000 (504) 525−7200 Email: pmirabil@midrid.com TERMINATED: 03/19/2014
represented by Daniel Edwin Buras , Jr. Chehardy,Sherman,Williams,Murray,Recile,Stakelum&Hayes, LLC One Galleria Blvd. Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 504−833−5600 Fax: 888−383−4079 Email: DB@Chehardy.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy W. Cerniglia Law Office of Timothy W. Cerniglia 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
Denia Sylve Aiyegbusi Deutsch Kerrigan & Stiles LLP (New Orleans) 755 Magazine Street New Orleans, LA 70130 504−581−5141 Fax: 504−581−5141 Email: denia@deutschkerrigan.com TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Glenn B. Adams Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson (New Orleans) 704 Carondelet St. New Orleans, LA 70130−3774 504−581−3838 Email: gadams@phjlaw.com TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Michael J. Madere Law Offices of Robert D. Ford 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd. Suite 1670 Metairie, LA 70005 504−461−4450 Email: michael.madere@aig.com TERMINATED: 01/27/2012
Ralph R. Alexis , III Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson (New Orleans)

Defendant Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. TERMINATED: 04/18/2017
Defendant Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. TERMINATED: 04/18/2017
Defendant Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C.

704 Carondelet St. New Orleans, LA 70130−3774 504−581−3838 Fax: 504−581−4069 Email: ralexis@phjlaw.com TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
represented by Daniel Edwin Buras , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy W. Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denia Sylve Aiyegbusi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Glenn B. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Michael J. Madere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
represented by Daniel Edwin Buras , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy W. Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denia Sylve Aiyegbusi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Glenn B. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Michael J. Madere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
represented by

Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C. P. O. Box 740037 New Orleans, LA 70174 PRO SE

Kevin Kennedy Gipson Law Office of Kevin K. Gipson 3920 General DeGaulle Dr. New Orleans, LA 70114 504−368−4101 Fax: 504−754−7837 Email: kevinkgipson@gmail.com TERMINATED: 01/30/2009

Defendant Kurella Rao

represented by Kurella Rao P.O. Box 113473 Metairie, LA 70011 PRO SE

Kevin Kennedy Gipson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009

Defendant
J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi

represented by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi c/o Billy Wilks 9136 Heather Lane Moss Point, MS 39562 (228) 475−7387 PRO SE

James G. Curenton , Jr. James G. Curenton, Jr., Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1435 Fairhope, AL 36533 251−928−3993 Email: jim_jcl@bellsouth.net TERMINATED: 12/30/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Emily Stevens Hardin Legrand Law Firm, LLC 3510 N. Causeway Blvd. Suite 604 Metairie, LA 70002 504−304−9499 Email: ehardin@legrandlawfirm.net TERMINATED: 04/26/2010

Johanna Malbrough McMullan Page, Mannino, Peresich & McDermott, PLLC (Jackson) 460 Briarwood Dr. Suite 415 Jackson, MS 39206 601−896−0114 Email: johanna.mcmullan@pmp.org TERMINATED: 02/26/2009

Mack B. Binion Briskman & Binion, PC P. O. Box 43 Mobile, AL 36601

Defendant Global Resources, Inc.

334−443−7600 TERMINATED: 04/26/2010 PRO HAC VICE
Margaret M. Miller Briskman & Binion, PC P. O. Box 43 Mobile, AL 36601 251−433−7600 Email: mmiller@briskman−binion.com TERMINATED: 04/26/2010 PRO HAC VICE
Michael E. Whitehead Page, Mannino, Peresich & McDermott, PLLC (Biloxi) 759 Vieux Marche' Mall P.O. Box 289 Biloxi, MS 39533 228−374−2100 Email: michael.whitehead@pmp.org TERMINATED: 02/26/2009 PRO HAC VICE
Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
represented by Global Resources, Inc. c/o Michael Pol 13 Herring Road Beaumont, MS 39423 (228) 990−0600 PRO SE
Stephen H. Kupperman Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC LL&E Tower 909 Poydras St. Suite 2350 New Orleans, LA 70112 504−589−9700 Email: skupperman@barrassousdin.com TERMINATED: 07/07/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christy C. Harowski City Attorney's Office (New Orleans) 1300 Perdido Street Suite 7E05 New Orleans, LA 70112 504−658−9854 Email: ccharowski@nola.gov TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
Stephen L. Miles Pipes Miles Beckman, LLC 1100 Poydras St. Suite 1800 New Orleans, LA 70163 504−322−7070 Email: smiles@pipesmiles.com TERMINATED: 07/07/2010

Defendant Michael Pol
Defendant Sachin Dewan TERMINATED: 04/26/2017
Defendant Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. TERMINATED: 04/26/2017 also known as Medtech Consultants Defendant Billy R Wilks
Defendant J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC

represented by Michael Pol 13 Herring Road Beaumont, MS 39423 (228) 990−0600 PRO SE
Stephen H. Kupperman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christy C. Harowski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
Stephen L. Miles (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
represented by Stephen H. Shapiro Stephen H. Shapiro, Attorney at Law 700 Camp St. New Orleans, LA 70130 504−309−8442 Email: steve@shapirolaw−nola.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
represented by Stephen H. Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Billy R Wilks 9136 Heather Lane Moss Point, MS 39562 (228) 475−7340 PRO SE
James G. Curenton , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
represented by J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC c/o Billy Wilks

9136 Heather Lane Moss Point, MS 39562 (228) 475−7340 PRO SE

James G. Curenton , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Defendant
Signal International, Inc. Doc. 1706

represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian C. Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/17/2016

Elham Rabbani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D. Ungar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2016

Lance R. Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell P. Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Signal International Texas GP, LLC Doc. 1706

represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian C. Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/17/2016

Elham Rabbani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D. Ungar

Defendant Signal International Texas, L.P. Doc. 1706
Cross Claimant J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2016
Lance R. Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P. Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian C. Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/17/2016
Elham Rabbani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hal D. Ungar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2016
Lance R. Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P. Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi c/o Billy Wilks 9136 Heather Lane Moss Point, MS 39562 (228) 475−7387 PRO SE
James G. Curenton , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Emily Stevens Hardin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/26/2010
Johanna Malbrough McMullan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2009
Mack B. Binion

Cross Claimant World Marine, LLC
Movant Richard I. Prichard, IV TERMINATED:

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/26/2010 PRO HAC VICE
Margaret M. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/26/2010 PRO HAC VICE
Michael E. Whitehead (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2009 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian C. Roux (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elham Rabbani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance R. Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Masur Davis Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, SC (New Orleans) 101 W. Robert E. Lee Blvd., Suite 401 New Orleans, LA 70124 262−673−7850 Email: ldavis@mwl−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P. Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Anne F. Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Louis Keller Courington, Kiefer, Sommers, Marullo & Matherne 616 Girod Street P.O. Box 2350 (70176) New Orleans, LA 70130 504−524−5510 Email: rkeller@courington−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen H. Kupperman (See above for address)

10/03/2008 Movant Capital One, N.A.
Third Party Plaintiff Signal International LLC

TERMINATED: 10/03/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Patrick Johnson , Jr. Akerman LLP (New Orleans) 909 Poydras Street Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 584−9417 Fax: (504) 584−9142 Email: patrick.johnson@akerman.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brent C. Wyatt Akerman LLP (New Orleans) 909 Poydras Street Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 584−9156 Email: brent.wyatt@akerman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian C. Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/17/2016
Dominic Joseph Gianna (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2014
Donald C. Douglas , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2009
Elham Rabbani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elliot Ross Buckley , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/2012
Hal D. Ungar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2016
James L. Cornblatt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance R. Rydberg

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P. Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Anne F. Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul John Mirabile (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2014

V. Third Party Defendant Zito Companies, L.L.C. TERMINATED: 04/07/2009
Cross Claimant Signal International LLC TERMINATED: 01/21/2016

represented by John Christopher Person Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, LLC (Metairie) Lakeway Two 3850 N. Causeway Blvd. Suite 200 Metairie, LA 70002 504−846−7927 Email: jperson@sessions−law.biz LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian C. Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/17/2016
Dominic Joseph Gianna (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2014
Donald C. Douglas , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/31/2009
Elham Rabbani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elliot Ross Buckley , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/09/2012
Hal D. Ungar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2016

James L. Cornblatt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance R. Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P. Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Anne F. Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul John Mirabile (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/19/2014

V. Cross Defendant Malvern C. Burnett
Cross Defendant Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C.

represented by Daniel Edwin Buras , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy W. Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denia Sylve Aiyegbusi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Glenn B. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Michael J. Madere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2012
Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
represented by Daniel Edwin Buras , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy W. Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denia Sylve Aiyegbusi (See above for address)

TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Glenn B. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Michael J. Madere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Cross Defendant
Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.

represented by Daniel Edwin Buras , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy W. Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denia Sylve Aiyegbusi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Glenn B. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Michael J. Madere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Cross Defendant Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C.

represented by Kevin Kennedy Gipson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009

Cross Defendant Kurella Rao

represented by Kurella Rao (See above for address) PRO SE

Kevin Kennedy Gipson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009

Cross Defendant
J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi

represented by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi (See above for address) PRO SE

James G. Curenton , Jr. (See above for address)

Cross Defendant Global Resources, Inc.
Cross Defendant Michael Pol
Cross Defendant Sachin Dewan

TERMINATED: 12/30/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Emily Stevens Hardin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/26/2010
Johanna Malbrough McMullan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2009
Mack B. Binion (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/26/2010 PRO HAC VICE
Margaret M. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/26/2010 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Global Resources, Inc. (See above for address) PRO SE
Stephen H. Kupperman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christy C. Harowski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
Stephen L. Miles (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
represented by Michael Pol (See above for address) PRO SE
Stephen H. Kupperman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christy C. Harowski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
Stephen L. Miles (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
represented by Stephen H. Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Defendant Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Cross Claimant Global Resources, Inc.
Cross Claimant Michael Pol
Cross Claimant Signal International LLC TERMINATED: 01/21/2016

represented by Stephen H. Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Global Resources, Inc. (See above for address) PRO SE
Stephen H. Kupperman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christy C. Harowski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
Stephen L. Miles (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
represented by Michael Pol (See above for address) PRO SE
Stephen H. Kupperman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christy C. Harowski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
Stephen L. Miles (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
represented by Brian C. Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/17/2016
James L. Cornblatt (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance R. Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P. Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Cross Defendant Malvern C. Burnett
Cross Defendant Sachin Dewan
Cross Defendant Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Cross Defendant Global Resources, Inc.
Cross Defendant Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C.

represented by Daniel Edwin Buras , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy W. Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denia Sylve Aiyegbusi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Glenn B. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Michael J. Madere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2012
Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
represented by Stephen H. Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
represented by Stephen H. Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen H. Kupperman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christy C. Harowski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
Stephen L. Miles (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
represented by Daniel Edwin Buras , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy W. Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denia Sylve Aiyegbusi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Glenn B. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Michael J. Madere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Cross Defendant Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C.

represented by Kevin Kennedy Gipson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009

Cross Defendant
J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi

represented by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi (See above for address) PRO SE

James G. Curenton , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Emily Stevens Hardin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/26/2010

Johanna Malbrough McMullan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2009

Mack B. Binion (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/26/2010

Margaret M. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/26/2010

Michael E. Whitehead (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2009

Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Cross Defendant

J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi
Cross Defendant J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC
Cross Defendant Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.
Cross Defendant Michael Pol

represented by J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi (See above for address) PRO SE
James G. Curenton , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Emily Stevens Hardin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/26/2010
Johanna Malbrough McMullan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2009
Mack B. Binion (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/26/2010
Margaret M. Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/26/2010
Michael E. Whitehead (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/26/2009
represented by J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC c/o Billy Wilks 9136 Heather Lane Moss Point, MS 39562 (228) 475−7387 PRO SE
James G. Curenton , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/30/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
represented by Daniel Edwin Buras , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy W. Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen H. Kupperman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
Christy C. Harowski (See above for address)

Cross Defendant Kurella Rao
Cross Claimant Signal International LLC TERMINATED: 01/21/2016

TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
Stephen L. Miles (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010
represented by Kevin Kennedy Gipson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/30/2009

V. Cross Defendant Malvern C. Burnett
Cross Defendant Sachin Dewan
Cross Defendant Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

represented by Daniel Edwin Buras , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy W. Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denia Sylve Aiyegbusi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Glenn B. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
Michael J. Madere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/27/2012
Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
represented by Stephen H. Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012
represented by Stephen H. Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Defendant Global Resources, Inc.

represented by Stephen H. Kupperman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY

Christy C. Harowski (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010

Stephen L. Miles (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2010

Cross Defendant
Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C.

represented by Daniel Edwin Buras , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy W. Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Denia Sylve Aiyegbusi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Glenn B. Adams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Michael J. Madere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Ralph R. Alexis , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2012

Cross Defendant Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C.

Cross Defendant
J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi

Cross Defendant
J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC

Cross Defendant
Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.

represented by Daniel Edwin Buras , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy W. Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Cross Defendant Michael Pol
Cross Defendant Kurella Rao
Cross Defendant Billy R Wilks

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/07/2008 03/07/2008
03/07/2008 03/07/2008 03/07/2008 03/07/2008 03/07/2008 03/10/2008 03/13/2008 03/13/2008 03/13/2008 03/13/2008 03/13/2008 03/13/2008 03/13/2008 03/14/2008 03/17/2008 03/17/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants (Filing fee $ 350.) filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint (Cont)# Exhibit 1# 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(gbw, ) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
2 Summons Issued as to Signal InternationaL LLC, Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C., Kurella Rao, J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi Resources, Inc., Michael Pol, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
7 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Kristi L. Graunke (Filing fee $5. PAID) by all plain (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
9 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Jennifer Rosenbaum (Filing fee $5. PAID) by all p (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
12 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Morris Dees (Filing fee $5. PAID) by all plaintiffs. (Entered: 03/18/2008)
14 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Tushar J. Sheth (Filing fee $5. PAID) by all plainti (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
15 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Daniel Werner (Filing fee $5. PAID) by all plaintif (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
3 RICO STANDING ORDER. By Clerk.(jrc, ) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. served on 3/12/2008. (gbw, ) (Entered 03/14/2008)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Malvern C. Burnett served on 3/12/2008. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. served on 3/12/2008. (gbw, ) (Entere 03/14/2008)
8 ORDER granting 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Kristi L. Graunke.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/1 (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
10 ORDER granting 9 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Jennifer Rosenbaum.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3 (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
18 ORDER granting 14 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Tushar J. Sheth.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/13 (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
19 ORDER granting 15 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Daniel Werner.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/13/ (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
17 ORDER granting 12 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Morris S. Dees.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/13/ (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Signal InternationaL LLC served on 3/10/2008. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
13 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Mary Bauer (Filing fee $5. PAID) by all plaintiffs. Additional attachment(s) added on 3/18/2008 (gbw, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 3/18/2008 (gbw, ). (Entere 03/18/2008)

03/18/2008 03/20/2008
03/24/2008 03/26/2008 03/26/2008
03/26/2008 03/31/2008 04/11/2008 04/14/2008 04/14/2008
04/16/2008 04/16/2008
04/17/2008
04/17/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008 04/18/2008 04/21/2008
04/23/2008 04/23/2008 04/23/2008

16 ORDER granting 13 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Mary C. Bauer.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/17/ (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
20 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint by Malvern C. Burnett, Gu Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(A Ralph) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
21 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint of plaintiffs by Signal InternationaL LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
22 ORDER granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/25/08. (ala, ) (E 03/26/2008)
23 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer as to Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration La Center, L.L.C. and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. answer due 4/21/2008. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zaine 3/26/08. (ala, ) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
24 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File RICO Case Statement by Kurian David. (Attachme Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
25 ORDER granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File RICO Case Statement as set forth in document. Signed b Jay C. Zainey on 3/28/08. (ecm, ) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
26 EXPARTE/CONSENT Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer by Signal International LLC. (Attachm Proposed Order)(Douglas, Donald) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
27 ORDER granting 26 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/11/08. (ala, ) (E 04/14/2008)
28 EXPARTE MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Cente L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) Modified on 4/15/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/14/2008)
29 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint by Global Resources, Inc., Michael (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harowski, Christy) Modified text on 4/17/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/16/2008)
30 ORDER granting 28 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint as to Malvern C. Burnett answer due 5/11/2008; Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. answer due 5/11/2008; Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, answer due 5/11/2008.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/15/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
31 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 29 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Complaint. F attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is 'MOTION for extension of time to answer' and link to complaint. took corrective action by either re−docketing the event or changing the event. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
32 ORDER granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint. Answer due 5/14/08. Signed by Judg Zainey on 4/16/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/17/2008)
33 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Global Resources, Inc. served on 4/4/2008, answer due 4/24/2008. (Graunke, Kris (Entered: 04/18/2008)
34 EXPARTE/CONSENT Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File RICO Case Statement by Kurian David. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
35 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 34 Second MOTION for Extens Time to File RICO Case Statement. (Weinberger, Alan) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
36 EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Kurian David. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # Proposed Pleading Reply Memorandum)(Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 4/21/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/18/2008)
37 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 36 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Filing attorney should changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk m docket text to reflect 'Exparte (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
38 ORDER granting 36 Motion for Leave to File reply memo in support of second motion for extension of time to file case statement. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/21/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
39 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by all plaintiffs re 34 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to F RICO Case Statement. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
40 ORDER granting 34 Motion for Extension of Time until 4/24/08 to File RICO case statement.. Signed by Judge Jay Zainey on 4/22/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/24/2008)

04/24/2008 04/25/2008
04/25/2008 04/28/2008
04/28/2008 04/29/2008 04/29/2008 04/30/2008 05/02/2008 05/02/2008 05/03/2008 05/05/2008
05/07/2008 05/07/2008 05/08/2008 05/08/2008 05/08/2008
05/09/2008 05/09/2008 05/09/2008
05/11/2008 05/12/2008

41 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct Extension Order by Kurian David. (Attachments: # 1 Propose Order)(Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 4/25/2008 (gec, ). (Entered: 04/24/2008)
42 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 41 MOTION to Amend/Correct Extension Order. Filing attorney should ha changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk m docket text. (gec, ) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
43 ORDER granting 41 Motion to Amend/Correct; Plaintiff's RICO Case Statement is due 4/28/08. Signed by Judge Ja Zainey on 4/24/08. (jrc, ) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
44 **DEFICIENT** First AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants filed by Kurian David. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement part II of First Amended Complaint# 2 Exhibit 1, part I# 3 Exhibit 1, part II of III# 4 Exhibit 1 part III o Exhibit 2)(Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 4/29/2008 (gec, ). (Entered: 04/28/2008)
45 RICO Case Statement by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Fraud Chart Part I of 3# 2 Exhibit Fraud Chart, Pa 3# 3 Exhibit Fraud Chart Part 3 of 3)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
46 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 45 RICO Case Statement. Document does not reflect Magistrate Judge. All pleadings must reflect Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III (3). (gec, ) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
47 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants filed by Kurian David. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, part I# Exhibit 1, part II of III# 3 Exhibit 1, part III of III# 4 Exhibit 2)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
48 STIPULATION by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/30/20
49 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Christy Harowski of Summons and Complaint served on Michael Pol on April 30, 2008 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affirmation of Service)(Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 5/5/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/02
52 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Michael Pol served on 4/30/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmation)(gbw, ) Modifie 5/5/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/05/2008)
50 NOTICE by all plaintiffs FLSA Consents to Sue. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 05/03/200
51 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 49 Affidavit of Service. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct eve 'Summons returned executed'. Clerk took corrective action by either re−docketing the event or changing the event. ( (Entered: 05/05/2008)
53 DEFICIENT. SUMMONS Returned Executed; Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C. served on 5/5/2008, answer due 5/27/2008 (Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 5/8/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/07/2008)
54 DEFICIENT. SUMMONS Returned Executed; Kurella Rao served on 5/5/2008, answer due 5/27/2008. (Graunke, K Modified on 5/8/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/07/2008)
55 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Kurella Rao served on 5/5/08. (Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 5/9/2008 (gbw, ). (E 05/08/2008)
56 SUMMONS Returned Executed; (Graunke, Kristi); Indo−Amer Soft LLC served on 5/5/08. Modified on 5/9/2008 ( (Entered: 05/08/2008)
57 EXPARTE/CONSENT Third MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immi Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
58 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 55 Summons Returned Executed. Filing attorney did not select Kurella Rao party served. Clerk added party served. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
59 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 56 Summons Returned Executed. Filing attorney did not select Indo−Amer LLC as the party served. Clerk added the party served. (Entered: 05/09/2008)
60 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against Zito Companies, L.L.C., CROSSCLAIM against Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C., Kurella Rao, J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol, S Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. by Signal International LLC.(Hangartner, Erin) Exhibit added on 5/12/2008 (g Modified on 5/12/2008 (gbw, ). Modified on 5/12/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/09/2008)
61 SUMMONS Returned Executed; J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi served on 5/6/2008, answer due 5/27/2008. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 05/11/2008)
62 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 60 Answer to Amended Complaint, Third Party Complaint, Crossclaim. Ex was subsequently provided to Clerk and has now been attached to the document. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/12/2008)

05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/14/2008 05/19/2008
05/20/2008
05/20/2008 05/21/2008 05/21/2008
05/21/2008 05/22/2008
05/22/2008
05/23/2008 05/24/2008 05/24/2008
05/27/2008
05/30/2008
06/02/2008
06/02/2008 06/03/2008
06/05/2008 06/09/2008

63 Third−Party Summons Issued as to Zito Companies, L.L.C.. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
64 ORDER granting 57 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint. Answer due 5/20/08. Signed by Judg Zainey on 5/9/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
65 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Zito Companies, L.L.C. served on 5/14/2008, answer due 6/3/2008. (Hangartner, E (Entered: 05/14/2008)
66 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Improper Venue, and Failure to Plead Fraud with Particul Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol. Motion Hearing set for 6/11/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Kupperman, Stephen) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
67 EXPARTE/CONSENT Fourth MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Imm Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
68 ORDER granting 67 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 05/2
69 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McMullan, Johanna) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
70 MOTION to Dismiss by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
71 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Malvern C. Burnett regarding 70 MOTION to Dismiss (Alexis, Ralph) Co Image added on 5/22/2008. Modified on 5/22/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/21/2008)
72 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 71 Request/Statement of Oral Argument. Image of document was submitted sideways. All documents must be in PDF format before e−filing. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
73 DEFICIENT. MOTION for Extension of Time to File Class Certification Motion by Kurian David. Motion Hearing 6/11/2008 before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 5/23/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/22/2008)
74 ORDER granting 69 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint. Answer due 6/16/08. Signed by Judg Zainey on 5/23/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
75 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing on Motions to Dismiss to July 9, 2008 by Kurian David. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 05/24/2008)
76 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Class Certification Motion by Kurian David. Motion Hearing set for 6/11/2 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice Hearing)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 05/24/2008)
77 ORDER Resetting Hearing on 66 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Improper Venue, and Fai Plead Fraud with Particularity, 70 MOTION to Dismiss; Motion Hearings set for 7/9/2008 before Judge Jay C. Zai Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 05/27/2008)
78 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 60 Crossclaim by Malvern C. Burnett, G Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) Modified on 6/2/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/30/2008)
79 MOTION to Dismiss Third Party Complaint by Zito Companies, L.L.C.. Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2008 09:00 A before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Person, John) (Ent 06/02/2008)
80 ORDER granting 78 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 06/0
81 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Michael E. Whitehead (Filing fee $5. PAID) by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Affidavit Exhibit C, # 4 Proposed Order)(McMullan, Johanna) Modified on 6/4/2008 (gbw, ). Modified on 6/10/2008 (gec, ). (Entered: 06/03/2008)
82 NOTICE of Change of Address by Kristi L. Graunke on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/05/20
83 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, 47 Amended Complaint by Kurella Rao, Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C..(Gipson, Kevin) (Add attachment(s) added on 6/10/2008: # 1 Certificate of Service) (gec, ). Modified on 6/10/2008 (gec, ). (Entered: 06/0

06/09/2008
06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/10/2008 06/10/2008
06/10/2008 06/13/2008 06/13/2008 06/16/2008
06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/17/2008 06/17/2008
06/17/2008 06/18/2008 06/20/2008 06/23/2008 06/24/2008
06/25/2008

84 **ERROR: FILED AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT; NOW ATTACHED TO REC. DOC. 83** CERTIFICATE O SERVICE by Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C., Kurella Rao re 47 Amended Complaint, 44 Amended Complaint, 1 Compla (Gipson, Kevin) Modified on 6/10/2008 (gec, ). (Entered: 06/09/2008)
88 ORDER granting 81 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Michael E. Whitehead for J & M Associates, Inc Mississippi. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/9/08. (gec, ) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
89 ORDER granting unopposed 76 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Jud C. Zainey on 6/9/08. (gec, ) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
85 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 79 MOTION to Dismiss Third P Complaint. (Douglas, Donald) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
86 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 83 Answer to Complaint, Answer to Amended Complaint. Filing attorney d select Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C. as a filer. Clerk added filer. Filing attorney incorrectly linked document to deficient document (rec. doc. 44). Clerk took corrective action. (gec, ) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
87 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 84 Certificate of Service. Document was incorrectly filed as a separate docu instead of an attachment to document #83. Clerk took corrective action. (gec, ) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
90 STIPULATION by all plaintiffs to Rule 34 inspection (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
91 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by Zito Companies, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Prop Order, # 2 Supplement Reply Brief, # 3 Affidavit)(Person, John) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
92 DEFICIENT. MOTION to Dismiss and Alternatively,, MOTION to Transfer Case by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mis Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(McMullan, Johanna) Modified on 6/17/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/16/2008)
93 ANSWER to 60 Crossclaim by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi.(McMullan, Johanna) Modified on 6/17/2008 (Entered: 06/16/2008)
94 NOTICE by all plaintiffs Filing FLSA consents to sue. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Forms)(Graunke, Kristi) Modifie 6/17/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/16/2008)
95 DUPLICATE DOCUMENT. NOTICE by all plaintiffs File FLSA consent to sue 6−16−08. (Attachments: # 1 Exhi 1)(Graunke, Kristi) Modified on 6/17/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/16/2008)
96 NOTICE by all plaintiffs filing of FLSA consent to sue. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form)(Graunke, Kristi) Modifie 6/17/2008 (gbw, ). Modified on 6/17/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/16/2008)
99 ORDER granting 91 Motion for Leave to File reply memo to motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
97 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 95 Notice (Other). This is a duplicate filing of document 94 and 96 and will noted as such. No further action is necessary. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
98 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively,, MOTION to Transfer Case by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. Motion Hearing set for 7/9/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 No Hearing)(McMullan, Johanna) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
100 REPLY MEMORANDUM filed by Zito Companies, L.L.C. re 79 MOTION to Dismiss Third Party Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(gbw, ) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
101 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi regarding 98 MOTION to Dismiss o Alternatively, MOTION to Transfer Case (McMullan, Johanna) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
102 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue and reset hearing date by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # Proposed Order)(Douglas, Donald) Modified on 6/23/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/20/2008)
103 ORDER Resetting Hearing on 79 MOTION to Dismiss Third Party Complaint ; Motion Hearing set for 7/23/2008 b Judge Jay C. Zainey. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/23/08.(jrc, ) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
104 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue /Re−Set Hearing Date by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigrati Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Ent 06/24/2008)
105 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue /Reset Hearing Date by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. (Attac # 1 Proposed Order Resetting Hearing)(McMullan, Johanna) (Entered: 06/25/2008)

06/25/2008
06/30/2008 06/30/2008
06/30/2008
07/01/2008 07/21/2008 07/22/2008 07/23/2008 07/23/2008 07/24/2008
07/24/2008 07/24/2008 07/24/2008
07/24/2008
07/25/2008 07/31/2008 08/01/2008

106 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines : For an Adjournment of the July 9, 2008 Hearing, Fo Discovery on Jurisdiction and Venue, and for a Scheduling Conference by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padave Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Thanasekar Chellappan, K David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Propo Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
107 ORDER granting 105 MOTION to Continue /Reset Hearing Date filed by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi ; H on 98 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively, MOTION to Transfer Case is reset for 9/17/2008 before Judge Jay C. Z Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/30/08.(gbw, ) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
108 ORDER granting 104 MOTION to Continue /Re−Set Hearing Date filed by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Hearing on 70 MOTION to Dismiss is reset for 9/1 before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/30/08.(gbw, ) Modified to add image on 7/1/2008 (Entered: 07/01/2008)
110 ORDER granting 106 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines : For an Adjournment of the July 9, 2008 Hearing, For Discovery on Jurisdiction and Venue, and for a Scheduling Conference filed by plaintiffs. Hearing on 66 MOTION Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Improper Venue, and Failure to Plead Fraud with Particularity, 70 MO Dismiss, 98 MOTION to Dismiss are reset for 9/17/08. Counsel for plaintiffs shall contact the court with a proposed conference date acceptable to all parties.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/30/08.(gbw, ) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
109 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 108 Order Setting/Resetting Hearing on Motion. Document contained no im Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
111 DEFICIENT. Amended ANSWER to 47 Amended Complaint, by Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C., Kurella Rao.(Gipson, K Modified on 7/22/2008 (gbw, ). Modified on 7/30/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/21/2008)
112 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue and reset hearing date by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # Proposed Order)(Douglas, Donald) Modified on 7/23/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/22/2008)
113 ORDER granting 112 MOTION to Continue 79 MOTION to Dismiss Third Party Complaint; Motion to Dismiss Th Party Complaint reset for 8/20/2008. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/22/08.(jrc, ) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
114 EXPARTE MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 7/24/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/23/2008)
115 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 114 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines. Filing attorney selected incorrec Correct event is motion for extension of time to answer. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. Filing a should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next but Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
116 NOTICE Scheduling Conference set for 9/3/2008 2:00 PM before courtroom deputy by telephone, by Clerk.(jrc, ) ( 07/24/2008)
117 ORDER granting 114 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
118 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Amended and Restated Claims Against Co−Defendants (Cross and Third Party Defendant, Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/25/2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2) (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/24/2008)
119 ERROR: DOCKETED AS SEPARATE DOCUMENT. Amended ANSWER to 44 Amended Complaint,, THIRD P COMPLAINT against Zito Companies, L.L.C., CROSSCLAIM against all defendants by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Hangartner, Erin) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/25/2008: # 3 Main Document) (gbw, ). Modified on 7/25/2008 (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
120 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 119 Answer to Amended Complaint,, Third Party Complaint,, Crossclaim. Document was incorrectly filed as a separate document instead of an attachment to document 119. Clerk took corre action. No further action is needed. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
121 ORDER granting 118 Motion for Leave to File amended and restated claims against co−defendants (cross claims) a party defendant, answer and affirmative defenses to plaintiffs' first amended complaint. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zai 7/31/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
122 AMENDED ANSWER to 47 Amended Complaint, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against Zito Companies, L.L.C CROSSCLAIM against Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center LLC, Law Offices of Malvern C. APC, Indo−Ameri Soft LLC, Kurella Rao, J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, Global Resources, Inc., Michael Po Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt, Ltd. by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit

08/04/2008 08/04/2008 08/05/2008
08/05/2008 08/05/2008 08/05/2008
08/05/2008 08/06/2008 08/06/2008
08/06/2008 08/06/2008 08/06/2008 08/06/2008
08/07/2008 08/07/2008 08/07/2008 08/08/2008

) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
123 MOTION to Dismiss Class Claims by Signal International LLC. Motion Hearing set for 8/20/2008 09:00 AM befor Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Notice of Hearing)(Douglas, Donald) Modified on 8/5/2008 (gbw, ). Request for oral argument docketed separately. (Entered: 08/04/2008)
125 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Signal International LLC regarding 123 MOTION to Dismiss Class Claim ) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
124 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 123 MOTION to Dismiss Class Claims. Filing attorney attached a Request/Statement for Oral Argument to this motion instead of filing it as a separate entry. Clerk took corrective ac separating the request and docketing it as a separate entry. All future requests for oral argument must be filed separa (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
126 DEFICIENT. MOTION for Joinder in Signal International, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Class Claims by J & M Assoc Inc. of Mississippi. Motion Hearing set for 8/20/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (McMullan, Johanna) Modified on 8/5/2008 (gbw, ). Modified on 8/5/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/05/2008)
127 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 126 MOTION for Joinder in Signal International, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Claims. Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/05/2008
128 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines (August 20, 2008 Hearing and Oral Argument) by He Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, (Entered: 08/05/2008)
129 **DEFICIENT** MOTION for Joinder Signal International LLC's Motion to Dismiss Class Claims by J & M Asso Inc. of Mississippi. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(McMullan, Johanna) Modified on 8/6/2008 (gec, ). (Entered: 08/05/
130 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 128 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines (August 20, 2008 Hearing and Oral Argument) . (Douglas, Donald) Modified on 8/7/2008 (gbw, ). (Ente 08/06/2008)
131 NOTICE by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palany Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy of Filing of FLSA Consents to Sue. (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consents ( # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
132 MOTION for Joinder by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion Hearing set for 9/3/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memora in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Alexis, Ralph) Modified on 8/7/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/06/2008)
133 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Joinder by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C..(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(A Ralph) Modified on 8/7/2008 (gbw, ). Modified on 8/7/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/06/2008)
134 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Off Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. regarding 132 MOTION for Joinder (Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
135 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya K Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy re 133 MOTION to Expedite He (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
136 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 132 MOTION for Joinder. Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at th question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district jud Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
137 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 133 MOTION to Expedite Hearing. Filing attorney should have changed 'Y at the question 'Set motion for hearing Y/N?' Exparte/Consent motions are not set for hearing. Clerk has removed he date. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
138 ORDER denying 128 Motion for Extension of August 20, 2008 hearing. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/6/08. (Entered: 08/07/2008)
139 JOINT STIPULATION by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, K Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan S

08/11/2008 08/11/2008 08/11/2008 08/12/2008
08/14/2008 08/18/2008 08/19/2008
08/19/2008 08/20/2008
08/20/2008 08/20/2008
08/29/2008
08/29/2008 09/08/2008 09/08/2008
09/09/2008

Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi re 98 MOTION to D or Alternatively, MOTION to Transfer Case (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 8/11/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/08/2008)
140 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 139 Stipulation. Filing attorney did not select J & M Associates, Inc. of Mis as a filer(s). Clerk added filer(s). (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
141 ANSWER to 122 Amended Cross−claim by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi.(McMullan, Johanna) Modified o 8/11/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/11/2008)
142 ORDER that 133 Motion to Expedite hearing on motion to join in motion to dismiss class claims filed on behalf of International and to dismiss claims filed on behalf of plaintiffs is set without oral argument on 8/20/08. Signed by Ju C. Zainey on 8/7/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
143 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya K Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy re 123 MOTION to Dismiss Cla Claims. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
144 **DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Supplement)(Douglas, Donald) Modified on 8/15/2008 (gec, ). (Entered: 08/14/2008)
145 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply brief in excess pages by Signal International LLC. (Attac # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Supplement)(Douglas, Donald) Modified on 8/19/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/18/2008)
146 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. Motion Hearing set f 9/17/2008 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, # 2 Exhibit A − Affidavit of Sachin Dewan, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Notice of Hearing)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 8/20/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/19/2008)
148 ORDER granting 145 Motion for Leave to File reply brief in Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/19/ (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
147 MOTION for Joinder in Signal International LLC's Motion to Dismiss Class Claims by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. Motion Hearing set for 9/17/2008 9:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # Memorandum in Support, # 3 Notice of Hearing, # 4 Proposed Order)(McMullan, Johanna) Modified hearing judge time on 8/20/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/20/2008)
149 REPLY BRIEF to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 123 MOTION to Dismiss Class Claims (Entered: 08/20/2008)
150 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 147 MOTION for Joinder in Signal International LLC's Motion to Dismiss Claims. Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district judge on 9/17/08 9:00 AM. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
151 ERROR: MOTION WITH MULTIPLE RELIEFS FILED AS ONE RELIEF. EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines (Continue Hearing on Motions to Dismiss and to Extend the Filing Date for Plaintiffs Motio Class Certification) by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krish Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan S Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 9/8/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/29/2008)
154 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing on Motions to Dismiss, MOTION for Extension of Time to Motion for Class Certification by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(gbw, ) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
152 NOTICE Scheduling Conference reset for 10/2/2008 9:45 AM before courtroom deputy by telephone, by Clerk.(jrc (Entered: 09/08/2008)
153 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 151 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines (Continue Hearing on Motions to Dismiss and to Extend the Filing Date for Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification). Filing attorney selected only on for a multiple−relief motion. To select multiple reliefs, you must select all applicable reliefs by pressing the 'control and clicking the additional reliefs before clicking the Next button. Clerk took corrective action by re−docketing the document using the reliefs MOTION to Continue, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Document. (gbw, ) (Ente 09/08/2008)
155 Statement of Corporate Disclosure by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi (McMullan, Johanna) (Entered: 09/09/2

09/11/2008 09/11/2008
09/24/2008
09/29/2008 09/29/2008 09/29/2008 09/30/2008 09/30/2008 09/30/2008 10/01/2008

156 ORDER & REASONS that the 79 Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is DENIED; 123 Motion to Dismiss Class Claims is DENIED; 132 147 Motion for Joinder are DENIED AS MOOT. S by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 9/11/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 09/11/2008)
157 ORDER re 154 MOTION to Continue Hearings and MOTION for Extension of Time to File. Hearings on 66 MOT Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Improper Venue, and Failure to Plead Fraud with Particularity, 70 MO Dismiss, 98 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively, MOTION to Transfer Case and 146 MOTION to Dismiss for La Jurisdiction are CONTINUED to 10/15/2008 on the briefs. The time for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class Cerfification is extended until 10/1/2008. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 9/9/08.(gec, ) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
158 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $5. PAID) by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issa Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Sin Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandh (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Naomi Tsu, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Certif Service)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 9/25/2008 (gbw, ). Modified on 10/1/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/24/2008)
159 ORDER granting 158 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Naomi Tsu.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 9/25/08 (Entered: 09/29/2008)
160 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION For Scheduling Conference With Magistrate Judge by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Douglas, Donald) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
161 Proposed Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan by all parties (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) Modifi 9/30/2008 (gec, ). (Entered: 09/29/2008)
162 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 161 Proposed Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan. Document has been stricken pursu Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d). (gec, ) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
163 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 162 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk as to 161 Proposed Rule 26(f) Dis Plan. Document is no longer stricken. (gec, ) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
164 ORDER granting 160 MOTION For Scheduling Conference With Magistrate Judge filed by Signal International LL Counsel for plaintiffs shall contact M.J. Knowles for a date. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (NEF M.J. Knowles)(jr (Entered: 09/30/2008)
165 MOTION to Certify Class by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Kurian David, S Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Motion Hearing set for 10/29/2008 09 before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Proposed Class # 4 Affidavit Declaration of Daniel Werner, # 5 Exhibit 1: Declaration of Kurian David, # 6 Exhibit 2: Declaration Vasudevan Sulekha, # 7 Exhibit 3: Declaration of Palanyandi Thangamani, # 8 Exhibit 4: Declaration of Murugana Kandhasami, # 9 Exhibit 5: Declaration of Hemant Khuttan, # 10 Exhibit 6: Declaration of Padaveettiyil Issac Andr 11 Exhibit 7: Declaration of Kechuru Dhananjaya, # 12 Exhibit 8: H2B & Employment Based Green Card Program Informational Packet Received by Iqbal Singh, # 13 Exhibit 9: H2B & Employment Based Green Card Program Informational Packet Received by Binu Munnooruvelickal Karunakaran, # 14 Exhibit 10: H2B & Employment Bas Green Card Program Informational Packet Received by Jacob Varughese, # 15 Exhibit 11: H2B & Employment Ba Green Card Program Informational Packet Received by Mahendran Periyasamy, # 16 Exhibit 12: H2B & Employm Based Green Card Program Informational Packet Received by Moorthy Nadhamuni, # 17 Exhibit 13: Dewan Consu Services Agreement Received by Arun Kumar Shaw, # 18 Exhibit 14: Dewan Consultants Services Agreement Rec Chetan Mohan Atkare, # 19 Exhibit 15: Dewan Consultants Services Agreement Received by Kanjiraparambil Mic 20 Exhibit 16: Dewan Consultants Services Agreement Received by Jiji Chandran, # 21 Exhibit 17: Dewan Consult Services Agreement Received by Balan Palani Kumar, # 22 Exhibit 18: Attorney Services Agreement with Malvern Burnett Received by Justin Poulose, # 23 Exhibit 19: Attorney Services Agreement with Malvern C. Burnett Receiv Iqbal Singh, # 24 Exhibit 20: Attorney Services Agreement with Malvern C. Burnett Received by Aby Molathu Pou 25 Exhibit 21: Attorney Services Agreement with Malvern C. Burnett Received by Nataraj Sankar, # 26 Exhibit 22: Attorney Services Agreement with Malvern C. Burnett Received by Jayachandran Nayapulli, # 27 Exhibit 23: Glob Resources Services Agreement with Michael Pol Received by Abdul Atha Mohammad, # 28 Exhibit 24: Global Re Services Agreement with Michael Pol Received by Biju Karingadatitta Gokulan, # 29 Exhibit 25: Global Resources Services Agreement with Michael Pol Received by Jijo Joseph, # 30 Exhibit 26: Global Resources Services Agreem with Michael Pol Received by Benny Chittilappilly Vareed, # 31 Exhibit 27: Global Resources Services Agreement Michael Pol Received by Raveendranathan, # 32 Exhibit 28: Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Agreement for US Permanent Residency/Green Card with Dr. Kurella S. Rao Received by Panikacheri George Daniel, # 33 Exhibit 29: Indo−Am LLC Agreement for US Permanent Residency/Green Card with Dr. Kurella S. Rao Received by Babu Lal Mali, # 3 Exhibit 30: Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Agreement for US Permanent Residency/Green Card with Dr. Kurella S. Rao Re by Kannan Kutty, # 35 Exhibit 31: Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Agreement for US Permanent Residency/Green Card with Kurella S. Rao Received by Kechuru Dhananjaya, # 36 Exhibit 32: Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Agreement for US Perma Residency/Green Card with Dr. Kurella S. Rao Received by Sivakumar Ramakrishnan Nair, # 37 Exhibit 33: J&M Associates Contract for Employment Received by S.K. Paul, # 38 Exhibit 34: J&M Associates Contract for Employ

10/02/2008 10/02/2008
10/03/2008 10/07/2008
10/07/2008 10/07/2008

Received by Abdulla Keepurath Maideen, # 39 Exhibit 35: J&M Associates Contract for Employment Received by Kumar Shaw, # 40 Exhibit 36: Employment Agreement for Signal International Received by Parshottam Ramchand Mangani, # 41 Exhibit 37: Employment Agreement for Signal International Received by Balan Palani Kumar, # 42 38: Employment Agreement for Signal International Received by Kurian David, # 43 Exhibit 39: Employment Agre for Signal International Received by Justin Poulose, # 44 Exhibit 40: Employment Agreement for Signal Internation Received by Abdul Atha Mohammad, # 45 Exhibit 41: ETA 750 Certification Notices for Signal International, # 46 42: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding First Installment Payment for Signal International Received by Aby Karic Raju, # 47 Exhibit 43: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding First Installment Payment for Signal International Rece Adharsan Manuel, # 48 Exhibit 44: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding First Installment Payment for Signal Inter Received by Baby Kutty Shibu, # 49 Exhibit 45: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding First Installment Payment fo International Received by Rentu Devasia, # 50 Exhibit 46: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding First Installment P for Signal International Received by Raju John, # 51 Exhibit 47: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Insta Payment for Signal International Received by Chetan Mohan Atkare, # 52 Exhibit 48: Dewan Consultants Letter Re Second Installment Payment for Signal International Received by Kanjiraparambal Joseph Michael, # 53 Exhibit 49 Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for Signal International Received by Aby Karick Raju, # 54 Exhibit 50: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for Signal International R by Rentu Dvasia, # 55 Exhibit 51: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for Signal International Received by Baby Kutty Shibu, # 56 Exhibit 52: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installm Payment for Indo−Amerisoft, LLC, # 57 Exhibit 53: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Paym Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Siva Kumar, # 58 Exhibit 54: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Inst Payment for Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Saji Chettiyara Baby, # 59 Exhibit 55: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Sabulal Vijayan, # 60 Exhibit 56: D Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Kechuru Dhanan 61 Exhibit 57: Malvern C. Burnetts Update Letter Regarding Green Card Applications on Behalf of Indo−Amerisof Received by Vijayan Nair Sankara Pillai, # 62 Exhibit 58: Malvern C. Burnetts Update Letter Regarding Green Car Applications on Behalf of Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Sandhanam Kanagarayan, # 63 Exhibit 59: Malvern C Burnetts Update Letter Regarding Green Card Applications on Behalf of Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Saji Ch Baby, # 64 Exhibit 60: Malvern C. Burnetts Update Letter Regarding Green Card Applications on Behalf of Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Kechuru Dhananjaya, # 65 Exhibit 61: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Sec Installment Payment for J&M Associates Received by Haridas Sankara Panicker, # 66 Exhibit 62: Dewan Consulta Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for J&M Associates Received by Omana Kuttan Govindan, # 67 Exh Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for J&M Associates Received by Padavettiyil Iss Andrews, # 68 Exhibit 64: Advertisement for Dewan Consultants Seen in Gulf News Provided by Chetan Mohan A 69 Exhibit 65: Advertisement for Dewan Consultants Seen in The Times of India Provided by Iqbal Singh, # 70 Exh Advertisement for Dewan Consultants Provided by Jiji Chandran, # 71 Exhibit 67: Advertisement for Dewan Consu Provided by Joshy Mathai, # 72 Exhibit 68: Advertisement for Dewan Consultants in the Malayalam Manorama Pro by Kulath Somanathan Kalayam, # 73 Exhibit 69: Advertisement for Dewan Consultants Provided by Sony Vasude Sulekha, # 74 Exhibit 70: Advertisement for Dewan Consultants Provided by Thanasekar Chellappan, # 75 Exhibit Advertisement for Dewan Consultants Provided by Moni Panikulangara Thomas, # 76 Exhibit 72: Declaration of A Nair, Outreach Paralegal for the Southern Poverty Law Center, # 77 Exhibit 73: Declaration of Tushar Sheth, Attorn the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 10/2/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered 10/01/2008)
166 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 165 MOTION to Certify Class. Filing attorney incorrectly selected Sabulal Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan as a filer(s). Clerk took co action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
167 ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 10/15/2008 11:00 AM. FURTHER ORDERED that, if any counsel of reco would like to participate by telephone you should contact this Court's staff (504−589−7575) prior to the scheduled conference and provide your name and telephone contact numbers where you can be reached at 11:00 A.M. on Octo 2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.(sek, ) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
168 RESPONSE to Discovery Request by Richard I. Prichard, IV.(Kupperman, Stephen) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
169 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasek Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
170 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Class Certification Hearing by Signal International LLC. (Attachme Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Douglas, Donald) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
171 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Joinder by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 10/07/2008)

10/07/2008 10/07/2008

172 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Joinder in Defendant Signal International LLC's Motion to Continue Class Certification Hearing by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McMullan, Joh (Entered: 10/07/2008)
173 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya K Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy re 146 MOTION to Dismiss for Jurisdiction. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit −Declaration of Daniel Werner, # 2 Exhibit 1: Declaration of Kurian Davi Exhibit 2: Declaration of Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, # 4 Exhibit 3: Declaration of Palanyandi Thangamani, # 5 Exhi Declaration of Muruganantham Kandhasami, # 6 Exhibit 5: Declaration of Hemant Khuttan, # 7 Exhibit 6: Declarat Padaveettiyil Issac Andrews, # 8 Exhibit 7: Declaration of Kechuru Dhananjaya, # 9 Exhibit 8: H2B & Employmen Green Card Program Informational Packet Received by Iqbal Singh, # 10 Exhibit 9: H2B & Employment Based Gr Card Program Informational Packet Received by Binu Munnooruvelickal Karunakaran, # 11 Exhibit 10: H2B & Employment Based Green Card Program Informational Packet Received by Jacob Varughese, # 12 Exhibit 11: H2B Employment Based Green Card Program Informational Packet Received by Mahendran Periyasamy, # 13 Exhibit 1 & Employment Based Green Card Program Informational Packet Received by Moorthy Nadhamuni, # 14 Exhibit 1 Dewan Consultants Services Agreement Received by Arun Kumar Shaw, # 15 Exhibit 14: Dewan Consultants Serv Agreement Received by Chetan Mohan Atkare, # 16 Exhibit 15: Dewan Consultants Services Agreement Received Kanjiraparambil Michael, # 17 Exhibit 16: Dewan Consultants Services Agreement Received by Jiji Chandran, # 18 17: Dewan Consultants Services Agreement Received by Balan Palani Kumar, # 19 Exhibit 18: Attorney Services Agreement with Malvern C. Burnett Received by Justin Poulose, # 20 Exhibit 19: Attorney Services Agreement wit Malvern C. Burnett Received by Iqbal Singh, # 21 Exhibit 20: Attorney Services Agreement with Malvern C. Burne Received by Aby Molathu Poulose, # 22 Exhibit 21: Attorney Services Agreement with Malvern C. Burnett Receiv Nataraj Sankar, # 23 Exhibit 22: Attorney Services Agreement with Malvern C. Burnett Received by Jayachandran Nayapulli, # 24 Exhibit 23: ETA 750 Certification Notices for Signal International, # 25 Exhibit 24: Dewan Consul Letter Regarding First Installment Payment for Signal International Received by Aby Karickathara Raju, # 26 Exhib Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding First Installment Payment for Signal International Received by Adharsan Man 27 Exhibit 26: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding First Installment Payment for Signal International Received by Kutty Shibu, # 28 Exhibit 27: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding First Installment Payment for Signal Internation Received by Rentu Devasia, # 29 Exhibit 28: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding First Installment Payment for Si International Received by Raju John, # 30 Exhibit 29: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Pay for Signal International Received by Chetan Mohan Atkare, # 31 Exhibit 30: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding S Installment Payment for Signal International Received by Kanjiraparambal Joseph Michael, # 32 Exhibit 31: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for Signal International Received by Aby Karickathara R 33 Exhibit 32: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for Signal International Received Rentu Dvasia, # 34 Exhibit 33: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for Signal Interna Received by Baby Kutty Shibu, # 35 Exhibit 34: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment Indo−Amerisoft, LLC, # 36 Exhibit 35: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Siva Kumar, # 37 Exhibit 36: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Inst Payment for Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Saji Chettiyara Baby, # 38 Exhibit 37: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Sabulal Vijayan, # 39 Exhibit 38: D Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Kechuru Dhanan 40 Exhibit 39: Malvern C. Burnetts Update Letter Regarding Green Card Applications on Behalf of Indo−Amerisof Received by Vijayan Nair Sankara Pillai, # 41 Exhibit 40: Malvern C. Burnetts Update Letter Regarding Green Car Applications on Behalf of Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Sandhanam Kanagarayan, # 42 Exhibit 41: Malvern C Burnetts Update Letter Regarding Green Card Applications on Behalf of Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Saji Ch Baby, # 43 Exhibit 42: Malvern C. Burnetts Update Letter Regarding Green Card Applications on Behalf of Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Kechuru Dhananjaya, # 44 Exhibit 43: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Sec Installment Payment for J&M Associates Received by Haridas Sankara Panicker, # 45 Exhibit 44: Dewan Consulta Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for J&M Associates Received by Omana Kuttan Govindan, # 46 Exh Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding Second Installment Payment for J&M Associates Received by Padavettiyil Iss Andrews, # 47 Exhibit 46: Advertisement for Dewan Consultants Seen in Gulf News Provided by Chetan Mohan A 48 Exhibit 47: Advertisement for Dewan Consultants Seen in The Times of India Provided by Iqbal Singh, # 49 Exh Advertisement for Dewan Consultants Provided by Jiji Chandran, # 50 Exhibit 49: Advertisement for Dewan Consu Provided by Joshy Mathai, # 51 Exhibit 50: Advertisement for Dewan Consultants in the Malayalam Manorama Pro by Kulath Somanathan Kalayam, # 52 Exhibit 51: Advertisement for Dewan Consultants Provided by Sony Vasude Sulekha, # 53 Exhibit 52: Advertisement for Dewan Consultants Provided by Thanasekar Chellappan, # 54 Exhibit Advertisement for Dewan Consultants Provided by Moni Panikulangara Thomas, # 55 Exhibit 54: Dewan Consulta Webpage on Permanent Residence Visa (Green Card) Program: http://www.dewanconsultants.com/htm/migrations. 56 Exhibit 55: Louisiana Secretary of State Corporate Filing: Alltech Solutions Inc., # 57 Exhibit 56: Relevant page Deposition of Dr. Kurella Rao, taken on September 11, 2008, in Kurian David, et al, v. Signal International, LLC, e relevant exhibits thereto., # 58 Exhibit 57: Relevant pages from Deposition of Michael Pol, taken on August 27, 200 Kurian David, et al, v. Signal International, LLC, et al., and relevant exhibits thereto., # 59 Exhibit 58: Relevant pag Deposition of Malvern Burnett, taken on September 10, 2008, Kurian David, et al, v. Signal International, LLC, et a relevant exhibits thereto., # 60 Exhibit 59 − PART 1: Answer to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documen

10/07/2008
10/07/2008 10/07/2008 10/08/2008 10/08/2008 10/08/2008 10/08/2008 10/08/2008

Kurella Rao and Indo−Ameri Soft, LLC, and relevant exhibits thereto., # 61 Exhibit 59 − PART 2: Answer to Plain First Request for Production of Documents by Kurella Rao and Indo−Ameri Soft, LLC, and relevant exhibits theret Exhibit 60: Answer to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories by Kurella Rao and Indo America Soft, LLC.)(Werner, (Entered: 10/07/2008)
174 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya K Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy re 66 MOTION to Dismiss for L Personal Jurisdiction, Improper Venue, and Failure to Plead Fraud with Particularity. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Daniel Werner, # 2 Exhibit 1: Declaration of Kurian David, # 3 Exhibit 2: Declaration of Sony Vasu Sulekha, # 4 Exhibit 3: Declaration of Palanyandi Thangamani, # 5 Exhibit 4: Declaration of Muruganantham Kand # 6 Exhibit 5: Declaration of Hemant Khuttan, # 7 Exhibit 6: Declaration of Padaveettiyil Issac Andrews, # 8 Exhib Declaration of Kechuru Dhananjaya, # 9 Exhibit 8: Global Resources Services Agreement with Michael Pol Receiv Abdul Atha Mohammad, # 10 Exhibit 9: Global Resources Services Agreement with Michael Pol Received by Biju Karingadatitta Gokulan, # 11 Exhibit 10: Global Resources Services Agreement with Michael Pol Received by Jijo # 12 Exhibit 11: Global Resources Services Agreement with Michael Pol Received by Benny Chittilappilly Vareed, Exhibit 12: Global Resources Services Agreement with Michael Pol Received by Raveenranathan, # 14 Exhibit 13: 750 Certification Notices for Signal International, # 15 Exhibit 14: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding First Instal Payment for Signal International Received by Aby Karickathara Raju, # 16 Exhibit 15: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding First Installment Payment for Signal International Received by Rentu Devasia, # 17 Exhibit 16: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding First Installment Payment for Signal International Received by Baby Kutty Shibu, # 1 Exhibit 17: Dewan Consultants Letter Regarding First Installment Payment for Signal International Received by Ad Manuel, # 19 Exhibit 18: Malvern C. Burnetts Update Letter Regarding Green Card Applications on Behalf of Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Vijayan Nair Sankara Pillai, # 20 Exhibit 19: Malvern C. Burnetts Update Lette Regarding Green Card Applications on Behalf of Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Sandhanam Kanagarayan, # 2 Exhibit 20: Malvern C. Burnetts Update Letter Regarding Green Card Applications on Behalf of Indo−Amerisoft, L Received by Saji Chettiyara Baby, # 22 Exhibit 21: Malvern C. Burnetts Update Letter Regarding Green Card Appl on Behalf of Indo−Amerisoft, LLC Received by Kechuru Dhananjaya, # 23 Exhibit 22: Relevant pages from Depos Malvern Burnett, taken on September 10, 2008, Kurian David, et al, v. Signal International, LLC, et al., and relevan exhibits thereto., # 24 Exhibit 23: Relevant pages from Deposition of Michael Pol, taken on August 27, 2008, in Ku David, et al, v. Signal International, LLC, et al., and relevant exhibits thereto., # 25 Exhibit 24: Relevant pages from Deposition of Dr. Kurella Rao, taken on September 11, 2008, in Kurian David, et al, v. Signal International, LLC, e relevant exhibits thereto., # 26 Exhibit 25 − PART 1: Answer to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documen Kurella Rao and Indo−Ameri Soft, LLC, and relevant exhibits thereto., # 27 Exhibit 25 − PART 2: Answer to Plain First Request for Production of Documents by Kurella Rao and Indo−Ameri Soft, LLC, and relevant exhibits theret Exhibit 26: Answer to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories by Kurella Rao and Indo America Soft, LLC., # 29 Exhi PART 1: Answer to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents by Michael Pol and Global Resources Inc October 1, 2008., # 30 Exhibit 27 − PART 2: Answer to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents by M Pol and Global Resources Inc., October 1, 2008., # 31 Exhibit 27 − PART 3: Answer to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents by Michael Pol and Global Resources Inc., October 1, 2008.)(Werner, Daniel) Modified o 10/8/2008 (gbw, ). (Part of Doc. #169, OK to file separately per chambers) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/2 # 32 Exhibit 24) (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/07/2008)
175 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re 98 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively, MO to Transfer Case. (Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
176 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re 70 MOTION to Dismiss. (Werner, Daniel) (E 10/08/2008)
177 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 175 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. Name of attorney wh electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log−in and pass serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is necessary. (gbw, ) (Entere 10/08/2008)
178 RESPONSE to Motion filed by all plaintiffs re 170 MOTION to Continue Class Certification Hearing indicating no opposition to the relief set forth in the proposed order. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (E 10/08/2008)
179 ORDER granting 169 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages brief in opp to Global defendants'motion to dismiss. S by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/8/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
180 ORDER granting 171 Motion for Joinder re motion to continue hearing on motion to certify class. Signed by Judge Zainey on 10/8/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/08/2008)
181 ORDER granting 172 J&M's Motion for Joinder re motion to continue class certification hearing. Signed by Judge Zainey on 10/8/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/08/2008)

10/09/2008 10/10/2008 10/10/2008 10/10/2008 10/10/2008 10/10/2008 10/10/2008 10/10/2008 10/14/2008 10/14/2008
10/14/2008 10/14/2008 10/14/2008 10/14/2008 10/14/2008
10/15/2008

182 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing on J&M Associates Inc., of Mississippi's Motion to Dismiss Alternatively, Motion to Transfer by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McM Johanna) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
183 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harowski, Christy) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
184 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum, # 2 Propose Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
185 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing Date and Set Deadline for Filing Reply Memorandum by Sa Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte/Unopposed Motion t Continue Hearing Date and Set Deadline for Filing Reply Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (E 10/10/2008)
186 EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachment Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave of Court to Exceed Page Limitation, # 2 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, S Modified on 10/14/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/10/2008)
187 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing on Their Motion to Dismiss, MOTION for Leave to File Re Sur−Reply Memoranda by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malve Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
188 DEFICIENT. EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dism & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(McMullan, J Modified on 10/14/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/10/2008)
189 ORDER granting 170 MOTION to Continue Class Certification Hearing filed by Signal International LLC. Class certification hearing presently set for 10/29/08 is continued and that the new hearing will be set during the October scheduling conference to be held with Magistrate Judge Knowles. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/8/08.(gbw, Modified on 10/10/2008 (gbw, ). (NEF: Mag. Knowles) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
190 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 186 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Filing attorney should have c 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk modified d text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
191 ORDER granting 182 MOTION to Continue Hearing on J&M Associates Inc., of Mississippi's Motion to Dismiss a Alternatively, Motion to Transfer filed by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. The 98 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively, MOTION to Transfer Case is continued to 11/12/2008. FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's reply plaintifs' opposition due by 10/31/08. Plaintiffs' sur−reply is due by 11/10/08. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/10/08.(gbw, ) Modified on 10/14/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/14/2008)
192 ORDER granting 183 MOTION to Continue Hearing filed by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol. The 66 MOTIO Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Improper Venue, and Failure to Plead Fraud with Particularity is contin 11/12/2008 on the briefs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/10/08.(gbw, ) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
193 ORDER that the 184 Motion for Leave to File a reply to plaintiffs' opposition to the Dewan defendants' motion to d DENIED as premature; the reply must accompany the motion for leave. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/10/08 ) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
194 ORDER granting 185 MOTION to Continue Hearing Date and Set Deadline for Filing Reply Memorandum filed b Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. The 146 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is continued to 11/12/2 FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants Pvt shall file their reply memo with motion seeking leave of court by 11/7/08. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/10/08.(gbw, ) (Entered: 10/14/2008
195 ORDER denying 186 Dewan defendants' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages of reply to plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal juris. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/10/08. (gbw, ) (Entere 10/14/2008)
196 ORDER granting 187 MOTION to Continue Hearing on Their Motion to Dismiss MOTION for Leave to File Reply Sur−Reply Memoranda filed by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of M C. Burnett, A.P.C.. The 70 MOTION to Dismiss is continued to 11/12/2008 on the briefs. FURTHER ORDERED g to file a reply brief with a motion seeking leave of court to plaintiffs' opposition by 10/31/08. FURTHER ORDERE leave is granted to plaintiffs' to move to file a sur−reply of five pages in length in response by 11/10/08. Signed by J Jay C. Zainey on 10/10/08.(gbw, ) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
197 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Take Deposition of to be determined by Signal International LLC. Motion refe Magistrate Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Douglas, Don

10/15/2008
10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/20/2008
10/20/2008 10/20/2008
10/20/2008
10/21/2008 10/21/2008 10/21/2008

Modified on 10/15/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/15/2008)
198 ORDER Setting EXPEDITED TELEPHONE HEARING on 197 MOTION to Take More than Ten Depositions : M Hearing set for 10/24/2008 09:00 AM BY TELEPHONE before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. FURTHE ORDERED that no later than Tuesday, October 21, 2008, plaintiffs shall file any response they may have to the afo motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/15/08.(sek, ) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
199 DOCUMENT STRICKEN*** NOTICE to Take Deposition of Soloman Arava by Signal International LLC.(Hanga Erin) Modified on 10/20/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
200 DOCUMENT STRICKEN*** NOTICE to Take Deposition of Khalfey A. Tayyeeb Aboobaker by Signal Internatio LLC.(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 10/20/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
201 DOCUMENT STRICKEN*** NOTICE to Take Deposition of Bipinbhai Gordhanbhai Patel by Signal Internationa LLC.(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 10/20/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
202 DOCUMENT STRICKEN*** NOTICE to Take Deposition of Yeshwant K. Ghadge by Signal International LLC.(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 10/20/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
203 DOCUMENT STRICKEN*** NOTICE to Take Deposition of Santhosh Kumar Gopinathan Pillai by Signal Intern LLC.(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 10/20/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
204 DOCUMENT STRICKEN*** NOTICE to Take Deposition of Kevin George Kanappilly by Signal International LLC.(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 10/20/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
205 DOCUMENT STRICKEN*** NOTICE to Take Deposition of Paul Stephen Vallentine by Signal International LLC.(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 10/20/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
206 DOCUMENT STRICKEN*** NOTICE to Take Deposition of Ramesh Gunisetti by Signal International LLC.(Han Erin) Modified on 10/20/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
207 DOCUMENT STRICKEN*** NOTICE to Take Deposition of Sankar Thiyagarajan by Signal International LLC.(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 10/20/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
208 DOCUMENT STRICKEN*** NOTICE to Take Deposition of Elangovan Pavadai by Signal International LLC.(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 10/20/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
209 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 203 Notice to Take Deposition, 208 Notice to Take Deposition, 201 Notice Deposition, 204 Notice to Take Deposition, 202 Notice to Take Deposition, 200 Notice to Take Deposition, 207 No Take Deposition, 199 Notice to Take Deposition, 205 Notice to Take Deposition, 206 Notice to Take Deposition. T Documents are stricken pursuant to Rule 5(d) of the FRCP. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
210 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re 197 MOTION to Take Deposition of to be determined. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Certificate of Service)(Tsu, Naomi (Entered: 10/20/2008)
211 MOTION to Quash Notices of Deposition of Unnamed Class Members by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padavee Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasek Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Mot referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 10/29/08 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. K III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Notice of Hea 7 Certificate of service)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 10/21/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/20/2008)
212 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash by Hemant Khuttan, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Sin Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandh Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Underlying motion to quash, # 2 Notice of Hearing Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
213 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 211 MOTION to Quash Notices of Deposition of Unnamed Class Members. Attachments "Underlying motion to quash" and "Notice of Hearing" not necessary for exparte motions. Underlying was already filed as Doc. #211. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
214 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 211 MOTION to Quash Notices of Deposition of Unnamed Class Members. Correction should have been for Doc. #212 not 211. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
215 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 211 MOTION to Quash Notices of Deposition of Unnamed Class Members. attorney selected incorrect hearing date and time. Correct hearing date and time is 11/5/08 11:00 AM (as requested 212). Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/21/2008)

10/21/2008
10/21/2008 10/22/2008 10/22/2008 10/23/2008 10/23/2008
10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008
10/24/2008 10/28/2008 10/28/2008

216 ORDER granting 212 MOTION to Expedite. ORDER Resetting 211 MOTION to Quash Notices of Deposition of U Class Members for EXPEDITED TELEPHONE HEARING set for 10/24/2008 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge E. Knowles III. FURTHER ORDERED that no later than October 22, 2008, Defendant Signal International, LLC sh its opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash. Any ex parte motion to file reply papers and the accompanying reply m filed no later than October 23, 2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/21/08.(sek, ) (Entere 10/21/2008)
217 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of Filing Consents to Sue (53−64). (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consents to Sue: 53−64., # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
218 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Robert Wynne by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issa Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Sin Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandh (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
219 **DEFICIENT** RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 211 MOTION Quash Notices of Deposition of Unnamed Class Members and Reply to Opposition to Motion for Leave to Take Mor 10 Depositions. (Douglas, Donald) Modified on 10/23/2008 (gec, ). (Entered: 10/22/2008)
220 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Kurian David. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Washington, Tracie) Modified on 10/24/2008 (gbw, ). Modified on 10/24/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/23/200
221 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash by H Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Propos Pleading) (Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 10/24/2008 (gbw, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/24/2008: # 2 Propo Order) (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/23/2008)
222 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 220 MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record. Filing attorney should have c 'Y' to 'N' at the question 'Set motion for hearing Y/N?' Exparte/Consent motions are not set for hearing. Clerk has re hearing date. Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magis Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/24
223 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 221 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Signal's Opposition to Plaintiffs' M Quash. Filing attorney did not include a proposed order. Proposed Order subsequently provided to Clerk and has no attached to the motion. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
224 ORDER granting 221 Motion for Leave to File reply re motion to quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Kno III on 10/23/08. (sek, ) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
225 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by all plaintiffs re 211 MOTION to Quash Notices of Deposition of Unnamed Members. (sek, ) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
226 ORDER granting 218 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Robert P. Wynne for Hemant Khuttan, A Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldee Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani and Marugananth Kandhasamy. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/24/08. (gec, ) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
227 SCHEDULING ORDER Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Sched Conference held on 10/24/2008. Counsel are instructed to prepare for trial as set forth in document. Deadlines are a forth in document. ORDERED that the evidentiary hearing regarding class certification is set to commence before t District Judge on Monday, August 10, 2009 at 9:30 A.M. Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/4/2010 10:30 AM befo Jay C. Zainey. Bench Trial set for 2/22/2010 09:30 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Counsel shall contact Magistra Knowles no later than October 15, 2009 for purposes of scheduling a settlement conference which should be held n than January 15, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Pretrial Notice Form) (sek, ) Modified on 10/24/2008 (jrc, ). (Entered: 10/24/2008)
228 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 10/24/200 Ordered that 197 MOTION to Take more than 10 depositions by Signal International LLC is GRANTED; Ordered MOTION to Quash Notices of Deposition of Unnamed Class Members is GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PA set forth in document. (sek, ) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
229 ORDER granting 220 Motion to Enroll Robert P. Wynne as Counsel of Record. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/28/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
230 MOTION to Stay FLSA Claims by Signal International LLC. Motion Hearing set for 11/12/2008 09:00 AM before Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Douglas, D (Entered: 10/28/2008)

10/31/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 11/03/2008
11/03/2008
11/03/2008
11/03/2008
11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/04/2008 11/04/2008 11/04/2008 11/04/2008 11/04/2008 11/04/2008 11/05/2008 11/07/2008

231 RESPONSE to Motion filed by all plaintiffs re 230 MOTION to Stay FLSA Claims Consenting to Motion and Encl Revised Consent Order. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (Proposed Consent Order), # 2 Certificate of Service)(W Daniel) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
232 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support of Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to J&M Associa of Mississippi's Motion to Dismiss)(McMullan, Johanna) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
233 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigr Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed P Reply Memorandum in Response to Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion to Dismiss)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 10/31/200
234 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Anita Jain (Filing fee $5. PAID) by Hemant Khuttan Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappal Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Certificate of Standing, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Ce of Service)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 11/4/2008 (gbw, ). Modified on 11/7/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/03/2008)
235 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice S. Justin Warf (Filing fee $5. PAID) by Hemant Khuttan Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappal Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Standing, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Ce of Service)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 11/4/2008 (gbw, ). Modified on 11/7/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/03/2008)
236 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Sean Gorman (Filing fee $5. PAID) by Hemant Khuttan Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappal Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Standing, # 4 Ce of Service)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 11/4/2008 (gbw, ). Modified on 11/7/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/03/2008)
237 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Vincent J. Davitt (Filing fee $5. PAID) by Hemant K Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappal Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Standing, # 4 Ce of Service)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 11/4/2008 (gbw, ). Modified on 11/7/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/03/2008)
238 ORDER granting 233 Motion for Leave to File reply memo. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/3/08. (gbw, ) (En 11/04/2008)
240 ORDER granting 232 Motion for Leave to File reply memo. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/3/08. (gbw, ) (En 11/04/2008)
239 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offi Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 70 MOTION to Dismiss. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
241 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi re 98 MOTION to Dismiss or Alterna MOTION to Transfer Case. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
243 ORDER granting 234 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Anita Jain.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/4/08. (Entered: 11/06/2008)
244 ORDER granting 235 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Samuel Justin Warf.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/4/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
245 ORDER granting 236 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Sean Gorman.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/4/ (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
246 ORDER granting 237 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Vincent Davitt.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/4 (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
242 NOTICE regarding oral argument requests. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
247 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Dewan Defendants' Motio Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support of Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Reply, # 2 Proposed Pleading Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Mo Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, # 3 Proposed Pleading Exhibit A to Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Mo Dismiss − Affidavit of Sachin Dewan, # 4 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 11/07/2008)

11/07/2008
11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008 11/10/2008
11/10/2008
11/12/2008 11/12/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008

248 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Dewan Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of the Dewan Defendants' Ex Parte Motion to Exceed Page Limitation, Proposed Pleading Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Dewan Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Persona Jurisdiction, # 3 Proposed Pleading Exhibit A to Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Dewan Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction − Affidavit of Sachin Dewan, # 4 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (En 11/07/2008)
249 MOTION to Select Otherwise Qualified Interpreter by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Kn III. Motion Hearing set for 11/26/2008 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Weinberger, Alan) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
250 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Select Otherwise Qualified Interpreter by Sign International LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Weinberger, A (Entered: 11/10/2008)
251 EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol. (Attachments: Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Harowski, Christy) Modified o 11/12/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/10/2008)
252 ORDER granting 247 Motion for Leave to File reply to plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss for la personal juris. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/10/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
253 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 146 MOTION to Dismiss fo of Jurisdiction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(gbw, ) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
254 ORDER granting 248 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages reply to plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to for lack of personal juris. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/10/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
255 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File a Sur−Reply to Defendant J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississipp Memorandum to Plaintiffs Opposition to J&M Associates Motion to Dismiss and Alternatively, Motion to Transfer Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Sur−Reply, # 3 Certif Service)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 11/12/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/10/2008)
256 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File to file a sur−reply to the Reply Memorandum Filed on Behalf o Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC, and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APLC to Pl Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Ke Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Ord Proposed Sur−Reply, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 11/12/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/10/
257 ORDER Setting Hearing on 249 MOTION to Select Otherwise Qualified Interpreter : Motion Hearing set for 11/13 04:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/12/08.(sek, ) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
258 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of Association of Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Ent 11/12/2008)
259 ORDER granting 251 Motion for Leave to File reply memo in excess of 10 pages. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey o 11/12/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
260 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol re 66 MOTION to Dismiss for Personal Jurisdiction, Improper Venue, and Failure to Plead Fraud with Particularity. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(gbw, ) Modified on 11/18/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/13/2008)
261 ORDER granting 255 Motion for Leave to File sur−ply to J&M's reply memo to plaintiffs' opposition re J&M's mot dismiss, alternatively motion to transfer. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/12/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
262 SURREPLY in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re J & M's 98 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively, MOTION to T Case. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
263 ORDER granting 256 Motion for Leave to File surreply to Burnetts' reply memo to plaintiffs' memo in opposition r Motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/12/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
264 SURREPLY in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re Burnetts' 70 MOTION to Dismiss. (gbw, ) Modified on 11/13/20 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/13/2008)

11/13/2008
11/14/2008 11/17/2008 11/19/2008
11/20/2008 11/21/2008 11/26/2008 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 12/01/2008
12/01/2008 12/02/2008 12/02/2008 12/02/2008 12/02/2008

265 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 11/13/200 MOTION to Select Otherwise Qualified Interpreter filed by Signal International LLC is GRANTED. Pursuant to th hearing and the agreement of the parties, Signal's counsel shall submit an order appointing the "otherwise qualified interpreter" as discussed at the time of the hearing. (sek, ) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
266 ORDER re 249 MOTION to Select Otherwise Qualified Interpreter filed by Signal International LLC. Signed by M Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/14/08.(gbw, ) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
268 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $5. PAID) by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Certificate)(gbw, ) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
267 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute the Record, Replacing Ex. 24 of Memorandum of Law in Opposition Defendant Michael Pol and Global Resources, Inc.s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Improper and Failure to Plead Fraud with Particularity (Rec. Doc. 174−25) by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiy Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasek Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 11/20/2008 (caa, ). (Entered: 11/19/2008)
269 ORDER granting 267 Motion to Substitute Transcript Exhibit 24 to Doc. #174. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1 (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
270 ORDER granting 268 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Chandra S. Bhatnagar.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey 11/17/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
271 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Initial Disclosures by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(McMullan, Johanna) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
272 ORDER granting 271 Motion for Extension of Time to File Initial disclosures. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E Knowles, III on 12/1/08. (sek, ) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
273 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Submit Initial Disclosures by Sachin Dewan, Dewa Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 12/2/2008 (gbw, ). (Enter 12/01/2008)
274 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Initial Disclosures by Global Resources, Inc., Mich (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harowski, Christy) Modified on 12/2/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 12/01/2008)
275 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Initial Disclosures by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Is Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Sin Thanasekar Chellappan, Signal International LLC, Zito Companies, L.L.C., Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigr Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol, Sachin Dewa Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Ent 12/01/2008)
276 ORDER granting 274 Global Resources, Inc. & Michael Pol's Motion for Extension of Time to submit Initial disclo until 12/15/08. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/1/08. (sek, ) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
277 ORDER granting 275 Motion for Extension of Time to submit initial disclosures until 12/15/08. Signed by Magistra Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/2/08. (sek, ) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
278 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 273 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Submit Initial Disclosures. Fili attorney did not select Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. as a filer(s). Clerk added filer(s). (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
279 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 274 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Initial Disclosures. Filing attor incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motio be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
280 MOTION for Protective Order by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vija Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vas Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Mot Hearing set for 1/7/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified hearing date & time on 12/3/2008 (gbw, ). Modified on 12/3/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 12/02/2008)

12/02/2008
12/02/2008 12/02/2008 12/02/2008
12/03/2008 12/03/2008 12/04/2008 12/08/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008
12/16/2008 12/16/2008
12/17/2008 12/18/2008
12/19/2008

281 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechu Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
282 CONSENT ORDER re 230 MOTION to Stay FLSA Claims filed by Signal International LLC. Signed by Judge Jay Zainey on 12/2/08.(gbw, ) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
283 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines For Responding to First Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Plaintiffs by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Off Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
285 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 12/2/2008 re 280 Emergency Motion for Protective Order: Pursuant to the hearing, the Court ordered that the deposition of Sa Pillai proceed as scheduled on December 3, 4 and 8 of 2008. However, the undersigned Magistrate Judge reserved u parties the right to file a motion for costs should circumstances warrant. 281 Motion to Expedite is dismissed as mo ) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
284 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 280 MOTION for Protective Order. Filing attorney selected incorrect hearin Correct hearing date is 12/7/08. All underlying motions must be set for next available hearing date from court's web the expedited date. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
286 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 280 MOTION for Protective Order. A correction was previously sent stating Filing attorney selected incorrect hearing date. Correct hearing time is 1/7/09 not 12/7/08. Clerk took corrective acti (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
287 ORDER granting 283 Motion for Extension of Time until 12/22/08 to respond to plaintiffs' first req for prod of docs Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 12/3/08. (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
288 ORDER DENYING 66 , 70 , 98 , 146 Motions to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 12/5/08. (jrc, ) (Enter 12/08/2008)
289 EXPARTE/CONSENT Second MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Submit Initial Disclosures by Sachin Dewa Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Propo Order)(Shapiro, Stephen). OK as filed per mag. chambers. Modified on 12/15/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 12/15/2008)
290 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Initial Disc by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Pr Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
291 DOCUMENT STRICKEN. NOTICE by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi of Service of Rule 26(a)(1)(A) Initial Disclosures. (McMullan, Johanna) Modified on 12/16/2008 (gbw, ). (Entered: 12/15/2008)
292 MOTION for Reconsideration re 288 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,, Order on Motion to Transfer Case, Order on M Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction ;, MOTION for Certificate of Appealability by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt Motion Hearing set for 1/7/2009 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Suppor Notice of Hearing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
293 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 291 Notice (Other). Document has been stricken pursuant to Rule 5(d) of th (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
294 ORDER granting 290 First MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Initial Disclo as to 289 Second MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Submit Initial Disclosures. Expedited Telephone Hearing 12/18/2008 03:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. FURTHER ORDERED that no later than De 17, 2008, plaintiffs shall file any response they may have to the aforesaid motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dani Knowles, III on 12/16/2008.(mmm, ) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
295 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re 289 Second MOTION for Extension of Dead Submit Initial Disclosures. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Dewan Defendants' discovery responses.)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
297 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Telephone Motion Hearing held o 12/18/2008. Granting in part and denying in part 289 Second MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Submit Initial Disclosures; the Dewan Defendants' deadline for submission of Initial Disclosures is extended to 1/9/2009. (gec, ) ( 12/19/2008)
296 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 47 Amended Complaint by Malvern C. Burn Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., J & M Associates, Inc. of Miss Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed

12/22/2008
12/22/2008
12/23/2008 12/29/2008 01/05/2009 01/09/2009
01/12/2009
01/12/2009 01/13/2009 01/19/2009 01/20/2009 01/20/2009 01/20/2009 01/22/2009 01/23/2009 01/28/2009 01/28/2009 01/29/2009

Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
298 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue hearing on Motion to reconsider by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Sin Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandh (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 12/23/2008 (gbw, ). (En 12/22/2008)
300 ORDER granting 296 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 47 Amended Complaint as to Malvern C. Burnet Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C.; Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. ; J & M Associates, Inc. of Mis Global Resources, Inc.; Michael Pol; Sachin Dewan; Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.; answer due 1/19/2009. Signed b Jay C. Zainey on 12/22/08. (rll, ) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
299 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 298 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply. Filing attorney se incorrect event. Correct event is Motion to Continue. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (gbw, ) (E 12/23/2008)
301 ORDER Resetting Hearing on 292 MOTION for Reconsideration; Motion Hearing reset for 1/21/2009 before Judge Zainey. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 12/23/08. (jrc, ) (Entered: 12/29/2008)
302 ORDER granting 273 Motion for Extension of Time to File Initial Disclosures. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1 (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
303 WAITING FOR FEE. EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Alan Howard (Filing fee $5.) Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Na Modified on 1/9/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/09/2009)
304 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya K Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy re 292 MOTION for Reconsider 288 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Transfer Case, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdicti MOTION for Certificate of Appealability. (Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 1/13/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/12/2009)
305 ORDER granting 303 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Alan Bruce Howard.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/13/2009)
306 ANSWER to 47 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand, CROSSCLAIM against Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol b Associates, Inc. of Mississippi.(McMullan, Johanna) Modified on 1/14/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2009)
307 ANSWER to 47 Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol.(Harowski, (Entered: 01/19/2009)
308 ANSWER to 47 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd..(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
309 ANSWER to 47 Amended Complaint by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C..(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
310 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachm 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
311 ORDER granting 310 Motion for Leave to File reply to plaintiffs' opposition to Dewan defendants' motion to recon Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/22/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
312 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 292 MOTION for Reconsid re 288 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Transfer Case, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdi MOTION for Certificate of Appealability. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
313 ORDER denying 292 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 292 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Jay C. Zainey on 1/27/09. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
314 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Kevin K. Gipson as Attorney by Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C., Kurella R (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Gipson, Kevin) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
315 MOTION for Protective Order by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vija Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vas

01/29/2009 01/30/2009 01/30/2009 01/30/2009
02/02/2009 02/02/2009
02/02/2009 02/03/2009 02/10/2009 02/10/2009 02/10/2009 02/10/2009 02/11/2009 02/11/2009 02/17/2009

Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Mot Hearing set for 2/18/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandu Support, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Notice of Hearing)(Wynne, Robert) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
316 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by all plaintiffs regarding 315 MOTION for Protective Order Precluding Inqu with an In Terrorem Effect (Wynne, Robert) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
317 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 315 MOTION for Protective Order, 316 Request/Statement of Oral Argume Name of attorney who electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. Th log−in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is neces (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
318 ORDER granting 314 Motion to Withdraw attorney Kevin Gipson. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/29/09. (jrc, (Entered: 01/30/2009)
319 MOTION to Compel, MOTION for (1) Defendant Indo Ameri Soft, LLC to retain new counsel within 15 days of th of the Courts order on this motion; (2) the Rao Defendants respond to Plaintiffs discovery demands and to serve Ini Disclosures within 30 days of the date of such order; and (3) a default be entered against the Rao Defendants if they timely comply with the Courts order. by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabul Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, S Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge D Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 2/18/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Danie E. Knowles, III. (Attachm 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit /Declaration of Daniel Werner, # 3 Exhibit A # 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C # Proposed Order, # 7 Notice of Hearing, # 8 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 2/2/2009 (gbw, ). ( chambers, refer entire motion to Mag) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
320 ORDER Setting ORAL ARGUMENT on 315 MOTION for Protective Order : Motion Hearing set for 2/18/2009 11 before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/30/09.(sek (Entered: 02/02/2009)
321 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 319 MOTION to Compel MOTION for (1) Defendant Indo Ameri Soft, LL new counsel within 15 days of the date of the Courts order on this motion; (2) the Rao Defendants respond to Plaint discovery demands and to serve Initial Disclosures within 30 days of the date of. Filing attorney should have chang 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the magistrate judge on 2/18/09 11:00 AM. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
322 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 306 Answer to Amended Complaint,, Crossc Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
323 ORDER granting 322 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 306 Answer to Amended Complaint,, Crossclaim Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.; Answ 2/23/2009.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/3/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
324 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 315 MOTION for Protective Or (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Douglas, Donald) (Entered: 02/10/2009)
325 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol re 315 MOTION for Pr Order. (Harowski, Christy) (Entered: 02/10/2009)
326 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 315 MOTION for Protective Order. (Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 02/10/2
327 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 315 MOTIO Protective Order. (Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 2/11/2009 (ecm, ). (Entered: 02/10/2009)
328 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 327 Response to Motion; Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct ev RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event in docket text. (e (Entered: 02/11/2009)
329 MOTION to Dismiss FLSA Claims by Signal International LLC. Motion Hearing set for 3/4/2009 09:00 AM before Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Exhibit)(Douglas, Donald) (E 02/11/2009)
330 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Consolidated Reply by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padave Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasek Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Mot referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Plaintiffs Consolidate Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Their Motion For A Protective Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Dan

02/17/2009 02/17/2009 02/19/2009 02/19/2009 02/19/2009 02/19/2009 02/19/2009 02/23/2009 02/23/2009
02/24/2009 02/25/2009 02/26/2009
02/26/2009 02/26/2009 02/26/2009 02/26/2009 02/27/2009 03/02/2009

(Entered: 02/17/2009)
331 ORDER granting 330 Motion for Leave to File reply re motion for protective order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Da Knowles, III on 2/17/09. (sek, ) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
332 CONSOLIDATED REPLY in support of Motion filed by all plaintiffs re 315 MOTION for Protective Order. (sek, (Entered: 02/17/2009)
333 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Johanna M. McMullan and Michael E. Whitehead as Attorney by J& Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Withdraw Counsel)(McMullan, Johanna) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
334 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File sur−reply brief and exhibit by Signal International LLC. Motio referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Exhibit)(Douglas Donald) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
335 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re 334 MOTION for Leave to File sur−reply br exhibit. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
336 ORDER granting 334 Motion for Leave to File sur−reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 2/ (sek, ) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
337 SUR−REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 315 MOTION for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(sek, ) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
338 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 306 Answer to Amended Complaint,, Crossc Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
339 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing on Defendant Signal International, LLCs Motion to Dismiss Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: 5th Cir. Motion for Extension, # 2 Exhibi Electronic Mail −− Werner to all counsel, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered 02/23/2009)
340 RESPONSE to Motion filed by all plaintiffs re 333 MOTION to Withdraw Johanna M. McMullan and Michael E. Whitehead as Attorney. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi Privileged Document Log Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
341 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 306 Crossclaim of J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harowski, Christy) Modifie 2/26/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/25/2009)
342 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 341 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer Cross−claim of J&M Asso Inc. of Mississippi. Document should have been linked to another document by checking the box 'Should the docum are filing link to another document' OR by selecting a related document on other appropriate screen. Clerk took corr action by linking document to document 306.' (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
343 ORDER granting 338 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 306 Crossclaim, as to Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf C Immigration Law Center, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.; Answer due 3/2/2009.. Signed by Judge Jay C Zainey on 2/25/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
344 ORDER granting 333 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Johanna Malbrough McMullan and Michael E. Whitehead terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/20/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
345 ORDER granting 341 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 306 Crossclaim as to Global Resources, Michael Answer due 2/27/2009.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/26/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
346 ORDER granting 339 Motion to Continue Hearing on 329 MOTION to Dismiss FLSA Claims; Motion Hearing con to 4/1/2009 on the briefs.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/25/09.(gbw, ) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
347 ANSWER to 306 Crossclaim, by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol.(Harowski, Christy) Modified on 3/2/2009 (g (Entered: 02/27/2009)
348 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 306 Answer to Amended Complaint,, Crossc Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 03/02/2009)

03/03/2009 03/06/2009
03/10/2009
03/11/2009 03/11/2009 03/12/2009 03/13/2009 03/13/2009 03/15/2009 03/16/2009 03/17/2009 03/18/2009 03/19/2009 03/21/2009
03/23/2009 03/31/2009 03/31/2009

349 ORDER granting 348 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/3/09. (jrc, ) (E 03/04/2009)
350 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of Filing Consents to Sue. (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent Forms 65−89, # 2 FLSA Con Forms 90−114, # 3 FLSA Consent Forms 115−139, # 4 FLSA Consent Forms 140−164, # 5 FLSA Consent Forms 156−189, # 6 FLSA Consent Forms 190−214, # 7 FLSA Consent Forms 215−228, # 8 Certificate of Service)(Wern Daniel) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
351 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Change Trial Attorney Designation by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveet Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasek Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
352 ORDER granting 351 Motion to Re−designate Alan Howard as Trial Attorney for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Jay C Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
353 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of Filing Consents to Sue (229−232). (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent Forms 229−232, # Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
354 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute /Change Trial Attorney Designation by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Change Trial Attorney Designation)(Douglas, Donald) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
355 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of Filing Consents to Sue (233−245). (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent Forms 233−245, # Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
356 DEFICIENT. CROSSCLAIM against J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi filed by Global Resources, Inc., Micha Pol.(Harowski, Christy) Modified on 3/16/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/13/2009)
357 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of Filing Consent to Sue (246). (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent Form 246, # 2 Certificat Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/15/2009)
358 ORDER granting 354 Signal's Motion to Change Trial Attorney Designation of Attorney Erin Casey Hangartner. Si Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/16/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
359 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Crossclaim by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol. (Attachmen Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Crossclaim Against J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi)(Harowski, Christ (Entered: 03/17/2009)
360 ORDER granting 359 Motion for Leave to File cross−claim against J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. Signed by Jay C. Zainey on 3/18/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
361 CROSSCLAIM against J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi filed by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol.(gbw, ) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
362 EXPARTE/CONSENT Second MOTION to Continue Hearing on Defendant Signal International, LLCs Motion to by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Jos Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5th Cir. letter ordering response to En Banc # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/21/2009)
363 ORDER Resetting Hearing on 329 MOTION to Dismiss FLSA Claims; Motion Hearing reset for 4/15/2009 before J Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
364 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 306 Answer to Amended Complaint,, Crossc Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
365 MOTION to Quash Defendant Signal International, LLCs Notice of Deposition of Thirty−Nine Absent Class Memb Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 4/15/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # Affidavit (Declaration) of Daniel Werner in Support of Motion, # 3 Exhibit 1 to Werner Decl.: Jan. 30, 2009 Notice by Def. Signal Intl, LLC., # 4 Exhibit 2 to Werner Decl.: Nov. 30, 2008 Werner−Hangartner electronic mail messag Affidavit (Declaration) of Viridiana Guido in Support of Motion, # 6 Exhibit A to Guido Decl.: August 14, 2008 Af of Defendant Sachin Dewan − Signature Page, # 7 Exhibit B to Guido Decl.: Response of Burnett Defendants to Pla First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Signature Page, # 8 Exhibit C to Guido Decl.: Excerpts from August 27, 2008 Deposition of Michael Pol, and Exhibit 10 Thereto, # 9 Exhibit D to Guido Decl.: E from September 11, 2008 Deposition of Kurella Rao, and Exhibit 3 Thereto, # 10 Notice of Hearing, # 11 Certificat

04/02/2009 04/02/2009 04/02/2009 04/02/2009 04/02/2009 04/02/2009 04/02/2009
04/03/2009
04/03/2009 04/03/2009 04/03/2009 04/03/2009
04/06/2009 04/06/2009 04/06/2009 04/06/2009 04/07/2009

Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
366 EXPARTE MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. (Attachments: # 1 P Order)(Hardin, Emily) Modified on 4/3/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/02/2009)
367 ORDER & REASONS granting 315 Motion for Protective Order; dismissing as premature 319 Motion to Compel w prejudice as to plaintiffs right to reurge same after there is a determination of counsel as to Indo−Ameri Soft LLC a Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 4/2/09. (sek, ) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
368 ORDER Setting ORAL ARGUMENT on 365 MOTION to Quash Defendant Signal International, LLCs Notice of Deposition of Thirty−Nine Absent Class Members : Motion Hearing set for 4/15/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 4/2/09.(sek, ) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
369 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration L Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Ent 04/02/2009)
372 ORDER granting 366 Motion to Enroll Attorney Emily Stevens Hardin for J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. S by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/2/09. (jrc, ) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
373 ORDER granting 369 Motion to Enroll Glenn Adams, Michael Madere and Denia Aiyegbusi as Co−Counsel of Rec Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. S by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/2/09. (jrc, ) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
378 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Discovery Status Conference he 4/2/2009. Ordered that 365 MOTION to Quash Defendant Signal International, LLCs Notice of Deposition of Thirt Absent Class Members is RESET for ORAL ARGUMENT on 4/8/2009 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Danie Knowles III. (sek, ) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
370 ORDER: A telephone hearing was conducted by the undersigned Magistrate Judge on February 18, 2009 date regar Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order (Doc. #315) and Motion to Compel (Doc. #319). The conference was record Clerk of Court's Court Reporter Section is hereby directed to take possession of the cassette tape of the conference a same. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 4/3/09. (NEF: Court Reporter Section)(sek, ) (Entered 04/03/2009)
371 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 366 MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record. Filing attorney should have c 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk modified d text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
374 EXPARTE MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Margaret M. Miller (PAID: Filing fee $5.) by J & M Associates Mississippi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Affidavit)(Hardin, Emily) Mo on 4/6/2009 (cms, ). (Entered: 04/03/2009)
375 EXPARTE MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Mack B. Binion (PAID: Filing fee $5.) by J & M Associates, In Mississippi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Affidavit)(Hardin, Emily) Mo on 4/6/2009 (cms, ). (Entered: 04/03/2009)
376 EXPARTE/CONSENT Third MOTION to Continue Hearing on Signal's Motion to Dismiss FLSA Claims by Hema Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 04/03/2009
377 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 374 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $5.), 375 MOTION to Ap Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $5.); Filing attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Cons Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (cms, ) (Entered: 04/0
379 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Dismiss Third Party Claims by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 P Order)(Douglas, Donald) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
380 ORDER granting 374 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Margaret M. Miller for J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/3/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
381 ORDER granting 375 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Mack B. Binion for J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/3/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
388 ORDER that on or before 4/30/09, Indo−Ameri Soft, LLC shall enroll counsel to represent it in this matter. Signed Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/7/09.(jrc, ) (Entered: 04/08/2009)

04/07/2009 04/07/2009 04/08/2009 04/08/2009 04/08/2009
04/08/2009 04/08/2009 04/09/2009 04/09/2009 04/13/2009 04/13/2009 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 04/20/2009 04/24/2009
04/24/2009
04/24/2009 04/26/2009

391 ORDER granting 379 Signal International, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Third Party Claims against Zito Companies, L Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/7/09. (rll, ) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
394 ORDER: This court does not continue motions without date; 329 Motion to Dismiss is dismissed without prejudice, refiled within 10 days of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Castellanes−Contreras. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/ (rll, ) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
386 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 365 MOTION to Quash Defend Signal International, LLCs Notice of Deposition of Thirty−Nine Absent Class Members. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Douglas, Donald) (Entered: 04/08/2009)
387 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines To File Objections by Signal International LLC. Moti referred to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Douglas, Donald) Modified refer on 4/9/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/08/2009)
389 ORDER: A telephone hearing was conducted by the undersigned Magistrate Judge on April 8, 2009 regarding Plain Motion to Quash Notice of Deposition of Thirty−Nine Absent Class Members (Doc. #365). The conference was rec The Clerk of Court's Court Reporter Section is hereby directed to take possession of the cassette tape of the confere hold same. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 4/8/09. (NEF: Court Reporter Section)(sek, ) (En 04/08/2009)
392 ORDER granting 387 dft Signal International, LLC's Motion for Extension of Deadlines to File Objections as set fo therein. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/8/09. (rll, ) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
393 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 4/8/2009 365 MOTION to Quash Defendant Signal International, LLCs Notice of Deposition of Thirty−Nine Absent Class M (mmm, ) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
390 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 387 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines To File Objections. Filing attorne should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This mot be decided by the magistrate judge. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
395 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Joinder by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malv Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 04/09/2009)
408 ANSWER to 306 J & M Associates, Inc, of Mississippi's Crossclaim by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Malvern C. Burnett.(Alexis, Ralph) Modified on 4/14/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered 04/13/2009)
409 ORDER granting 395 Motion for Joinder. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/13/09. (jrc, ) (Entered: 04/14/2009)
414 ORDER granting 364 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 306 J&M's Crossclaim as to Malvern C. Burnett, Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.; Answer due 4/13/2009.. Signed Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/14/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
415 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of Filing Consents to Sue (247−251). (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent Forms 247−251, # Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
418 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of Withdrawal of FLSA Consent Forms. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, (Entered: 04/20/2009)
424 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 367 Order on Motion for Prote Order, Order on Motion to Compel by Signal International LLC. Motion Hearing set for 5/13/2009 09:00 AM befor Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Notice of Hearing, # 4 certifi # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit)(Douglas, Donald) Modified on 4/27/2009 (gbw, ). Request for oral argument docketed separa Modified on 4/27/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/24/2009)
425 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Hemant Khuttan, Dhananjaya K Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Ord Naomi) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
429 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Signal International LLC regarding 424 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 367 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motio Compel. (gbw, ) Modified text on 4/27/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/27/2009)
426 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 367 Order on Motion for Prote Order, Order on Motion to Compel by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offic Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion Hearing set for 5/13/2009 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments

04/26/2009 04/27/2009
04/27/2009 04/27/2009 04/28/2009 04/28/2009
04/29/2009 04/29/2009 04/30/2009 05/01/2009 05/04/2009
05/04/2009 05/05/2009 05/05/2009

Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Notice of Hearing, # 4 Local Rule 74.1E Certification)(Adams, Glenn) M text on 4/27/2009 (gbw, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/1/2009: # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C) (gbw, ). (Ent 04/26/2009)
427 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Off Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. regarding 426 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to Distr Court re 367 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motion to Compel. (Adams, Glenn) Modified text on 4/27/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/26/2009)
428 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 424 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to Dis Court. Document should have been linked to another document by checking the box 'Should the document you are f link to another document' OR by selecting a related document on other appropriate screen. Clerk took corrective act linking document to document #367.'Filing attorney attached a Request/Statement for Oral Argument to this motion of filing it as a separate entry. Clerk took corrective action by separating the request and docketing it as a separate e future requests for oral argument must be filed separately. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
431 NOTICE regarding oral argument on 424 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION filed by 426 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION filed by The Burnett Defendants. By Clerk.(jr (Entered: 04/27/2009)
432 NOTICE by all plaintiffs filing FLSA consent to sue of Rajendran Subramani. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 certifi service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
433 ORDER granting 425 MOTION for Extension of Time of Deadlines. Class Certification Hearing set for 9/10/2009 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/27/09.(gbw, ) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
434 MOTION to Compel documents and testimony withheld through improper assertions of attorney−client privilege a product protection by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krisha Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan S Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion Hear for 5/13/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Hearing, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 1 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibi Exhibit)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 04/29/2009)
435 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 434 MOTION to Compel documents and testimony withheld through improper assertions of attorney−client privilege and work product protection : Motion Hearing set with oral argument for 5/1 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 4/28/09.(plh, ) (Entered: 04/29/2009)
436 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits to Objection to and Appeal From April 02, 2009 Order Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Adams, Glenn) (Entered: 04/29/2009)
438 ORDER granting 436 Motion for Leave to File exhibits to objection to and appeal from order by magistrate judge. S by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/30/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
437 ANSWER to 361 Crossclaim by J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi.(Miller, Margaret) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
439 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to defendants' objections re 424 MOTIO APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court, 426 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRAT JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 367 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motion to Compel by Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 5/5/2009 ). (Entered: 05/04/2009)
440 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel by Malvern C. Burnett, Gul Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Know (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Adams, Glenn) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
443 ORDER Resetting Hearing on 434 MOTION to Compel : Motion Hearing RESET for 5/27/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 5/5/09.(sek, ) (Ente 05/05/2009)
444 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel by Global Resources, Inc., Pol. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kupperman, Stephen) (Entere 05/05/2009)

05/06/2009 05/06/2009 05/07/2009 05/13/2009
05/19/2009
05/19/2009
05/19/2009
05/21/2009 05/21/2009 05/22/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/26/2009 05/27/2009 05/27/2009 05/28/2009 05/29/2009
06/01/2009

447 ORDER granting 439 Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Objections to Mag. Judge O & R. Signed Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) Modified on 5/6/2009 (jrc, ). (Entered: 05/06/2009)
448 DEFICIENT. EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $5.) by Kurian David. (Attachm 1 Affidavit Declaration of Hugh Sandler, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Washington, Tracie) Modified on 5/ (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/06/2009)
449 ORDER Status Conference by telephone set for 5/13/2009 11:15 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 05/07/2009)
452 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 5/13/2009. ORDERED th 5/31/09, Indo−Ameri Soft LLC enroll counsel in accordance with the Court's 4/7/09, order (Rec. Doc. 388); FURTH ORDERED that Dr. Rao shall respond to all outstanding discovery propounded by plaintiffs by 5/31/09. FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for each party shall provide Dr. Rao their contact information via certified mail and shall f copy of the receipt card into the record. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/14/2009)
458 NOTICE of service on Kurella Rao of plaintiffs' counsels' contact information, and of Plaintiffs First Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants Indo−Amerisoft, L.L.C. and Kurella Rao by all plaintiffs re 452 Order (Attachments: # 1 Mailing label, sales receipt, and signed return receipt card, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Da Modified on 5/19/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/19/2009)
459 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 434 MOTION to Compel documents and testimony withheld through improper assertions of attorney−client privilege and work product protection. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exh # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
460 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re 424 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRA JUDGE DECISION to District Court, 426 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to Distr Court re 367 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motion to Compel. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Decla Tushar J. Sheth, # 2 Exhibit Ex A to Sheth Decl: Padaveettiyl Dep, # 3 Exhibit Ex. B to Sheth Decl.: Khuttan Dep., Exhibit Ex. C to Sheth Decl.: Thangamani Dep., # 5 Exhibit Ex. D to Sheth Decl.: Sulekha Dep., # 6 Exhibit Ex. E Decl.: David Dep., # 7 Exhibit Ex. F to Sheth Decl.: Signal DOL App)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 5/20/2009 (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/19/2009)
461 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol. Motion(s) referred Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harowski, Christy) (Entered: 05/21/2009)
462 NOTICE by Signal International LLC of Service to Dr. Rao. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Service to Defendant)(Do Donald) (Entered: 05/21/2009)
463 ORDER Resetting Hearing on 434 MOTION to Compel documents and testimony withheld through improper asser attorney−client privilege and work product protection : Motion Hearing RESET for 6/10/2009 11:00 AM before M Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 5/22/09.(sek, ) (Entered: 05/22
465 Notice of Compliance by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi re 452 Status Conference. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibi to Kurella Rao with certified mail)(Miller, Margaret) Modified linkage on 5/27/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/26/2009)
466 Notice of Compliance by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol re 452 Status Conference,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Kupperman, Stephen) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
467 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Pro Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Douglas, Donald) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
468 Notice of Compliance by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern Burnett, A.P.C. re 452 Status Conference,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 05/26/2009)
469 Statement of Corporate Disclosure by Signal International LLC (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/27/2009)
470 ORDER granting 467 Motion for Leave to File reply brief. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 5/27/09. (gbw, ) (Ente 05/28/2009)
471 Reply Memorandum by Signal International LLC in support of FRCP 72 Objections. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
472 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Robert P. Wynne as Attorney by Hemant Khuttan, Dhananjaya Kec Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wynne, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
473 Notice of Compliance by Signal International LLC re 452 Status Conference,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bollman Patricia) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

06/01/2009 06/02/2009 06/02/2009 06/08/2009
06/08/2009 06/09/2009 06/09/2009
06/09/2009 06/09/2009
06/09/2009 06/10/2009
06/10/2009 06/10/2009 06/11/2009
06/12/2009 06/12/2009 06/16/2009 06/16/2009 06/18/2009
06/18/2009
06/22/2009

475 ORDER granting 472 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Robert P. Wynne terminated. Signed by Judge Jay Zainey on 6/1/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/02/2009)
476 ORDER denying 424 , 426 MOTIONs for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION. Signed by Judge Jay Zainey on 6/2/09. (jrc, ) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
477 ORDER that all claims and defenses of Indo−Ameri Soft, LLC are stricken due to its failure to comply with Court's Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/2/09.(jrc, ) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
479 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $5. PAID) by Kurian David. (Attachments: # Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Hugh Sandler, # 3 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Washington, Tracie) Modified on 6/15/2009 (gbw, ). Modified to fee paid on 6/17/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/08/2009)
480 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Anita Jain, Samuel Justin Warf, Sean Gorman, and Vincent Davitt a Attorney by Kurian David. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Washington, Tracie) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
481 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of Filing Consent to Sue (253). (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent Form 253, # 2 Certificat Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 06/09/2009)
482 ORDER Resetting ORAL ARGUMENT on 434 MOTION to Compel : Motion Hearing RESET for 6/24/2009 10:3 before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 6/9/09.(sek, (Entered: 06/09/2009)
483 ORDER granting 480 Motion to Withdraw attorneys Anita Jain; Samuel Justin Warf; Vincent Davitt and Sean Gorm plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/9/09. (jrc, ) (Entered: 06/10/2009)
486 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Joint Motion to Stay by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
488 Joint Motion to Stay. (gbw, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/16/2009: # 4 Exhibit) (gbw, ). Modified on 6/16 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/12/2009)
484 Notice of Compliance by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 452 Status Conference. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, Certified Mail Receipt, Green Card Receipt)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified to add linkage on 6/11/2009 (gbw, (Entered: 06/10/2009)
487 ORDER granting 486 Motion to Seal Joint Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/10/09. (gbw, ) (Ent 06/12/2009)
494 ORDER granting 479 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Hugh Daniel Sandler.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey o 6/9/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
485 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 484 Notice of Compliance. Document should have been linked to another d by checking the box 'Should the document you are filing link to another document' OR by selecting a related docum other appropriate screen. Clerk took corrective action by linking document to document #452.' (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/11/2009)
489 Motion to Supplement Record re Motion to Stay. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
491 OBJECTION to Subpoena by Kurella Rao. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
490 ORDER granting Motion to Supplement Record. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
493 Opposition to Motion to Stay. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
492 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Request for Oral Argument on Defendants' Joint Mot Stay by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jaco Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palany Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
495 ORDER granting 492 Motion for Leave to File Request for Oral Argument. The Court will determine whether it wi entertain oral argument after reviewing each party's submissions. If the Court grants oral argument then a separate o will be entered containing the specific date and time that counsel are toappear. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, (Entered: 06/18/2009)
496 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Docu by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Jos

06/22/2009 06/22/2009 06/22/2009
06/22/2009 06/23/2009
06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/23/2009 06/24/2009 06/24/2009 06/24/2009
06/30/2009
07/01/2009
07/09/2009

Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Propos Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Documents, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Tushar J. Sheth, # 4 Exhibit A to Sheth Decl., Miller to Tsu email 6/1/09, # 5 Exhibit B to Sheth Dec Kupperman to Werner email 6/2/09, # 6 Exhibit C to Sheth Decl., Kupperman to Werner email 5/19/09, # 7 Exhibit Sheth Decl., Werner to Kupperman email 6/2/09, # 8 Exhibit E to Sheth Decl., Harowski to Tsu email 4/15/09, # 9 F to Sheth Decl., Harowski to Tsu email 4/28/09)(Sheth, Tushar) Modified on 6/23/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/22/2
497 Statement by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol Regarding Privilege (Harowski, Christy) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
498 ORDER granting 496 plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File reply re motion to compel production of documents. Sign Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 6/22/09. (sek, ) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
499 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by all plaintiffs re 434 MOTION to Compel documents and testimo withheld through improper assertions of attorney−client privilege and work product protection. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(sek, ) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
506 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memo re Motion to Stay. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
500 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 496 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Compe Production of Documents. Filing attorney should have changed 'Y' to 'N' at the question 'Set motion for hearing Y/N Exparte/Consent motions are NOT set for hearing. Clerk has removed hearing date. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
501 ORDER AND REASONS denying 488 Joint Motion to Stay (jrc, ) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
502 Motion for Leave to File sur−reply re Motion for Stay. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
507 ORDER granting (506) Motion for Leave to File Reply Memo re Motion to Stay. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
508 Reply Memo in Support of Motion to Stay. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
509 Motion for Leave to File Sur−rebuttal to sur−reply reply memo re Motion to Stay. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
510 ORDER granting (509) Motion for Leave to File Sur−rebuttal to sur−reply memo re Motion to Stay. (gbw, ) (Entere 06/24/2009)
511 Sur−rebuttal Memo in response to sur−reply memo re Motion to Stay. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
503 ORDER granting Motion for Leave to File Sur−reply re Motion to Stay. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
504 Sur−reply in Opposition to Motion to Stay. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
505 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 6/24/2009 Ordered that 434 plaintiffs' MOTION to Compel Privilege Log Documents (Doc. #434) is MOOT; FURTHER ORD that all of the defendants shall meet with the Plaintiffs' counsel and, no later than Wednesday, July 1, 2009, each of defendants shall individually advise the Court via letter of volume of documentation that remains to be produced an reasonable estimate as to how much more time will be required to complete the production. FURTHER ORDERED absent an agreement with respect to scheduling deposition discovery vis a vis the defendants regarding class certific issues, plaintiffs shall file the appropriate motion to compel. (sek, ) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
512 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Depositions From All Defendants by Hemant Khuttan, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Sin Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandh Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 7/15/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Hearing, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Affidavit Decl. of Alan How Affidavit Decl. of Tushar J. Sheth, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Exhibit D, # 9 Exhibit E, # 10 Ex # 11 Exhibit G, # 12 Exhibit H, # 13 Exhibit I, # 14 Exhibit J, # 15 Exhibit K, # 16 Exhibit L, # 17 Exhibit M, # 18 N, # 19 Exhibit O, # 20 Exhibit P, # 21 Exhibit Q, # 22 Exhibit R, # 23 Exhibit S, # 24 Exhibit T, # 25 Exhibit U, # Exhibit V, # 27 Exhibit W, # 28 Exhibit X, # 29 Exhibit Y, # 30 Exhibit Z, # 31 Exhibit AA, # 32 Exhibit BB, # 33 CC, # 34 Exhibit DD, # 35 Exhibit EE)(Sheth, Tushar) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
513 ORDER Setting ORAL ARGUMENT on 512 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Depositions From Defendants : Motion Hearing set for 7/22/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed b Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/1/09.(sek, ) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
516 ERROR: MOTION WITH MULTIPLE RELIEFS FILED AS ONE RELIEF. EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTIO Continue Hearing on Motion to Compel and For Status Conference by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referred Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modifi

07/09/2009 07/09/2009 07/10/2009
07/10/2009
07/20/2009
07/21/2009 07/23/2009 07/23/2009 07/28/2009 07/29/2009 07/30/2009 07/31/2009 08/03/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009

7/10/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/09/2009)
517 RESPONSE to Motion filed by all plaintiffs re 519 Joint MOTION to Continue Hearing on Motion to Compel and Status Conference. (Sandler, Hugh) Modified on 7/10/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/09/2009)
519 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing, MOTION for Status Conference re 512 MOTION to Comp Production of Documents and Depositions From All Defendants by all defendants. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(gbw, ) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
518 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 516 Joint MOTION to Continue Hearing on Motion to Compel and For Sta Conference. Filing attorney selected only one relief for a multiple−relief motion. To select multiple reliefs, you mus all applicable reliefs by clicking the additional relief(s) under 'Available Events' before clicking the Next button. Cl corrective action by re−docketing the document using the reliefs Motion to Continue, Motion for Hearing (Status Conference). (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/10/2009)
520 ORDER granting 519 MOTION to Continue; ORDER that Hearing on 512 MOTION to Compel Production of Doc and Depositions From All Defendants is RESET for 7/27/2009 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowl WITH ORAL ARGUMENT & Discovery Status Conference is RESET for 7/27/2009 02:30 PM before Magistrate Daniel E. Knowles III IN CHAMBERS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/10/09.(sek, ) (Ent 07/10/2009)
522 ORDER: The Conference set for 7/27/09 is CONVERTED to a Telephone Conference set for 02:30 PM before Mag Judge Daniel E. Knowles III to reset the hearing re Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 512) and to RESET THE DISCOVERY STATUS CONFERENCE; FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the parties shall contact this Cou Chambers (504−589−7575) and advise of telephone contact numbers where they may be reached on July 27th, 2009 P.M. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/20/09.(sek, ) (Entered: 07/20/2009)
523 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Quash by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol. Motio referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Motion to Quash Fina Records Subpoena, # 3 Memorandum in Support, # 4 Exhibit A − C, # 5 Notice of Hearing)(Harowski, Christy) (En 07/21/2009)
524 ORDER granting 523 Motion for Leave to File Motion to Quash Financial Records Subpoena in the Eastern Distric Louisiana. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/23/09. (sek, ) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
525 MOTION to Quash financial records subpoena by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol. Motion(s) referred to Danie Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 8/12/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachm 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Notice of Hearing)(sek, ) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
526 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadlines re: Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs, Signal Intern LLC, Michael Pol, Global Resources, Inc., Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center,, Law Offices Malvern Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants, J&M Associates (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangart Erin) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
527 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Status Conference held on 7/29 Discovery Status Hearing set for 8/24/2009 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. re the mtn to and mtn to quash as stated herein. Deadlines set forth herein. (car, ) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
528 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Donald C. Douglas as Attorney by Signal International LLC. (Attac # 1 Proposed Order)(Douglas, Donald) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
529 ORDER granting 528 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Donald C. Douglas, Jr. for Signal International. Signed by Jud C. Zainey on 7/31/09. (jrc, ) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
530 ORDER granting 526 Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadlines filed by Signal International LLC. Status Confere for 8/24/2009 11:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/3/09.(gbw, ) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
532 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol re 512 MOTION to Com Production of Documents and Depositions From All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B)(Harowski, Ch (Entered: 08/17/2009)
533 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by all plaintiffs re 525 MOTION to Quash. (Attachments: # 1 A (Decl.) of Daniel Werner, # 2 Exhibit 1: Apr. 15, 2009 Harowski−Tsu email, # 3 Exhibit 2: Apr. 28, 2009 Harowsk email, # 4 Exhibit 3: July 21, 2009 Werner−Harowski email, # 5 Exhibit 4: July 22, 2009 Werner−Killingsworth let Exhibit 5: July 27, 2009 Werner−Harowski email, # 7 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/17/2009
534 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 525 MOTION to Quash. (Attach # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/17/2009 08/18/2009 08/18/2009 08/19/2009 08/20/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009
08/21/2009 08/21/2009 08/24/2009
08/24/2009
08/24/2009 08/24/2009

535 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 512 MOTION to Compel Prod of Documents and Depositions From All Defendants. (Shapiro, Stephen) Modified event on 8/18/2009 (gbw, ). (Ent 08/17/2009)
536 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 512 MOTION to Compel Produ Documents and Depositions From All Defendants. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
537 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 512 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Depositions All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Alexis, Ralph) (Additiona attachment(s) added on 8/20/2009: # 5 Affidavit) (mmm, ). (Entered: 08/17/2009)
538 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 535 Response to Motion. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct ev Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (gbw, ) (Ente 08/18/2009)
539 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Corrected Affidavit by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigra Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 08/18/2009)
540 ANSWER to 122 Crossclaim, by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of C. Burnett, A.P.C..(Alexis, Ralph) Modified text on 8/20/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/19/2009)
541 ORDER granting 539 Motion for Leave to File corrected affidavit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, 8/20/2009. (mmm, ) (Entered: 08/20/2009)
542 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll Stephen L. Miles as Counsel of Record by Global Resources, Inc., Mich (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kupperman, Stephen) Modified on 8/24/2009 to edit text (rll, ). (Entered: 08/21
543 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol. M referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Harowski, Christy) ( 08/21/2009)
544 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Response Memorandum in Support filed by all plaintiffs re 512 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Depositions From All Defendants. Motion(s) referred to Daniel Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Declaration in support, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 1 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 certificate of service)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 8/24/2009 to to reflect correct event & add referral (rll, ). (Entered: 08/21/2009)
545 ORDER granting 543 Motion for Leave to File reply memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles 8/21/09. (sek, ) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
546 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol re 525 MOTION to Quash Financial R Subpoena. (sek, ) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
547 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 544 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM. Filing attorney selected incorrect even Correct event is EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Response/Reply. Clerk took corrective action b changing the event. Also, because this document should have been filed as a Motion, it will be decided by the Magi Judge. Clerk took corrective action to refer this motion to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. No further actio necessary. (rll, ) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
548 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: ORDERED that 512 Motion to Co GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART as set forth in document; FURTHER ORDERED that 525 Motion to Q GRANTED on the ground that the language in the subpoena is overbroad. Plaintiffs shall deliver the documents tha have received from Wachovia Bank in response to the subpoena to counsel for defendants Michael Pol and Global Resources, Inc., who shall review the documents and deliver to plaintiffs documents responsive to plaintiffs' discov requests. On that same date, counsel for defendants Michael Pol and Global Resources, Inc. shall submit any privile to plaintiffs and to the Court, accompanied by a brief description of all withheld documents for the Court's in camer review, if necessary. (sek, ) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
549 ORDER granting 544 Motion for Leave to File Reply re motion to compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. K III on 8/24/09. (sek, ) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
550 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by all plaintiffs re 512 MOTION to Compel Production of Docume Depositions From All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # Exhibit)(sek, ) (Entered: 08/24/2009)

08/24/2009 08/24/2009
09/02/2009 09/03/2009 09/04/2009 09/11/2009 10/01/2009 10/01/2009 10/02/2009
10/05/2009 10/05/2009 10/16/2009 10/19/2009 10/20/2009 10/20/2009 10/22/2009 10/22/2009 10/29/2009
10/30/2009 11/03/2009

551 ORDER granting 542 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Stephen L. Miles for Global Resources, I Michael Pol. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (gec, ) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
552 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 8/24/2009. The 526 Moti Extend Discovery Deadlines is GRANTED. Class Certification hearing is CONTINUED to 3/17/2010 at 10:00 AM Pretrial Conference set for 2/25/2010 10:30 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Follow−up Status Conference set for 10/22/2009 10:30 AM in chambers before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (NEF: Mag. Knowles) (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/25/2009
554 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of Filing Consent to Sue (254). (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent Form 254, # 2 Certificat Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
556 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of Filing Consent to Sue (255). (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent Form 255, # 2 Certificat Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
557 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of filing of FLSA consent to sue by Venkata Sivagi (256). (Attachments: # 1 FLSA consen certificate of service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
558 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of Filing Consent to Sue. (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent Form 257, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
559 ANSWER to 122 Amended & Restated Crossclaim of Signal International, LLC by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consult Ltd..(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified linkage on 10/5/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/01/2009)
560 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record E. Ross Buckley by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
561 ORDER re 548 Order on Motion to Compel: Signal International LLC shall complete document production within 3 or by November 2, 2009. If Signal finds that it is unable to meet the new deadline, it must inform the Court by letter than Friday, October 30, 2009, specifically detailing its reasons why it will be unable to meet the deadline and appri Court of the volume of documents that it has produced to plaintiffs and the volume of documents that it has yet to p FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs are ordered to brief the alleged waiver of attorney−client privilege by Dr. Rao Friday, October 30, 2009. Any memorandum in opposition by Dr. Rao is due no later than Friday, November 20, 20 Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/2/2009.(mmm, ) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
562 ORDER granting 560 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Elliot Ross Buckley, Jr for Signal Interna LLC. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/2/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
563 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 559 Answer to Crossclaim. Filing attorney incorrectly linked document to document 119. Clerk properly linked document to document 122. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
565 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document and Accompanying Exhibit by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
566 ORDER re 564 Motion to Extend Settlement Offer Deadlines. (gbw, ) Modified on 10/19/2009 (gbw, ). (copy to M Knowles & all attys) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
567 ORDER granting 565 Motion to Seal Document 564 & 564−3. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/19/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
568 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 567 Order on Motion to Seal Document. Image of document was not attach Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
569 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 10/22/2009. Follow−up S Conference set for 1/7/2010 02:00 PM in chambers before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
570 PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER: Dispositive motion deadline set for 1/6/2010. Follow−up status conference s 1/7/2010 2:00 PM in chambers. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/26/09.(gbw, ) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
572 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel Production of evidence held by K Rao by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jaco Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Propos Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 10/29/2009)
573 ORDER granting 572 Motion for Extension; Parties briefing the alleged waiver of attorney−client privilege by Dr. R file such briefs by November 6, 2009. Any memorandum in opposition by Dr. Rao is due no later than November 2 Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/30/09. (sek, ) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
576 ORDER re 512 MOTION to Compel: ORDERED that Signal International LLC shall complete document productio within 45 days, or by Tuesday, December 15, 2009. If Signal finds that it is unable to meet the new deadline, it mus

11/04/2009 11/06/2009 11/06/2009 11/06/2009
11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/10/2009 11/10/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/13/2009
11/16/2009 11/16/2009
11/17/2009

the Court by letter no later than Friday, December 11, 2009, specifically detailing its reasons why it will be unable t the deadline and apprising the Court of the volume of documents that it has produced to plaintiffs and the volume o documents that it has yet to produce. However, the Court will be reticent to extend the deadline again. Signed by M Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/2/09.(sek, ) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
577 ORDER extending deadline for submission of confidential settlement offers to 11/4/09. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zai 11/3/09. (NEF: M.J. Knowles)(jrc, ) (Entered: 11/04/2009)
578 Witness List by Signal International LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
579 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Compel Production of evidence held by K Ra by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
580 MOTION to Compel Documents and Deposition Testimony, MOTION for Reconsideration (Alternatively) of the Co June 24, 2009 Order Denying as Moot Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiy Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasek Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy. Mot referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 12/9/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. K III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A: Oct. 1, 2009 Decl. of Chandra Bhatnagar, # 3 Exhib June 24, 2009 Tr., # 4 Exhibit C: Sept. 17, 2009 Dep. of Kurella Rao, # 5 Exhibit D: Burnett Defendants Privilege L Notice of Hearing, # 7 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
581 ORDER granting 579 Motion for Extension of Time; Parties briefing the alleged waiver of attorney client privilege Rao will file such briefs by November 13, 2009. Any memorandum in opposition by Dr. Rao is due no later than No 27, 2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/9/09. (sek, ) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
582 ORDER Setting ORAL ARGUMENT on 580 MOTION to Compel Documents and Deposition Testimony; Alternat MOTION for Reconsideration the Court's Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel : Motion Hearing set for 12/ 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/9/09.(sek, ) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
583 ORDER extending the deadline for submission of confidential settlement offers to Magistrate Judge Knowles to 11 Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/9/09.(gbw, ) (NEF: Mag. Knowles) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
584 ORDER that the deadline for disclosing potential witnesses who have not yet been deposed is extended to 11/16/09 by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/9/09.(gbw, ) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
585 EXPARTE MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Hal D. Ungar of the law firm of Middleberg, Riddle & Giann Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 11/12/2009 (gbw, ). (E 11/10/2009)
586 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 585 MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Hal D. Ungar of the law firm Middleberg, Riddle & Gianna. Filing attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Con Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/1
587 ORDER granting 585 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Hal D. Ungar for Signal International LL Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/12/09. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/13/2009)
588 Memorandum by Signal International LLC re 561 Order Concerning the Waiver of the Attorney−Client Privilege b Defendant, Dr. Kurella Rao (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhi 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified to add linkage on 11/16/ (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/13/2009)
589 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 561 Order Document should have been linked to another document by chec box 'Should the document you are filing link to another document' OR by selecting a related document on other app screen. Clerk took corrective action by linking document to document #561.' (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
590 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Confidential Settlement Proposals by Signal International LLC, Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Bu A.P.C., Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified to remove referral to mag on 11/17/2009 (gbw, ). (Ent 11/16/2009)
591 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 590 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Confidential Settlement Proposals. Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistra Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/17

11/17/2009
11/17/2009 11/18/2009 11/23/2009
11/25/2009 12/01/2009 12/02/2009 12/03/2009 12/03/2009
12/04/2009 12/04/2009 12/07/2009 12/09/2009 12/09/2009

592 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Telephone Conference held on 11/17/2009 re a discovery dispute at the deposition of one of the defendants, Malvern C. Burnett. ORDERED that c for plaintiff shall refrain from asking defendant & deponent Malvern C. Burnett about existence of bank accounts at deposition. FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for plaintiff shall put disputed questions concerning the bank accou writing & submit them to this Court with a short memorandum of law to support their position that such questions a relevant to or may reasonably lead to discovery of admissible evidence on class certification no later than 11/25/09. Counsel for deponent shall also submit a short memorandum of law to support its position no later than 11/25/09. (s (Entered: 11/17/2009)
593 ORDER granting 590 Motion for Extension of Time to File confidential settlement position proposals; Proposals du 12/2/09. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/17/09. (jrc, ) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
594 ORDER Resetting ORAL ARGUMENT on 580 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Deposition Testim Alternatively for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Motion Hearing RESE 12/16/2009 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Know on 11/18/09.(sek, ) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
596 ORDER re discovery dispute: ORDERED that counsel for plaintiff shall put the disputed questions concerning the b accounts in writing and submit them to this Court with a short memorandum of law to support their position that suc questions are relevant to or may reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on class certification no lat Friday, December 11, 2009. Counsel for deponent shall also submit a short memorandum of law to support his posi later than Friday, December 11, 2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.(sek, ) (Entered: 11/23/20
610 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Kurella Rao re 580 MOTION to Compel Documents and De Testimony MOTION for Reconsideration (Alternatively) of the Court's June 24, 2009 Order Denying as Moot Plain Motion to Compel. (sek, ) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
598 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 580 MOTION to Compel Documents and Deposition Testimony MO for Reconsideration (Alternatively) of the Court's June 24, 2009 Order Denying as Moot Plaintiffs' Motion to Comp (Alexis, Ralph) Modified event & text on 12/2/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 12/01/2009)
599 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 598 Response to Motion. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct ev Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (gbw, ) (Ente 12/02/2009)
600 ORDER that the deadline for all parties to submit their confidential settlement proposals to Judge Knowles is exten 1/11/2010. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 12/3/09.(gbw, ) (NEF: Mag. Judge Knowles) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
601 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Review and Sign Deposition Transcript by Sachin Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support of Motion for Extension of Time to Review and Sign Deposition Transcript, # 2 Proposed Order)(Shapir Stephen) Modified to refer to mag on 12/4/2009 (gbw, ). (NEF: MJ Knowles, Cs. Mgr.) Modified on 12/4/2009 (gb (Entered: 12/03/2009)
602 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 601 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Review and Sign Deposition Transcript. Filing attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magist Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the magistrate judge. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
603 ORDER granting 601 Motion for Extension; ORDERED that the Dewan Defendants shall review and sign their dep transcripts, and submit a list of whatever changes they may have to the court reporter in this matter, no later than 35 after December 3, 2009, or by January 7, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/4/09. (Ent 12/04/2009)
604 NOTICE by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Consent to sue for Dwadasi Rama Chadrasekhar (258), # 2 Consent to Galla Venkata Ramakrishna (259), # 3 Consent to sue for Srinivasa Rao Kambala (260), # 4 Consent to sue for Kes Budankayala (261), # 5 Certificate of Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
606 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Signal International LLC. Motion referr Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Reply Memorandum)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified to refer to mag on 12/9/2009 (gbw, ). (Entered: 12/09/2009)
607 ORDER granting 606 Motion for Leave to File reply re Kurella Rao's Opposition concerning the potential waiver o attorney−client privilege by Dr. Rao. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/9/09. (sek, ) (Entere 12/09/2009)

12/09/2009 12/09/2009 12/11/2009
12/16/2009
12/17/2009 12/21/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009 12/28/2009 01/08/2010 01/12/2010
01/13/2010 01/14/2010 01/15/2010
01/19/2010 01/19/2010 01/21/2010 01/25/2010 01/28/2010

608 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 580 MOTION to Compel. (sek, ) (Entered: 12/0
609 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 606 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Filing attorney should changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be d by the magistrate judge. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
611 ORDERED that counsel for plaintiff shall put the disputed questions concerning the bank accounts in writing and su them to this Court with a short memorandum of law to support their position that such questions are relevant to or m reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on class certification no later than 1/11/10. Counsel for dep shall also submit a short memorandum of law to support his position no later than 1/11/10. Signed by Magistrate Ju Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/10/09.(sek, ) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
612 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles. Motion Hearing held on 12/16/2009 II Ordered that 580 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Deposition Testimony; or Alternativel Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (s (Entered: 12/16/2009)
613 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of filing consents to sue # 262 − 63. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 certificate of service)(T Naomi) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
614 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines for Filing Dispositive Motions Pertaining to Class Certification by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/21/20
615 NOTICE by all plaintiffs of withdrawal of FLSA consents. (Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
616 ORDER granting 614 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 12/22/20
617 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 580 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Depos Testimony or Alternatively for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel; as set fo document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/28/09. (sek, ) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
619 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Status Conference held on 1/8/2010. Pretrial Confer RESET for 4/23/2010 2:30 PM before Judge Zainey. Motion 165 to Certify Class RESET set for 5/12/2010 10:00 A before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Deadlines set herein. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/12/2010)
620 ORDER re discovery dispute: ORDERED that counsel for plaintiff shall put the disputed questions concerning the b accounts in writing and submit them to this Court with a short memorandum of law to support their position that suc questions are relevant to or may reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on class certification no lat Monday, January 25, 2010. Counsel for deponent shall also submit a short memorandum of law to support his posit later than Monday, January 25, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/11/10.(sek, ) (Entere 01/12/2010)
621 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion Pertaining to Immigration Status by Malve Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 01/13/2010)
622 ORDER granting 621 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion Pertaining to Immigration Status . Signed by J Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
623 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issa Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Sin Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandh (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sandler, Hugh) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
624 EXPARTE/CONSENT Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion Pertaining to Immigration Status b Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
625 ORDER granting 623 Motion for Extension of Time until 1/29/2010 to file a reply to motion pertaining to immigrat status;. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/19/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/19/2010)
627 ORDER granting 624 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/20/10. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/21/2010)
628 ORDER AMENDING 627 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/22/ (Entered: 01/25/2010)
630 ORDERED that counsel for plaintiff shall put the disputed questions concerning the bank accounts in writing and su them to this Court with a short memorandum of law to support their position that such questions are relevant to or m reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on class certification no later than Wednesday, February 10

01/28/2010
01/29/2010
01/29/2010 02/01/2010 02/03/2010 02/05/2010 02/10/2010 02/11/2010
02/12/2010 02/12/2010
02/17/2010 02/22/2010 02/22/2010 02/25/2010 02/25/2010 02/25/2010

Counsel for deponent shall also submit a short memorandum of law to support his position no later than Wednesday February 10, 2010. There will be no further extensions of time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III 1/28/10.(sek, ) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
631 ORDER re 548 Order on Motion to Compel: ORDERED that Signal International LLC shall submit to the Court by facsimile (504) (589−4500), and no later than Monday, February 1, 2010, a letter in which Signal apprises the Cour volume of documents that it has produced to plaintiffs and, if necessary, the volume of documents that it has yet to Should circumstance so warrant, Signal shall also apprise the Court of how long it believes that it will take to comp production. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/28/10.(sek, ) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
632 MOTION for Reconsideration re 476 Order on Motion for Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, ; Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Moti Hearing set for 3/17/2010 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 N Hearing)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
633 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Off Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. regarding 632 MOTION for Reconsideration re 476 Order on Motion for Appeal of Ma Judge Decision to District Court. (Alexis, Ralph) Modified on 2/1/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/29/2010)
635 NOTICE regarding oral argument on 632 MOTION for Reconsideration of Order Dated 6/2/09 [#476]. By Clerk.(jr (Entered: 02/01/2010)
636 ORDERED that Signal International LLC shall have forty−five days (or until Monday, March 22, 2010) to complet document production and its Privilege Log and Non− Responsive Log. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Know on 2/3/10.(sek, ) (Entered: 02/03/2010)
637 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 632 MOTION for Reconsideration re 476 O Motion for Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court. (Sandler, Hugh) Modified on 2/8/2010 (gbw, ). ( 02/05/2010)
638 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Cen L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 02/10/2010)
640 ORDER re discovery dispute: ORDERED that counsel for plaintiff shall put the disputed questions concerning the b accounts in writing and submit them to this Court with a short memorandum of law to support their position that suc questions are relevant to or may reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on class certification no lat Friday, February 19, 2010. Counsel for deponent shall also submit a short memorandum of law to support his positi later than Friday, February 19, 2010. The Court emphasizes that there will be no further extensions of time. Signed Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 2/11/10.(sek, ) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
641 ORDER granting 638 Motion for Leave until 2/22/2010 in which to File a reply memo to plaintiffs' reply to motion reconsider. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/11/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
642 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines (Consent Motion to Reset Dates Related to Class Certification Hearing and to Extend Hearing Date on Dispositive Motions) by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Dav Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Ku Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 02/12/2010)
643 ORDER granting 642 Motion for Extension of Deadlines as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Entered: 02/18/2010)
644 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Read and Sign Deposition Transcript by Malvern C Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
647 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memo under Seal by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
646 ORDER granting 644 Motion for Extension of Time to Review and Sign Deposition Transcript. Signed by Judge Ja Zainey on 2/23/10. (jrc, ) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
648 ORDER granting 647 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memo under Seal. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/22/20 (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
649 Defendants Reply Memo to Plaintiffs Opposition re 632 Motion to Reconsider. (Attachments: # 1 SEALED Exhibit (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/25/2010)

02/26/2010 03/05/2010 03/05/2010
03/05/2010 03/08/2010
03/09/2010 03/09/2010 03/19/2010 03/19/2010 03/23/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010
03/25/2010 03/25/2010 03/25/2010
03/26/2010

650 ORDER denying 632 Motion for Reconsideration of Court's 6/2/09 Order. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/25/1 (Entered: 02/26/2010)
653 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Reset Hearing Date on Dispositive Motions Pertaining to Class Certification b Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Scheduling Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 3/8/2010 ( (Entered: 03/05/2010)
654 DEFICIENT** MOTION for Permission to File Dispositive Motions with Incorporated Memorandum in Support b Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion Hearing set for 3/24/2010 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Hearing)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 3/8/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/05/2010)
655 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Motion Seeking Permission to File Dispositive Motions by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sa Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 03/05/2010)
656 MOTION Seeking Permission to File Dispositive Motions by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani. Motion Hearing set for 3/31/2010 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Certificate Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
657 ORDER granting 653 Motion to reset hearing date on dispositive motions pertaining to class certification to be held 4/9/2010; Other Deadlines are stated herein. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/8/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/09/20
658 ORDER granting 655 Motion to Expedite hearing on motion to seeking permission to file dispositive motions. Opp due by 3/19/2010, at which time the matter will be submitted for hearing on the briefs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zain 3/9/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
662 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 656 MOTION Seeking Permissi File Dispositive Motions. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
663 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 656 MOTION Seeking Permission to File Dispositive Motions. (Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 03/19/2010)
664 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion Permission to File Dispositive Motions by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Propos Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified to remove referral to mag on 3/24/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/23/2010)
665 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 664 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition Plaintiffs' Motion for Permission to File Dispositive Motions. Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the qu 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
666 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Permission to File Dispositive Motions by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed P Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Permission to File Dispositive Motions, # 2 Propos Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
667 ORDER granting 664 Motion for Leave to File supplemental memo. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/24/2010. (Entered: 03/25/2010)
668 MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 656 MOTION Seeking Permission to File Dispositive Motions. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
671 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: TelephoneStatus Conference held on 3/25/2010. ORDERED that the 165 MOTION to Certify Class is CONTINUED to 8/18/2010 10:00 AM; Certification Pretrial Conference is RESET for 8/5/2010 11:00 AM; FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' 656 MOTION Seeking Permission to File Dispositive Motions filed is DENIED; ORDERED that defendants shall file their dispositive mo 4/1/2010 with a notice of hearing date of 4/28/2010. Other deadlines are stated herein. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/29/2010
669 ORDER granting 666 Motion for Leave to File reply memo. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/25/2010. (gbw, ) ( 03/26/2010)

03/26/2010 04/01/2010
04/06/2010 04/07/2010 04/09/2010 04/12/2010 04/16/2010 04/19/2010 04/20/2010 04/20/2010
04/23/2010
04/23/2010

670 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support filed by All Plaintiffs re 656 MOTION Seeking Permission to File Dispositiv Motions. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
672 MOTION to Dismiss or Strike Class Allegations by Signal International LLC. Motion Hearing set for 4/28/2010 09 before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Exhibit A − Da Testimony, # 4 Exhibit B − Khuttan Testimony, # 5 Exhibit C − Padaveettiyl Testimony, # 6 Exhibit D − Kandhasa Testimony, # 7 Exhibit E − Thangamani Testimony, # 8 Exhibit F − Sulekha Testimony, # 9 Exhibit G − Padaveetti Testimony, # 10 Exhibit H − David Testimony, # 11 Exhibit I − Khuttan Testimony, # 12 Exhibit J − Kandhasamy Testimony, # 13 Exhibit K − Thangamani Testimony, # 14 Exhibit L − Sulekha Testimony, # 15 Exhibit M − Dhan Testimony, # 16 Exhibit N − Khuttan Testimony, # 17 Exhibit O − David Testimony, # 18 Exhibit P − Padaveettiyl Testimony, # 19 Exhibit Q − Kandhasamy Testimony, # 20 Exhibit R − Thangamani Testimony, # 21 Exhibit S − S Testimony, # 22 Exhibit T − Dhananjaya Testimony, # 23 Exhibit U − David Testimony, # 24 Exhibit V − Khuttan Testimony, # 25 Exhibit W − Padaveettiyl Testimony, # 26 Exhibit X − Thangamani Testimony, # 27 Exhibit Y − S Testimony, # 28 Exhibit Z − David Testimony, # 29 Exhibit AA − David Testimony, # 30 Exhibit BB − Khuttan Testimony, # 31 Exhibit CC − Padaveettiyl Testimony, # 32 Exhibit DD − Kandhasamy Testimony, # 33 Exhibit EE Thangamani Testimony, # 34 Exhibit FF − Sulekha Testimony, # 35 Exhibit GG − Dhananjaya Testimony, # 36 Ex HH − David Testimony, # 37 Exhibit II − David Testimony, # 38 Exhibit JJ − Khuttan Testimony, # 39 Exhibit KK Kandhasamy Testimony, # 40 Exhibit LL − Thangamani Testimony, # 41 Exhibit MM − Sulekha Testimony, # 42 E NN − Padaveettiyl Testimony, # 43 Exhibit OO − Dhananjaya Testimony)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
673 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol. (Attachments Proposed Order)(Harowski, Christy) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
674 ORDER granting 673 Motion for Extension of Deadline for submission of witness & exhibit lists. Signed by Judge Zainey on 4/7/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
675 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Reset Dates Related to Class Certification Hearing by Thanasekar Chellappan, K David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Kri Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal V (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
676 ORDER granting 675 Motion to Reset Dates related to Class Certification Hearing as stated herein. Signed by Judg Zainey on 4/12/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
679 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Review and Sign His Deposition Transcript by Dha Kechuru. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
681 ORDER granting 679 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to Review and sign Deposition Transcript. Signed by Judg Zainey on 4/19/2010. (caa, ) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
682 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Lt Global Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., M Pol re 672 MOTION to Dismiss or Strike Class Allegations. (Harowski, Christy) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
683 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 672 MOTION to Dismiss or Strike Class Allegations. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Daniel Werner, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit 30, # 32 Exhibit 31, # 33 Exhibit 32, # 34 Exhibit 33, # 35 Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit 35, # 37 Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit 37, # 39 Exhibit 38, # 40 Exhibit 39, # 41 Exhibit 40, # 42 Exhibit 41, # 43 Exhibit 42, # 44 Exhibit 43, # 45 Exhibit 44, # 46 Exhibit 45, # 47 Exhibit 46, # 48 Exhibit 47, # 49 Exhibit 48, # 50 Exhibit 49, # 51 Exhibit 50, # 52 Exhibit 51, # 53 Exhibit 52, # 54 Exhibit 53, # 55 Exhibit 54, # 56 Exhibit 55, # 57 Exhibit 56, # 58 Exhibit 57, # 59 Exhibit 58, # 60 Certificate of Service)(Werner, (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/9/2010: # 61 Exhibit Replacement) (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/20/2010)
684 EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Michael Pol and Global Resources, Inc., Sachin Dewan and Dewa Consultants, PVT. Ltd., and Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC and the Law Offices of M C. Burnett, A P.C.'s Memorandum In Support of Motion to Dismiss or Strike Class Allegations by Thanasekar Chel Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khut Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, S Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 4/26/2010 (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
685 EXPARTE MOTION to Withdraw Mack B. Binion, Margaret M. Miller and Emily Stevens Hardin as Attorney by Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Margaret) Modified on 4/26/2010 (gbw, (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/26/2010
04/26/2010 04/26/2010 04/26/2010
04/26/2010 04/26/2010 04/27/2010 04/28/2010 04/28/2010 04/28/2010 04/28/2010 04/29/2010 04/30/2010
05/03/2010 05/04/2010
05/05/2010 05/05/2010
05/06/2010

686 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 684 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Memorandum in Support of Motio Dismiss or Strike Class Allegations. Filing attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw (Entered: 04/26/2010)
687 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 685 MOTION to Withdraw Mack B. Binion, Margaret M. Miller and Emily Hardin as Attorney. Filing attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motio before clicking the Next button. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
689 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Signal International LLC.(Attachments Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Exhibit PP − Arava Testimony, # 4 Exhibit QQ − Pillai Testimony, # 5 RR − Patel Testimony)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified to remove hrg date on 4/28/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/26/2010)
690 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 683 Response/Memorandum Opposition to Motion and 684 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss o Class Allegations by Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Global Resources, Inc., Gul Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Michael Pol. (Attachments: # 1 Propo Order)(Alexis, Ralph) Modified on 4/27/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/26/2010)
691 ORDER granting 685 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Margaret M. Miller; Mack B. Binion and Emily S Hardin terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/26/2010. (gbw, ) Modified on 4/27/2010 (gbw, ). (copy to J Associates, Inc.) (Entered: 04/27/2010)
692 ORDER granting 684 Motion for Leave to File reply. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/26/2010. (gbw, ) (Entere 04/27/2010)
693 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Response filed by All Plaintiffs re 672 MOTION to Dismiss or Strike Clas Allegations. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/27/2010)
694 ORDER granting 689 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memo. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/27/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
695 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 689 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Filing attorney should changed 'Y' to 'N' at the question 'Set motion for hearing Y/N?' Exparte/Consent motions are NOT set for hearing. C removed hearing date. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
696 REPLY MEMORANDUM to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 672 MOTION to Dismiss o Class Allegations. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PP, # 2 Exhibit QQ, # 3 Exhibit RR)(gbw, ) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
697 ORDER granting 690 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response; Response due 4/30/2010. Signed by Judge Ja Zainey on 4/27/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
698 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 6/3/2010 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.(plh, ) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
699 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, De Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Global Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern Burnett, A.P.C., Michael Pol. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Reply Memorandum in Su Motion to Dismiss or Strike Class Allegations, # 3 Exhibit A−C)(Harowski, Christy) (Entered: 04/30/2010)
700 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Consent to Sue (264). (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent Form 264, # 2 Certifica Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
701 MOTION to Compel J&M to Enroll Counsel by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarap Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion Hearing set for 5/26/2 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Cert of Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
702 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing of Consents to Sue. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Tsu, N (Entered: 05/05/2010)
703 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel J&M to Enroll Counsel by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
704 ORDER granting 699 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss Class Allegations. Si Judge Jay C. Zainey on 5/6/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/06/2010)

05/06/2010 05/10/2010 05/11/2010 05/14/2010 05/18/2010 05/18/2010 05/26/2010 06/01/2010 06/02/2010 06/02/2010 06/03/2010 06/03/2010 06/03/2010 06/04/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010
06/10/2010
06/11/2010 06/14/2010

705 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., G Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Michael 672 MOTION to Dismiss or Strike Class Allegations. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C)(gbw, ) (Entered: 05/06/2010
706 ORDER granting 703 Motion to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Compel J&M to enroll counsel. The court will adv hearing date should oral argument be deemed necessary. Hearing on the briefs will be 5/12/2010; Any opposition du that date. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 5/7/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
707 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Consent to Sue (267). (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consent For 267, # 2 Certificate Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
708 ORDER granting 701 Motion to Compel J&M Associates of Mississippi, Inc. to Enroll Counsel. J&M shall enroll c by 6/1/10. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 05/14/2010)
709 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing of FLSA Consent to Sue #277. (Attachments: # 1 Consent to sue (277), # 2 Certi Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
711 ANSWER to 122 Crossclaim Complaint of Signal International, LLC by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol.(Haro Christy) Modified to add linkage on 5/19/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/18/2010)
713 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of filing of consent to sue (278). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 certificate of service)(Tsu Naomi) (Entered: 05/26/2010)
715 EXPARTE MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record by James G. Curenton, Jr on behalf of J & M Associates, Inc Mississippi. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appearance, # 2 Proposed Order) (gbw, ))(Curenton, James) Modified eve added proposed order on 6/3/2010 (gbw, ). (ok per chambers as filed) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
716 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of filing of consent to sue (268). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Ts Naomi) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
717 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 715 Notice of Appearance. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct Motion to Appear as Counsel of Record. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/0
718 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 715 Notice of Appearance. Filing attorney did not include a proposed order Proposed Order subsequently provided to Clerk and has now been attached to the motion. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/03/2
719 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Settlement Conference held on 6/3/2010. Settlement can not be reached at this time. (sek, ) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
720 ORDER granting 715 Motion to Appear as Attorney James G. Curenton, Jr for J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississipp Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/3/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
721 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of filing consent to sue (269). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Tsu, (Entered: 06/04/2010)
722 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of filing of notice of consent to sue (270). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
723 MOTION to Compel, MOTION for Contempt by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkara Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 6/30/2010 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachm 1 Notice of Hearing, # 2 Memorandum in Support and Certificate Pursuant to Eastern District of Louisiana Local R 37.1E, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Cer of Service)(Howard, Alan) Modified hrg time on 6/11/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/10/2010)
724 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
725 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 723 MOTION to Compel MOTION for Contempt. Filing attorney selected hearing time. Correct hearing time is 11:00 AM. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
727 ORDER denying 724 MOTION to Expedite Hearing filed by Dhananjaya Kechuru, Thanasekar Chellappan, Krisha Kumar, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Kurian David, Palanyandi Thangamani, Andrews Padaveettiyl, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Hemant Khuttan and Sabulal Vijayan. ORDER that 723 MOTION to Compel, MOTION for Contempt is scheduled for oral hearing by telephone on 6/30/2010 10:30 AM before Magistr Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. FURTHER ORDER that within 7 days of the date of this Order, plaintiffs shall submi supplemental memoranda as stated herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 6/14/2010.(caa, )

06/21/2010
06/22/2010
06/22/2010
06/24/2010
06/28/2010 06/28/2010 06/29/2010 06/29/2010 06/29/2010 06/29/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 06/30/2010 07/01/2010 07/06/2010

(Entered: 06/14/2010)
729 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan of 723 MOTION to Compel M for Contempt. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alan B. Howard, # 2 Exhibit A, Part 1, # 3 Exhibit A, Part 2, # 4 Ex Part 3, # 5 Exhibit A, Part 4, # 6 Exhibit A, Part 5, # 7 Exhibit B, Part 1, # 8 Exhibit B, Part 2, # 9 Exhibit B, Part 3, Exhibit B, Part 4, # 11 Exhibit B, Part 5, # 12 Exhibit C, Part 1, # 13 Exhibit C, Part 2, # 14 Exhibit C, Part 3, # 15 E D, # 16 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
730 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Beyond Deadline Its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Original and Supplemental Motion for Finding of Contempt, for Order Compelling Immediate Production of Documents and For Order Requiring Signal to Remove Improper Redactions by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 06/22/2
731 ORDER granting 730 Motion for Leave to File opposition re Motion for a Finding of Contempt Against Signal and Order Compelling Immediate Production of Documents and for an Order Requiring Signal to Remove Improper Re from Produced Documents by 6/24/10. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 6/22/10. (sek, ) (Ente 06/22/2010)
732 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 723 MOTION to Compel MOT Contempt and Requesting Sanctions Against Plaintiffs Pursuant to Rule 37 and Supplemental Requests of the Plain (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A In Globo − Filed under seal, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I − Filed under seal, # 10 Exhibit J In Globo − Filed under seal, Exhibit K)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
733 EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memo filed by All Plaintiffs. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Da Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified event on 6/29/2010 ). (NEF: MJ Knowles, case mgr) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
734 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Stephen H. Kupperman, Christy C. Harowski and Stephen Miles as Attorney of Record by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harowski, Christy) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
735 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 733 MOTION for Leave to File. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Co event is Motion for Leave to File Document. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (gbw, ) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
736 ORDER granting 733 Motion for Leave to File reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 6/29/1 (Entered: 06/29/2010)
737 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by All Plaintiffs re 723 MOTION to Compel, MOTION for Contem (sek, ) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
739 ORDER re 734 MOTION to Withdraw Stephen H. Kupperman, Christy C. Harowski and Stephen Miles as Attorne Record. Motion Hearing set for 7/7/2010 09:45 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/29/2010.(gbw, ) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
740 Minute Order. Proceedings held on 6/30/2010 before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: taking under advisem 723 MOTION to Compel/MOTION for Contempt. (mmm, ) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
741 Witness and Exhibit List by Signal International LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
742 Witness and Exhibit List by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malv Burnett, A.P.C.. (Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
743 Witness and Exhibit List by Global Resources, Inc., Michael Pol. (Harowski, Christy) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
744 Witness and Exhibit List by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
745 DEFICIENT** Witness and Exhibit List by All Plaintiffs. (Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 7/1/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/30/2010)
746 Witness and Exhibit List by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 07/01
747 ORDERED that 723 Motion for a Finding of Contempt Against Signal International, L.L.C., for an Order Compelli Immediate Full Production of Documents and for an Order Requiring Signal International, L.L.C. to Remove Impro Redactions from Produced Documents is GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART as set forth in document. Sig Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/6/10. (sek, ) (Entered: 07/06/2010)

07/07/2010
07/07/2010 07/07/2010
07/08/2010 07/08/2010 07/08/2010 07/09/2010 07/12/2010
07/14/2010 07/15/2010 07/16/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/19/2010 07/20/2010 07/20/2010 07/20/2010 07/21/2010 07/21/2010

748 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Motion Hearing held on 7/7/2010 re 734 MOTION Withdraw Stephen H. Kupperman, Christy C. Harowski and Stephen Miles as Attorney filed by Global Resources, Michael Pol. ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Status Conference set for 7/21/2010 10:00 AM for Global Resources, Inc only. No other counsel is required to attend. Global is instructed to enroll new counsel. If new couns enrolled, the status conference will be cancelled.(Court Reporter Vic DiGiorgio.) (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
749 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Amended Witness and Exhibit List by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # Proposed Pleading)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
750 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Replacement of Incomplete Exhibit by Thanasekar Chellappan, David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Kri Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal V (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
751 ORDER granting 749 Motion for Leave to File Amended Witness and Exhibit List. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Entered: 07/08/2010)
752 Amended Witness and Exhibit List by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offic Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (gec, ) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
753 ORDER granting 750 Motion for Leave to File replacement of incomplete document. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zaine 7/8/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
754 ORDER denying 672 Motion to Dismiss or Strike Class Allegations. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered 07/09/2010)
755 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines for all Parties to file Deposition Designations and Counter−Designations by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (E 07/12/2010)
760 ORDER granting 755 Motion for Extension of Deadlines for Deposition Designations and Counter−Designations. S by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/13/10. (jrc, ) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
761 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing of FLSA Consents to Sue (271−284). (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consents to Sue (271−284), # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
762 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Consent to Sue # 285. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 certificate of service)(Tsu, (Entered: 07/16/2010)
763 Deposition Designations by Signal International LLC re 760 Order (Hangartner, Erin) Modified text & linkage on 7/20/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/19/2010)
764 Deposition Designations by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 760 Order. (Shapiro, Stephen) Modified linkage on 7/20/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/19/2010)
765 Deposition Designations by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malv Burnett, A.P.C. re 760 Order .(Alexis, Ralph) Modified text on 7/20/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/19/2010)
766 Deposition Designations by All Plaintiffs re 760 Order. (Tsu, Naomi) Modified text & added linkage on 7/20/2010 (Entered: 07/19/2010)
767 ORDER Follow−up Status Conference regarding the representation of Global Resources RESET for 7/22/2010 10:3 in the courtroom of Judge Jay C. Zainey. Counsel for other parties need not appear. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey 7/19/10.(jrc, ) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
768 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 764 Memorandum, 765 Memorandum, 766 Notice (Other), 763 Memorandu Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is Response & link to Order #676. Clerk took corrective actio changing the event. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
769 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 764 Memorandum, 766 Notice (Other), 763 Memorandum. Corrected to rea properly linked these documents to document #760 instead of document #676. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
770 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2532954) by Kuria (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Affidavit)(Washington, Tracie) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
771 DEFICIENT** MOTION to Strike or Obtain a More Definative Statement of Portions of the Witness and Exhibit L by Burnett Defendants, Pol Defendants, and Signal by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph

07/21/2010
07/22/2010
07/22/2010 07/22/2010 07/22/2010 07/22/2010
07/22/2010
07/22/2010 07/22/2010 07/23/2010 07/23/2010 07/23/2010
07/23/2010 07/23/2010

Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion Hearing 8/11/2010 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearin certificate of service)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 7/22/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/21/2010)
772 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Permission to File a Supplemental Memorandum to its Pre−Hearing Class Certifi Brief by August 9, 2010 Following Production of Signal's Un−Redacted Documents by Thanasekar Chellappan, Ku David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Kri Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal V Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 07/21/2010
773 DEFICIENT** MOTION to Strike 741 Witness and Exhibit List, 743 Witness and Exhibit List, 752 Witness and E List or to Obtain a More Definitive Statement of Portions of the Witness and Exhibit Lists Filed by Signal, Burnett Defendants, and Global Defendants by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasu Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion Hearing set for 8/11/2010 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 7/23/2010 (g (Entered: 07/22/2010)
774 ORDER Pretrial Conference reset for 8/2/2010 11:15 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zain 7/21/10.(jrc, ) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
775 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 7/22/2010 as to the representation of Global Resources, Inc. (Court Reporter Vic DiGiorgio.) (jrc, ) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
776 ORDER granting 772 Motion for Leave to File a supplemental memo no later than 8/9/2010; ORDERED that the supplemental brief shall not exceed 10 pages in length because the parties will be given an opportunity to submit po hearing memo. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/22/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
777 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION To Supplement Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations (DOC # 766) for Class Certif Hearing by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasude Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(H Alan) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
778 MOTION to Compel Production of T−VISA Applications by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referred to Danie Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 8/18/2010 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachm 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Aff 16 Notice of Hearing)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/22/2010)
779 EXPARTE MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of T−Visa Applications by Signal Inte LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified to add exparte on 7/23/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/22/2010)
785 ORDER granting 770 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Ivy O. Suriyopas.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/22/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
780 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 779 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Moti Compel Production of T−Visa Applications. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
781 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 779 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of T− Applications. Filing attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N? clicking the Next button. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
782 MOTION to Strike 741 Witness and Exhibit List, 743 Witness and Exhibit List, 752 Witness and Exhibit List by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion Hearing set for 8/11/2010 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Ente 07/23/2010)
783 ORDER regarding Pretrial Conference. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/22/10.(jrc, ) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
784 ORDER granting 779 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Compel Production of T−Visa Applications. OR Hearing as to 778 MOTION to Compel Production of T−VISA Applications set for 8/11/2010 11:00 AM before Ma Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/23/2010.(mmm, ) (Entered:

07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/27/2010
07/27/2010 07/27/2010
07/28/2010
07/28/2010
07/29/2010 07/29/2010 07/29/2010 07/29/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010 07/30/2010

07/23/2010)
786 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2538300) by Kuria (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Affidavit)(Washington, Tracie) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
788 ORDER granting 777 Motion to Supplement Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations for Class Certification Hearing. Si Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/26/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
787 ORDER Resetting ORAL ARGUMENT on 778 MOTION to Compel Production of T−VISA Applications to 8/12/2 04:00 p.m. BY TELEPHONE before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Any memorandum in opposition and reply memorandum shall be filed in accordance with the Local Rules of this Court. The proponent of the motion, Si shall coordinate a conference call number and provide the number and code to all parties and this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/27/10.(sek, ) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
789 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines for Deposition Counter−Designations and Objections Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
790 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Witness and Exhibit List by Thanasekar Chellappa Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khut Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, S Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (En 07/27/2010)
791 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Class Certification Briefs, Consent MOTION for L File Excess Pages by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate o Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
792 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Protective Order by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion referred to Magistrate Ju Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Consent Protective Order)(Howard, Alan) Modified to mag on 7/29/2010 (gbw, ). (NEF: MJ Knowles, Cs. Mgr.) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
793 ERROR: DOCUMENT STRICKEN** NOTICE of Appearance by Ivy O. Suriyopas on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Su Ivy) Modified on 7/30/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 07/29/2010)
795 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 792 MOTION for Protective Order. Filing attorney should have changed 'N at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the mag judge. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
796 ORDER granting 792 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/29/201 (mmm, ) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
797 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 7/29/2010.(mmm, ) (Entered: 07/29
798 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 793 Notice of Appearance. Document was stricken and not necessary since motion for pro hac vice was previously granted. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
799 ORDER granting 790 Motion for Leave to File amended witness & exhibit list. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/29/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
800 Witness and Exhibit List by All Plaintiffs. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
801 ORDER granting 791 Motion for Extension of Time to File Class Certification Briefs; granting 791 Motion for Lea File Excess Pages as stated herein. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/29/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
802 ORDER granting 789 Motion for Extension of Deadlines for Deposition Counter−Designations and Objections to 8 Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/29/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
803 MOTION in Limine to To Exclude Defendant Signal International, LLC's Proposed Exhibit #3 and All Affidavits Corresponding with Any Indian Witness Included in Signal's Proposed Exhibit #5 by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kuria David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Kri Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal V (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A1−A8, # 3 Exhibit A9−A15, # 4 Exhibit A16−A19, # 5 E B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Ex # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Notice of Hearing, # 16 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 07/30/2010)

07/30/2010
07/30/2010 08/02/2010 08/03/2010 08/03/2010 08/04/2010 08/04/2010
08/04/2010 08/04/2010 08/05/2010
08/05/2010 08/05/2010
08/06/2010
08/06/2010
08/06/2010 08/06/2010 08/06/2010

804 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
806 ORDER granting 786 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Sameer Ahmed for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Z on 7/29/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/03/2010)
811 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Final Pretrial Conference held on 8/2/2010. ORDER the following pre−trial motions are DENIED: 782 MOTION to Strike, 803 MOTION in Limine, 804 MOTION to E Hearing. All evidentiary objections will be made at the hearing. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/04/2010)
807 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 782 MOTION to Strike 741 Witness and Exhibit List, 743 Witness an Exhibit List, 752 Witness and Exhibit List. (Alexis, Ralph) Modified text on 8/4/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/03/2010
808 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 782 MOTION to Strike 741 Wit and Exhibit List, 743 Witness and Exhibit List, 752 Witness and Exhibit List. (Hangartner, Erin) Modified event on 8/4/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/03/2010)
809 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 808 Response to Motion. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct ev Response/Memorandum in Opposition. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/04
810 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant Signal International, LLCs to Compel by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasam Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasude Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) Modified to refer to mag on 8/5/201 ). (Entered: 08/04/2010)
812 MOTION to Dismiss Claim That Above Captioned Action is Amenable to Certification under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23 by Signal International LLC. Motion Hearing set for 9/1/2010 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/04/2010)
813 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Signal's Motion to Dismiss Claim That Above Captioned Is Amenable to Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23(b)(2) by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/04/2010)
814 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 810 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines.Filing attorney should have chang to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by th magistrate judge. Clerk took corrective action. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event.(gbw, ) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
815 ORDER granting 810 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as set forth in document. Signed by M Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/5/2010. (mmm, ) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
816 ORDER granting 813 MOTION to Expedite Hearing filed by Signal International LLC. Plaintiffs shall file their response/opposition by 8/9/2010, at 4:00 pm at which time 812 MOTION to Dismiss Claim That Above Captioned is Amenable to Certification under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2) will be submitted for hearing on the briefs. Signed by Jay C. Zainey on 8/5/2010.(caa, ) (Entered: 08/05/2010)
817 Witness List by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasa Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasude Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Enter 08/06/2010)
818 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 778 MOTION to Compel Production of T−V Applications. (Attachments: # 1 Slip Opinion: Montano−Perez v. Durrett Cheese Sales, # 2 Exhibit A: Freedom Net Letter, # 3 Exhibit B: Worker Organizations Letter, # 4 Exhibit C: High Plains Reader article, # 5 Exhibit D: Hangartner−Werner email string, # 6 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
820 Witness List by Signal International LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
821 Witness List by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burn A.P.C.. (Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
822 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of filing of consents to sue #286−288. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 certificate of service Naomi) (Entered: 08/06/2010)

08/06/2010 08/06/2010 08/09/2010
08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/10/2010
08/10/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010
08/11/2010 08/11/2010
08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/11/2010 08/12/2010 08/12/2010

823 Witness List by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
843 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File a sample Redacted T−Visa applications under seal by All Plaint Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
824 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 812 MOTION Dismiss Claim That Above Captioned Action is Amenable to Certification under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2) MOTIO Dismiss Claim That Above Captioned Action is Amenable to Certification under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2). (Attac # 1 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
825 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Signal International LLC. Motion Hearing set for 9/1/2010 09:0 before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Hearing Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
826 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Opposed Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum b International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 8/11/2010 to edit text (rll, ). (Entered: 08/10/2010)
827 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Submit Bench Books and Deposition Transcript Bi Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 8/11/2010 to edit text (Entered: 08/10/2010)
828 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Signal's Motion To Compel Production of T−Visa Applications by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Hanga Erin) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
829 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 825 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
830 ORDER granting 828 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Signal's Motion to C Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/11/10. (sek, ) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
831 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 778 MOTION to Compel Production of T−VIS Applications. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(sek, ) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
832 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 826 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Opposed Motion for Leave to File R Memorandum. Filing attorney should have selected 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' bef clicking the Next button. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. No further action is necessary. (rll, ) (Enter 08/11/2010)
833 DOCUMENT STRICKEN** NOTICE of Appearance by Sameer Ahmed on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Ahmed, Same Modified on 8/12/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/11/2010)
834 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply to Defendant Signal International, LLC's Reply in S of Its Motion to Compel by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attac # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
835 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to Amend/Correct 741 Witness List by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified event on 8/12/2010 (g (Entered: 08/11/2010)
836 EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Witness and Exhibit List by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coa Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # Proposed Pleading)(Alexis, Ralph) Modified to add exparte on 8/12/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/11/2010)
842 ORDER granting 827 Motion for Extension of Time to submit bench books & deposition transcript binders as state Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/11/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
837 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 833 Notice of Appearance. Document was stricken and not necessary since motion for pro hac vice was previously granted. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
838 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 835 MOTION to File Document. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. C event is Motion to Amend/Correct. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event.(gbw, ) (Entered: 08/12/2010

08/12/2010
08/12/2010 08/12/2010 08/12/2010 08/12/2010 08/12/2010
08/12/2010 08/12/2010
08/12/2010
08/13/2010 08/18/2010 08/24/2010 08/26/2010 09/02/2010 09/03/2010 09/08/2010 09/21/2010 09/23/2010
09/23/2010 09/24/2010

839 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 836 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Witness and Exhibit List. attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the button. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
840 ORDER granting 834 Motion for Leave to File Sur−reply to Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel Knowles, III on 8/12/10. (sek, ) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
841 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 778 MOTION to Compel Production of T−VIS Applications. (sek, ) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
844 ORDER granting 843 Motion for Leave to File a Sample Redacted T−Visa Application Under Seal. Signed by Mag Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/12/2020. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
845 SEALED Sample Redacted T−Visa Application.(gbw, ) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
846 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Telephone Conference held on 8/12/2010. The 165 MOTION to Certify Class currently set for 8/18/2010 is CONTINUED to 1/11/2011 10:00 AM. Certification Pretri Conference set for 12/9/2010 03:00 AM. Telephone Status Conference set for 8/19/2010 03:15 PM before Judge Ja Zainey. All pre−hearing deadlines previously set by this court are stayed pending the phone conference with the cou (Attachments: # 1 Pretrial Notice Form) (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
847 ORDER granting 836 Motion for Leave to File Amended Witness and Exhibit List. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey 8/12/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
849 ORDER granting 835 Motion for Leave to Amend Witness List; Paul Vallentine shall be removed from Will Call W List. The parties may file deposition designations for Paul Vallentine or or before 9/3/2010. Signed by Judge Jay C. on 8/12/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
850 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 8/12/2010 Ordered that 778 MOTION to Compel Production of T−VISA Applications filed by Signal International LLC is TA UNDER ADVISEMENT. (sek, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
848 Amended Witness and Exhibit List by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offic Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
851 ORDER Status Conference reset for 8/25/2010 10:30 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zain 8/17/10.(jrc, ) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
853 ORDER cancelling 8/25/10 status conference. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/23/10.(jrc, ) (Entered: 08/24/201
854 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 778 Motion to Compel as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/26/10. (sek, ) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
855 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Consents to Sue (291−299). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Servic Naomi) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
856 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Consent to Sue (300). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Tsu Naomi) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
857 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing of Notices of Consent to Sue (301−307). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certific Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
862 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing of Notice of Consents to Sue (308−313). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certific Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
863 MOTION for New Trial and/or Reconsideration of Discovery Order Pursuant to FRCP 59(e) by Signal Internation Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2010 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Re for Oral Argument, # 4 Exhibit A − Part 1, # 5 Exhibit A − Part 2)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/24/2010 (gbw, Request for oral argument docketed separately. Modified to refer to mag on 9/24/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/23/201
865 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Signal International LLC regarding 863 MOTION for New Trial and/or Reconsideration of Discovery Order Pursuant to FRCP 59(e). (gbw, ) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
864 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 863 MOTION for New Trial and/or Reconsideration of Discovery Order Pu to FRCP 59(e). Filing attorney attached a Request/Statement for Oral Argument to this motion instead of filing it as separate entry. Clerk took corrective action by separating the request and docketing it as a separate entry. All future requests for oral argument must be filed separately. (gbw, ) (Entered: 09/24/2010)

09/24/2010 09/24/2010 09/24/2010
09/24/2010
09/27/2010 09/29/2010 09/30/2010
10/01/2010
10/07/2010 10/11/2010 10/12/2010
10/12/2010
10/12/2010 10/13/2010

866 ORDER Setting ORAL ARGUMENT on 863 MOTION for New Trial and/or Reconsideration of Discovery Order Pursuant to FRCP 59(e) : Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2010 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowle Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/24/10.(sek, ) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
867 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Notice of Consent to Sue (314). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
868 MOTION to Enforce Order of the Court Pursuant to Rule 37 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Signal Interna LLC. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2010 11:00 AM be Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 LR 27.1E Certificate, # 4 Notice of Hearing, # 5 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified to refer to mag on 9/24/2010 (g (Entered: 09/24/2010)
869 MOTION for Protective Order by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruga Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motio Hearing set for 10/20/2010 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorand Support, # 2 Proposed Order (Proposed Protective Order), # 3 Notice of Hearing, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Werner Daniel) (Entered: 09/24/2010)
870 ORDER Setting ORAL ARGUMENT on 868 MOTION to Enforce Order of the Court Pursuant to Rule 37 of Fede Rules of Civil Procedure & 869 MOTION for Protective Order : Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2010 11:00 AM befo Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/27/10.(sek, ) (Ent 09/27/2010)
871 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing of Notice of Consents to Sue (315 − 319). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certifi Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
872 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Hearing and Oral Argument by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Dav Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Ku Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner (Entered: 09/30/2010)
873 ORDER granting 872 MOTION to Continue re Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration of Discovery Order P to FRCP 59(e), Rec. Doc. 863 ; Motion to Enforce Order of the Court Pursuant to Rule 37 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rec. Doc. 868 ; & Motion for a Protective Order, Rec. Doc. 869 . Motion Hearing RESET for 10/20/201 am WITH ORAL ARGUMENT before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Danie Knowles, III on 10/1/10.(sek, ) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
874 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Notice of Consents to Sue (320 − 327). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificat Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 10/07/2010)
875 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 868 MOTION to Enforce Order of the Cour Pursuant to Rule 37 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 10/11/2010)
876 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion referred Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 10/27/2010 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Da Knowes, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Blacklined Version of Second Amended Complaint, # 3 Declaration of Hugh Sandler, # 4 Memorandum in Support, # 5 Exhibit 1 to Memorandum Exhibit 2 to Memorandum, # 7 Exhibit 3 to Memorandum, # 8 Notice of Hearing, # 9 Certificate of Service)(Howar Modified to refer to mag & changed hrg time on 10/13/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/12/2010)
877 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 863 MOTION New Trial and/or Reconsideration of Discovery Order Pursuant to FRCP 59(e). (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) Modified text on 10/13/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/12/2010)
878 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 869 MOTION for Protective Or (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
879 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 876 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Filing attorne have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will decided by the Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/27/2010 11:00 AM. Clerk took corrective action. (gb

10/13/2010 10/14/2010 10/15/2010 10/15/2010
10/15/2010
10/18/2010
10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/18/2010 10/20/2010
10/20/2010 10/20/2010
10/21/2010

(Entered: 10/13/2010)
880 ORDER Setting ORAL ARGUMENT on 876 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint : Motion He for 10/27/2010 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Kn III on 10/13/10.(sek, ) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
881 EXPARTE MOTION to Continue Hearing by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E Knowles, III. (Curenton, James) Modified on 10/15/2010 (gbw, ). (Motion accepted without proposed order, see Do granting motion) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
882 ORDER granting 881 MOTION to Continue. ORDER Resetting ORAL ARGUMENT on 876 MOTION for Leave Second Amended Complaint : Motion Hearing RESET for 11/10/2010 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/15/10.(sek, ) (Entered: 10/15/2010)
883 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File to Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Signal's Motion for New Tr and/or Reconsideration of Discovery Order Pursuant to FRCP 59(e) by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referre Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Reply Memorandum)(Hangartne (Entered: 10/15/2010)
884 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File to Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Signal's Motion to Enforce Discovery Order Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Signal International LLC. Motion( referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Reply Memorandum)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/15/2010)
885 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant Signal International LLCs Opposi Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant Signal Intern LLCs Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order, # 3 Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' proposed Reply Memorand Exhibit B to Plaintiffs' proposed Reply Memorandum, # 5 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 10/18/2
886 ORDER granting 883 Motion for Leave to File reply re Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration of Discovery Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/18/10. (sek, ) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
887 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 863 MOTION for New Trial and/or Reconside Discovery Order Pursuant to FRCP 59(e). (sek, ) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
888 ORDER granting 884 Motion for Leave to File Reply re Motion to Enforce Order of the Court Pursuant to Rule 37 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/18/10. (sek, ) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
889 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 868 MOTION to Enforce Order of the Court P to Rule 37 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (sek, ) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
890 ORDER granting 885 Motion for Leave to File reply re Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge D Knowles, III on 10/18/10. (sek, ) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
891 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 869 MOTION for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exh 2 Exhibit B)(sek, ) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
892 ORDER that oral argument on 812 MOTION to Dismiss Claim That Above Captioned Action is Amenable to Certif under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2), is set for 11/10/2010 09:45 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey; granting 825 MOTI Leave to File Reply Memorandum and denying as moot 826 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Opposed Motion for to File Reply Memorandum filed by Signal International LLC. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/19/2010.(caa, ) (Entered: 10/20/2010)
893 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 812 MOTION to Dismiss Claim That Above Ca Action is Amenable to Certification under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2). (caa, ) (Entered: 10/20/2010)
894 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 10/20/201 ORDERED that 863 Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration of Discovery Order Pursuant to FRCP 59(e) File Behalf of Signal International, L.L.C.; 868 Motion to Enforce Order of the Court Pursuant to Rule 37 of Federal Ru Civil Procedure; 869 Motion for Protective Order are TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (sek, ) (Entered: 10/21/20
895 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Notices of Consent to Sue (328 − 336). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificat Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 10/21/2010)

10/22/2010 10/25/2010
10/26/2010
10/26/2010
10/27/2010 10/28/2010 10/29/2010 10/29/2010 10/29/2010 10/29/2010 11/01/2010
11/01/2010 11/02/2010 11/02/2010 11/03/2010 11/05/2010
11/05/2010

897 NOTICE of Absence and Change of Address by Kurella Rao. (gec, ) (Entered: 10/26/2010)
896 TRANSCRIPT of Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt held on 06/30/2010 before Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. Court Reporter/Recorder Arlene Movahed, Telephone number 504−589−7777. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/24/2011. (bgh, ) (Entered: 10/25/2010)
898 **DEFICIENT** MOTION to Strike The Defenses Of Defendant Global Resources, Inc. If It Does Not Have Coun November 10, 2010 by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Ce of Service)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 10/26/2010 (gec, ). (Entered: 10/26/2010)
899 MOTION to Strike The Defenses of Defendant Global Resources, Inc. If It Does Not Have Counsel by November 10 by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananj Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion Hearing set for 11/10/2010 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zaine (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Hearing, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Ente 10/26/2010)
900 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rule 23(f) Memorandum by Signal International LL (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
901 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of filing Consents to Sue (337 − 357). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Servic Naomi) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
902 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Consents to Sue (359−369). (Attachments: # 1 FLSA Consents (358−369), # 2 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
903 ORDER granting 900 Motion for Extension of Time to File Rule 23(f) Memorandum as stated herein. Signed by Ju C. Zainey on 10/28/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
904 MEMORANDUM filed by Signal International LLC re 812 MOTION to Dismiss Claim That Above Captioned Act Amenable to Certification under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2). (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
906 MEMORANDUM filed by All Plaintiffs re 812 MOTION to Dismiss Claim That Above Captioned Action is Amena Certification under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) Modified 11/1/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/29/2010)
907 Joint MOTION To Submit Class Certification Via Written Submission by Signal International LLC, plaintiffs, Mich Global Resources, J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. Motion Hearing set for 11/24/2010 09:00 AM before Judge Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Certificate of Compliance, # 3 Notice of Hearing, # 4 Prop Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified to add addl filers on 11/2/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/01/2010)
908 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Joint Motion to Submit Class Certification Via Written Submissions by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified text on 1 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/01/2010)
909 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 907 Joint MOTION To Submit Class Certification Via Written Submission. attorney did not select plaintiffs, Michael Pol, Global Resources, J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi as filer(s). Cl added filers. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
910 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi re 876 MOTION for L File Second Amended Complaint. (Curenton, James) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
911 ORDER granting 908 Motion to Expedite Hearing on Joint Motion to Submit Class Certification via Written Submi Motion hearing set for 11/10/2010 at 9:45 AM. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/2/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/0
912 ORDER denying 863 Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration of Discovery Order Pursuant to FRCP 59(e) Fil Behalf of Signal International, L.L.C.; granting in part 868 Motion to Enforce Order of the Court Pursuant to Rule 3 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that plaintiffs shall produce to Signal the redacted affidavits attached to their T− U−visa applications no later than ten (10) days from the date of this order. In all other respects, the motion is DENI granting 869 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/5/10. (sek, ) (E 11/05/2010)
913 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/5/10.(sek, ) (Entered: 11/05/201

11/05/2010 11/08/2010
11/08/2010 11/08/2010 11/08/2010 11/09/2010 11/09/2010 11/09/2010 11/09/2010
11/09/2010 11/10/2010
11/10/2010
11/10/2010 11/15/2010
11/15/2010

914 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of replacement, withdrawal, and renumbering of FLSA consents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhib Naomi) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
915 EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Josep Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referr Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Hugh Sandler, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration, # 6 Exhibit E to Declaration, # 7 Plaintiffs' Memorandum to J&M Associates' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, # 8 Proposed Order, # 9 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) Modified to add exparte on 11/9/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/08/2010)
916 ORDER granting 915 Motion for Leave to File reply re motion for leave to amend complaint. Signed by Magistrate Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/8/10. (sek, ) (Entered: 11/08/2010)
917 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 876 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complain (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(sek, ) (Entered: 11/08/2010)
918 DEFICIENT** MOTION to Strike 917 Reply to Response to Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complai & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 11/10/20 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Curenton, James) Modified on 11/9/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/08/2010)
919 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 915 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Filing attorney should changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk m docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
920 RESPONSE to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 907 Joint MOTION To Submit Class Certification Via Written Sub (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 11/10/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/09/2010)
921 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of M C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 907 Joint MOTION To Submit Class Certification Via Written Submission. (Alexis, Ralph) (E 11/09/2010)
922 MOTION to Strike 917 Reply to Response to Motion by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi. Motion(s) referred t Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 12/8/2010 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles II (Curenton, James) Modified on 11/10/2010 (gbw, ). (Corrected attachment(s) added on 11/10/2010: # 1 Main Docu 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Notice of Hearing) (gbw, ). Modified attachments & hrg date on 11/10/ (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/09/2010)
923 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 922 MOTION to Strike 917 Reply to Respo Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
924 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 922 MOTION to Strike 917 Reply to Response to Motion. Multiple PDF's w incorrectly filed as one. The Memo in Support, Exhibit and Notice of Hearing should have been filed as attachment Motion. All future filings should be entered this way. Clerk took corrective action. No further action is necessary.Fi attorney selected incorrect hearing date. Correct hearing date is 12/8/2010. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (En 11/10/2010)
926 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Motion Hearing held on 11/10/2010 re 899 MOTIO Strike The Defenses of Defendant Global Resources, Inc.−ORDERED DENIED; 812 MOTION to Dismiss Claim T Above Captioned Action is Amenable to Certification under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2)−GRANTED; 907 Joint MO To Submit Class Certification Via Written Submission−GRANTED; Pretrial Conference set 12/9/2010 & the evide hearing set 1/11/2011 are CANCELLED. (Court Reporter Vic DiGiorgio.) (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
927 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 11/10/201 Ordered that 876 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint & 922 MOTION to Strike 917 Reply are TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (sek, ) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
928 DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−270 by Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion Hearing set for 12/8/2010 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zain (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit)(Washington, Tracie) Modified on 11/16/2010 (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
929 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Ashleigh Ferris (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−27 by Kurian David.(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Affidavit)(Washington, Tracie) Modified to re hrg date & referral to mag on 11/16/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/15/2010)

11/15/2010 11/16/2010 11/16/2010
11/16/2010 11/17/2010 11/17/2010 11/17/2010 11/17/2010 11/17/2010 11/18/2010 11/19/2010
11/22/2010 11/23/2010 11/23/2010 11/23/2010 11/23/2010 11/30/2010 12/01/2010 12/01/2010 12/01/2010

930 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Jennifer Stewart (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−27 by Kurian David. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Affidavit)(Washington, Tracie) Modified to re hrg date & referral to mag on 11/16/2010 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/15/2010)
931 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 930 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Jennifer Stewart (Filing fee $ 5 rece number 053L−2703510), 929 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Ashleigh Ferris (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2703509). (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
932 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 930 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Jennifer Stewart (Filing fee $ 5 rece number 053L−2703510), 929 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Ashleigh Ferris (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2703509). Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the M Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective action. Filing attorney should changed 'Y' to 'N' at the question 'Set motion for hearing Y/N?' Exparte/Consent motions are NOT set for hearing. C removed hearing date.(gbw, ) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
933 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Joseph Ray Bjnarnson (Fee previously paid) by Ku David. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Affidavit)(Washington, Tracie) Modified on 11/16/2010 (Entered: 11/16/2010)
934 Supplemental Memorandum filed by All Plaintiffs, in Support of 876 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
936 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi re 876 MOTION for L File Second Amended Complaint. (Curenton, James) (Entered: 11/17/2010)
938 ORDER granting 929 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Ashleigh Ferris. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/1 (caa, ) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
939 ORDER granting 930 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Jennifer Stewart. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/17/2010. (caa, ) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
940 ORDER granting 933 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Joseph Bjarnson. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/17/2010. (caa, ) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
937 ORDER dismissing without prejudice as moot 922 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowle 11/18/10. (sek, ) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
941 OBJECTIONS/MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Sign International LLC re 912 Order on Motion for New Trial, Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment, Order on Motion Protective Order, Order Concerning Discovery of T−Visa Applications by Signal International, LLC. Motion Heari for 12/8/2010 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of He 3 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 11/22/2010 to edit text & add hearing info (rll, ). (NEF to MJ Knowles (Entered: 11/19/2010)
942 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 941 Objections. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is M for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. Clerk took corrective action by e changing the event and setting the motion for hearing. No further action is necessary. (rll, ) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
943 ORDER granting 876 Motion for Leave to File 2nd Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Kn III on 11/23/2010. (mmm, ) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
944 2nd AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by All Plaintiffs.(mmm, ) (Main Document 944 replac 11/23/2010) (mmm, ). (Entered: 11/23/2010)
945 Summons Issued as to J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Billy R Wilks. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(mmm, ) (Enter 11/23/2010)
946 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 944 2nd Amended Complaint. Corrected image pulled per Doc. 917, Exhibi (mmm, ) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
949 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 941 MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Tsu Naomi) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
950 Witness List by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
951 Exhibit List by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
952 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing FLSA Consents to Sue (370 − 379). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate o Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 12/01/2010)

12/01/2010 12/01/2010 12/01/2010 12/02/2010 12/02/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/15/2010 12/16/2010 12/20/2010 12/22/2010 01/03/2011 01/03/2011 01/03/2011 01/03/2011
01/04/2011
01/04/2011 01/06/2011
01/06/2011
01/06/2011 01/10/2011 01/13/2011

953 Witness and Exhibit List by Signal International LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
954 Witness and Exhibit List by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malv Burnett, A.P.C.. (Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
955 Witness and Exhibit List by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
956 Amended Witness List by All Plaintiffs. (Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
957 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing FLSA Consents to Sue (380 − 381). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 certificate of service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
959 ORDER Telephone Status Conference set for 12/16/2010 11:45 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
960 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Consents to Sue (382 − 383). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 certificate of servic Naomi) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
961 Supplemental Witness List by All Plaintiffs. (Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
962 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 12/16/2010. (rll, ) (Enter 12/17/2010)
963 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Consents to Sue (384 − 386). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Servi Naomi) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
964 Amended Witness and Exhibit List by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 955 Witness and Exhibit List (Shapiro, Stephen) Modified docket text on 12/23/2010 (ijg, ). (Entered: 12/22/2010)
968 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Affirmation of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Affirmation of Service, # 2 Certificate Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
969 NOTICE of Appearance by James G. Curenton, Jr on behalf of J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Billy R Wilks. (Cu James) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
970 EXPARTE MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 944 Amended Complaint (Second) by J&M Marine & In LLC, Billy R Wilks. (Curenton, James) Modified to add exparte on 1/3/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/03/2011)
971 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 970 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 944 Amended Complain (Second). Filing attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' be clicking the Next button. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
973 ORDER granting 970 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 944 Amended Complaint (Second); Answer du within 21 days. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/4/2011. (gbw, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/5/2011: # Document) (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/05/2011)
974 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 973 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Clerk attached inco image to document. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
975 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Proceeding held on 11/10/2010 before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Court Reporter/Recorder V DiGiorgio, Telephone number 504−589−7782. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obta through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. R of Transcript Restriction set for 4/6/2011. (bgh, ) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
976 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines by Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consu Pvt. Ltd., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Signal Internati LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
977 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Consents to Sue (387 − 389). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Servi Naomi) (Entered: 01/06/2011)
978 ORDER granting 976 Motion for Extension of Briefing Deadlines as stated herein. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey o 1/10/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/10/2011)
979 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Jennifer J. Rosenbaum as Attorney by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kuri David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Kri Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal V (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rosenbaum, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/14/2011 01/18/2011
01/20/2011 01/20/2011
01/20/2011 01/21/2011 01/24/2011 01/24/2011 01/28/2011 01/28/2011 01/28/2011 01/28/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011
02/01/2011
02/01/2011 02/01/2011

980 ORDER granting 979 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum terminated. Signed by J Jay C. Zainey on 1/14/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
981 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Toll Statute of Limitations on Claims for which Plaintiffs will not Seek Class Certification by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasa Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasude Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(W Daniel) Modified text on 1/19/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/18/2011)
982 ORDER re 981 Motion to Toll Statute of Limitations on Claims for which Plaintiffs will not Seek Class Certificatio Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/19/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
983 EXPARTE Second MOTION for Extension of Deadlines by Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultan Ltd., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Signal International LLC, Billy R Wilks. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) Modified on 1/21/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/20/2011)
984 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs Filing Notice of Consents to Sue (390−394). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 certificate of service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
985 ORDER granting 983 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Deadline for filing memoranda in support of or in opposi class certification is extended until 2/1/2011. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/21/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/21/
987 ANSWER to 944 Amended Complaint by J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC.(Curenton, James) (Entered: 01/24/2011
988 ANSWER to 944 Amended Complaint by Billy R Wilks.(Curenton, James) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
989 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Notice of Consents to Sue (395−396). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
990 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Withdrawal of Consents to Sue (68, 151, 236, 239). (Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 01/28/2011
991 ORDER denying 941 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. Signed by Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
992 RESPONSE to Motion filed by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Billy R Wil 165 MOTION to Certify Class. (Curenton, James) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
993 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to Redact Information Protected by Court Order from Opposition to P Motion to Certify Class by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 2/2/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
994 Supplemental MOTION to Certify Class by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law In Support of Their Supplemental Motion for Class Certification, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Notice of Class Action Lawsuit, # 4 Declar Chandra S. Bhatnager, # 5 Exhibits 48−423, # 6 Exhibit 429 Part I, # 7 Exhibit 429 Part II, # 8 Exhibits 443−460, # Exhibits 461−521, # 10 Exhibits 522−676, # 11 Exhibit 684 Part I, # 12 Exhibit 684 Part II, # 13 Exhibit 684 Part II Exhibits 700−835, # 15 Exhibits 836−850, # 16 Exhibits 851−872, # 17 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Add attachment(s) added on 2/1/2011: # 18 Exhibit Depo Excerpts Bingle, # 19 Depo Excerpts Dewan, # 20 Depo Excer Padaveettiyl, # 21 Depo Excerpts Pillai, # 22 Transcript, # 23 Transcript, # 24 Depo Excerpts Smith, # 25 Depo Exc Thangamani) (gbw, ). Modified on 2/1/2011 (gbw, ). (Per chambers, accept hearing date) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
995 ERROR: ENTERED AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT** NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing of Deposition Excerp Bingle, Binion, Burnett, Cunningham, David. (Attachments: # 1 Deposition Excerpts of Dewan, Dhananjaya, Duhon Kandhasamy, Khuttan, # 2 Deposition Excerpt of Padaveettiyl, # 3 Deposition Excerpts of Pillai, Pol, Rigolo, Sande Schnoor, Snyder, # 4 Deposition Excerpt of Rao Part I, # 5 Deposition Excerpt of Rao Part II, # 6 Deposition Excer Smith, Stevens, Sulekha, Vallentine, Wilks, # 7 Deposition Excerpt of Thangamani)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 2/ (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
996 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 995 Notice (Other), Notice (Other), Notice (Other). Document was incorrec as a separate document instead of attachments to document #994. Clerk took corrective action. No further action is (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
997 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 994 Supplemental MOTION to Class. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Z, # 2 Exhibit AA − ZZ, # 3 Exhibit AAA − ZZZ, # 4 Exhibit AAAA − ZZZZ Exhibit AAAAA − ZZZZZ, # 6 Exhibit AAAAAA − ZZZZZZ, # 7 Exhibit AAAAAAA − ZZZZZZZ, # 8 Exhibit AAAAAAAA − ZZZZZZZZ, # 9 Exhibit AAAAAAAAA − MMMMMMMMM)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/0

02/01/2011

998 MEMORANDUM by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Depositi Designation − Andrews I. Paddaveettiyl, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B − Deposition Designation − Hemant Khuttan, # 3 Ex Exhibit C − Deposition Designation − Palanyandi Thangamani, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D − Deposition Designation − Muruganamtham Kandahasamy, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E − Deposition Designation − Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, # 6 E Exhibit F − Deposition Designation − Kechuru Dhananjaya, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G − Deposition Designation − Pala Thangamani, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H − Deposition Designation − Andrews I. Paddaveettiyl, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit I − Deposition Designation − Muruganamtham Kandahasamy, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit J − Deposition Designation − Kech Dhananjaya)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 2/2/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/01/2011)

02/01/2011

1000

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 165 MOTION to Certify Class. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Exhibit Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Affidavit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibi Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibi Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit, # 37 Exhibi Exhibit, # 39 Exhibit, # 40 Exhibit, # 41 Exhibit, # 42 Exhibit, # 43 Exhibit, # 44 Exhibit, # 45 Exhibit, # 46 Exhibi Exhibit, # 48 Exhibit, # 49 Exhibit, # 50 Exhibit, # 51 Exhibit, # 52 Exhibit, # 53 Exhibit, # 54 Exhibit, # 55 Exhibi Exhibit, # 57 Exhibit, # 58 Exhibit, # 59 Exhibit, # 60 Exhibit, # 61 Exhibit, # 62 Exhibit, # 63 Exhibit, # 64 Exhibi Exhibit, # 66 Exhibit, # 67 Exhibit, # 68 Exhibit, # 69 Exhibit, # 70 Exhibit, # 71 Exhibit, # 72 Exhibit, # 73 Exhibi Exhibit)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 02/02/2011)

02/02/2011 999 DOCUMENT REFILED AS DOC. #1000** RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Bu Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 165 MOTION to Certif (Madere, Michael) Modified on 2/3/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/02/2011)

02/03/2011 1001 ORDER granting 993 Motion for Leave to Redact Information Protected by Court Order. Signed by Judge Jay C. Z 2/2/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/03/2011)

02/03/2011 1002 ORDER the following submissions in support of/opposition to class certifications have been made: 994 997 998 99 992 ; Rebuttal memo will be filed by 3/11/2011, per order no. 978. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/2/2011.(gbw (Entered: 02/03/2011)

02/14/2011 1006 MOTION for Protective Order Relating to Signal's Trade Secrets by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referred t E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 3/2/2011 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit Chris Cunningham, # 3 Affidavit Ronald Schnoor, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified #4 attachment description on 2/15/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/14/2011)

02/14/2011 1007 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Signal's Motion for Protective Order by Signal International LLC. M referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/14/2011)

02/15/2011 1008 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1006 MOTION for Protective Order Relating to Signal's Trade Secrets. Fili attorney did not select category 'Notice of Submission (Civil Only)' when attaching Notice of Submission. Clerk too corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

02/15/2011 1009 ORDER denying 1007 Motion to Expedite re motion for protective order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Kn III on 2/15/11. (sek, ) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

02/15/2011 1010 ORDER Setting ORAL ARGUMENT on 1006 MOTION for Protective Order Relating to Signal's Trade Secrets : M set for 3/2/2011 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. K III on 2/15/11.(sek, ) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

02/18/2011

1012

MOTION to Strike Evidence not within Issues Raised in Plaintiffs' Pleadings by Signal International LLC. Motion 3/16/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 515, # 3 516, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 N Submission, # 12 Request for Oral Argument)(Hangartner, Erin) **Request For Oral Argument Docketed Separatel Modified on 2/22/2011 (caa, ). (Entered: 02/18/2011)

02/18/2011 1013 MOTION to Stay (Partial) of Class Certification Proceedings by Signal International LLC. Motion set for 3/16/201 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Hangartne (Entered: 02/18/2011)

02/18/2011 1014 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Partial Stay of Class Certification Proceedin Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 2/22/2011 (caa, ). (Entered: 02/18/2011)

02/18/2011 1015 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of filing notice of consent to sue (397). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Ferris, Ashleigh) (Ente 02/18/2011)

02/18/2011 1017 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Signal International LLC regarding 1012 MOTION to Strike Evidence not Issues Raised in Plaintiffs' Pleadings (caa, ) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

02/22/2011 1016 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1012 MOTION to Strike Evidence not within Issues Raised in Plaintiffs' Ple Filing attorney attached a Request/Statement for Oral Argument to this motion instead of filing it as a separate entry took corrective action by separating the request and docketing it as a separate entry. All future requests for oral argu must be filed separately.(caa, ) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

02/22/2011 1018 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1014 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Partial Stay of Class Certification Proceedings. Filing attorney should have selected Yes at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Moti Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Exparte/Consent motions are not set for hearing. Clerk modified docket text reflect 'Exparte' AND has removed hearing date.(caa, ) Modified on 3/15/2011 (caa, ). (Entered: 02/22/2011)

02/22/2011 1019 ORDER granting 1014 Motion for Expedited Hearing. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the motion to stay (Re 1013) by 2/28/2011, at which time the motion will be taken under submission. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (gec (Entered: 02/22/2011)

02/22/2011

1020

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1006 MOTION for Protective Order Relatin Signal's Trade Secrets. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Hugh D. Sandler, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Hugh D. # 3 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Hugh D. Sandler, # 4 Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Hugh D. Sandler, # 5 Exhibit 4 to Declaration of Hugh D. Sandler, # 6 Exhibit 5 to Declaration of Hugh D. Sandler, # 7 Exhibit 6 to Declaration of H Sandler, # 8 Exhibit 7 to Declaration of Hugh D. Sandler, # 9 Exhibit 8 to Declaration of Hugh D. Sandler, # 10 Exh Declaration of Hugh D. Sandler, # 11 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 02/22/2011)

02/24/2011 1022 NOTICE regarding oral argument on 1012 MOTION to Strike Evidence not within Issues Raised in Plaintiffs' Plead filed by Signal International LLC. By Clerk. (jrc, ) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

02/25/2011 1023 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines For Filing Class Certification Reply Briefs by Thanas Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thang Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 02/25/201

02/28/2011 1024 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Response to Plaintiffs' Opposition of Signal's Motion for Protec Order by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Orde Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/28/2011)

02/28/2011 1025 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1013 MOTION to Stay (Partial) of Class Certification Proceedings. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Oct. 28, 2009 Dep. of W. Bingle at 57:12 61:21., # 2 Certific Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 02/28/2011)

02/28/2011 1026 ORDER granting 1023 Motion for Extension of Deadline for filing class certification reply briefs. Reply briefs due 3/21/2011. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/28/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/28/2011)

03/01/2011 1027 ORDER granting 1024 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 3/1/2 (caa, ) (Entered: 03/01/2011)

03/01/2011 1028 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 1006 MOTION for Protective Order Relating t Signal's Trade Secrets. (caa, ) (Entered: 03/01/2011)

03/02/2011 1029 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 3/2/2011. Ordered that 1006 MOTION for Protective Order Relating to Signal's Trade Secrets filed by Signal International LL TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (sek, ) (Entered: 03/02/2011)

03/08/2011 1030 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1012 MOTION to Strike Evidence not withi Raised in Plaintiffs' Pleadings. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Hugh D. Sandler, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 03/08/2011)

03/08/2011

1031

MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 3/23/2011 9:00 A before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading Third Amended Complaint, # 3 Proposed Pleading Rico Fraud Chart, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Notice of Subm # 8 Request for Oral Argument, # 9 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) Modified event on 3/9/2011 (gbw, ). Req Oral Argument docketed separately. (Per chambers, Judge Zainey will decide on motion) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/08/2011 1034 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by All Plaintiffs regarding 1031 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/09/2011)

03/09/2011 1032 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1031 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is Motion for Leave to File Document. Clerk took corrective action by chang event. Filing attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate J Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the magistrate judge. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/09/20
03/09/2011 1033 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1031 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. Filing attorney attached a Request/Statement for Oral Argument to this motion instead of filing it as a separate entry. Clerk took co action by separating the request and docketing it as a separate entry. All future requests for oral argument must be f separately. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
03/09/2011 1035 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1031 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. A correction w previously entered referring motion to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. Instead, per chambers, Judge Jay C will be deciding on motion. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
03/09/2011 1036 NOTICE regarding oral argument on 1031 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. By Clerk.(jrc, ) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
03/09/2011 1037 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION To Join Motion to Strike filed on behalf of Signal International, LLC by Malvern Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) Modified to remove referral to MJ on 3/10/2011 (gbw (Entered: 03/09/2011)
03/10/2011 1038 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1037 MOTION To Join Motion to Strike filed on behalf of Signal Internatio LLC. Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Jud Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective action.(gbw, ) (Entered: 03/10/2011)
03/11/2011 1039 ORDER granting 1037 Motion To Join Motion to Strike filed on behalf of Signal International, LLC. Signed by Jud C. Zainey on 3/10/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 03/11/2011)
03/11/2011 1040 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines for Class Certification Reply Memoranda by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/11/2011)
03/11/2011 1041 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1006 Motion for Protective Order Relating to Signal's Trade Secrets as forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 3/11/11. (sek, ) (Entered: 03/11/2011)
03/14/2011 1042 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Notices of Consents to Sue (398−399). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Ferris, Ashle (Entered: 03/14/2011)
03/15/2011 1043 ORDER granting 1013 Motion for Partial Stay of Class Certification Proceedings as stated herein. Signed by Judge Zainey on 3/14/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
03/15/2011 1044 ORDER granting 1040 Motion to Extend Deadline to file class certification reply memo. Signed by Judge Jay C. Za 3/14/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
03/15/2011 1045 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1031 MOTION for Leave to Fil Amended Complaint. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
03/15/2011 1046 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1031 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. (Alexis (Entered: 03/15/2011)
03/15/2011 1047 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 1031 MOTIO Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
03/15/2011 1048 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Joinder by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Pr Order Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified text on 3/16/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/15/2011)
03/21/2011 1049 EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File Reply filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Prop Declaration of Hugh D. Sandler, # 3 Proposed Exhibits 1−11, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate of Service)(Howa Alan) Modified event on 3/22/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/21/2011)
03/22/2011 1050 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1049 Reply to Response to Motion. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. event is Motion for Leave to File Document. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
03/22/2011 1053 ORDER granting 1048 Dewan defendants' Motion for Leave to Join in Signal International's Motion to Strike Evide Outside the Scope of Class Certification Pleadings. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/22/2011. (gbw, ) Modified 3/23/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/23/2011)

03/22/2011 1054 ORDER granting 1049 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/22/2011. (gbw, ) (Ente 03/23/2011)

03/23/2011 1055 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 1031 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complain (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of H.D. Sandler, # 2 Exhibit 1)(gbw, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/30/2011 Signed Affidavit of H.D. Sandler) (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/23/2011)

03/24/2011 1056 EXPARTE MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rebuttal by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law C L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) Modified to exparte on 3/25/2011 (gbw, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/25/2011: # 2 Exhibit) (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/24/2

03/25/2011 1057 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1056 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rebuttal. Filing attorney shou changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk m docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/25/2011)

03/25/2011 1058 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1056 MOTION for Extension of Time to Fil Rebuttal. (Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 03/25/2011)

03/25/2011 1059 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1056 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rebuttal. Filing attorney did n include an exhibit. The exhibit was subsequently provided to Clerk and has now been attached to the motion. (gbw, (Entered: 03/25/2011)

03/25/2011 1060 ORDER granting 1056 Motion for Extension of Time to File Rebuttal Memo in support or opposition of the class certification; Rebuttal memo due 4/21/2011. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/25/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/25/2

03/30/2011 1061 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1055 Reply to Response to Motion. Filing attorney did not include a signed affidavit. The signed affidavit was subsequently provided to Clerk and has now been attached to the document. (gbw (Entered: 03/30/2011)

04/11/2011 1062 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to extend page limits for all parties concerning class certification reply memoran Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 04/11/2011)

04/12/2011

1063

RESPONSE to Motion filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganan Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 1062 MOTION to extend page limits for all partie concerning class certification reply memoranda. (Attachments: # 1 Modified Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 04/12/2011)

04/12/2011 1065 ORDER granting 1062 Motion to extend the page limit for reply memo concerning class certification; The page lim reply memo concerning class certification for all parties is 55 pages.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/12/2011. (Entered: 04/12/2011)

04/19/2011 1066 ORDER concerning reply/rebuttal memoranda pertaining to class certification. For any submission exceeding 100 p total, courtesy copies shall be delivered to chambers no later than 4/25/11 3:00 PM. This will not affect the electron deadline of 4/21/11. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 04/19/2011)

04/21/2011 1067 ORDER that the deadline for filing reply/rebuttal memoranda pertaining to class certification FOR ALL PARTIES extended to Friday, 4/29/2011. Hardcopies for chambers' use can be delivered through 5/2/2011. Signed by Judge Ja Zainey on 4/21/2011.(gbw, ) (Entered: 04/21/2011)

04/29/2011 1070 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Further Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 994 Supplemental MOTION Certify Class. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1 − Z1, # 2 Exhibit A2 − Z2, # 3 Exhibit A3 − Z3, # 4 Exhibit A4 − Z4, # Exhibit A5 − Z5, # 6 Exhibit A6 − F6, # 7 Exhibit 448)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified text on 5/2/2011 (gbw, ). (Ente 04/29/2011)

04/29/2011

1071

REPLY MEMORANDUM filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 994 Supplemental MOTION to Certify Class. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 20, # 2 Bipi Patel Deposition Excerpt, # 3 Hemant Khuttan Deposition Excerpt, # 4 Hemant Khuttan Deposition Excerpt, # 5 Jo Sanders Deposition Excerpt, # 6 Kurian David Deposition Excerpt, # 7 Malvern Burnett Deposition Excerpt, # 8 Pa Vallentine Deposition Excerpt, # 9 Santhosn Kumar Deposition Excerpt, # 10 Vasudevan Sulekha Deposition Excerpt)(Alexis, Ralph) Modified text on 5/2/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/29/2011)

04/29/2011 1072 REFILED AS DOC. #1074** REBUTTAL MEMORANDUM filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd MOTION to Certify Class Rebuttal Memorandum. (Shapiro, Stephen) Modified text on 5/2/2011 (gbw, ). Modified 5/2/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/29/2011)

04/29/2011 1073 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support filed by All Plaintiffs re 994 Supplemental MOTION to Certify Class. (Attac # 1 Affidavit Decl. of Ashleigh Ferris, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Decl. of Ashleigh Ferris, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Decl. of Ashleigh F 4 Exhibit 3 to Decl. of Ashleigh Ferris, # 5 Exhibit 4 to Decl. of Ashleigh Ferris, # 6 Exhibit 5 to Decl. of Ashleigh

7 Exhibit 6 to Decl. of Ashleigh Ferris, # 8 Exhibit 7 to Decl. of Ashleigh Ferris, # 9 Exhibit 8 to Decl. of Ashleigh 10 Exhibit 9 to Decl. of Ashleigh Ferris, # 11 Exhibit 10 to Decl. of Ashleigh Ferris, # 12 Exhibit 11 to Decl. of Ash Ferris, # 13 Exhibit 12 to Decl. of Ashleigh Ferris, # 14 Exhibit 13 to Decl. of Ashleigh Ferris, # 15 Exhibit 14 to D Ashleigh Ferris, # 16 Certificate of Service)(Ferris, Ashleigh) Modified on 5/2/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 04/29/2011)

04/29/2011 1074 AMENDED REBUTTAL MEMORANDUM filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 165 MOTION Certify Class Amended Rebuttal Class Certification Memorandum. (Shapiro, Stephen) Modified text on 5/2/2011 (g (Entered: 04/29/2011)

05/02/2011 1075 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1072 Memorandum. Ok per chambers, attorney refile document, see docum #1074. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/02/2011)

05/04/2011 1076 ORDER that the Rebuttal submission pertaining to class certification have been made as stated herein; The issue of certification is under submission as of 4/29/2011. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 5/3/2011.(gbw, ) (Entered: 05/0

05/19/2011 1078 (STRICKEN PER DOC. #1079)** MOTION to Strike 1073 Reply to Response to Motion,,, by Signal International Motion set for 6/22/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 E A, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 5/20/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/19/2011)

05/20/2011 1079 ORDER that the 1078 Motion to Strike is STRICKEN from the record to be refiled with a memorandum in support exceed 5 double−spaced pages in length.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 5/20/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/20/201

05/20/2011

1080

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION For Court Approval of Stipulated Production Order by Thanasekar Chellappan, K David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Kri Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal V Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Stipulated Production Order, # 2 Certifi Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 05/20/2011)

05/23/2011 1082 MOTION to Strike Evidence Not Within Issues Raised re 1073 Reply Memo by Signal International LLC. Motion s 6/22/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 N Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified text on 5/24/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/23/2011)

05/31/2011 1084 STIPULATED PRODUCTION ORDER 1080 as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Kno on 5/31/11. (sek, ) (Entered: 05/31/2011)

06/14/2011 1086 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1082 MOTION to Strike Evidence Not With Issues Raised re 1073 Reply Memo. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Ferris, Ashleigh) Modified on 6/15/2 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/14/2011)

06/22/2011 1088 ORDER re request for status conference to address the possibility of submitting additional briefing in light of the Su Court's decision in Wal−Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10−277 (US 6/20/2011). After careful consideration of Duk Court is not persuaded that additional briefing is necessary. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/22/2011.(gbw, ) (E 06/23/2011)

07/06/2011 1089 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Notice of Consent to Sue (400). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Ferris, Ashleigh) (E 07/06/2011)

08/08/2011 1092 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Produce Business Documents by Signal Internation Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) M to refer to MJ on 8/8/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/08/2011)

08/08/2011 1093 ORDER granting 1092 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to Produce Business Documents. Signed by Magistrate J Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/8/11. (mm, ) (Entered: 08/09/2011)

08/17/2011 1094 DEFICIENT** NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing Supplemental Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Tsu, Naom Modified on 8/18/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/17/2011)

10/04/2011

1096

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 10/4/2011. Defendants w until 10/12/11, to move for a protective order as stated herein. Any oppositions must then be filed within four (4) days(excluding weekends and legal holidays) of the filing of the motion, at which time it will be submitted for consideration on the briefs. Plaintiffs have agreed to refrain from producing anything else to the media until after th rules on the motion for a protective order. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

10/06/2011 1097 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to File Motion for Protective Order by Signal Interna LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/06/2011)

10/11/2011 1098 ORDER granting 1097 Motion for Extension of Deadline to File Motion for Protective Order as stated herein. Signe Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/7/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/11/2011)

10/18/2011 1099 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to File Motion for Protective Order by Signal Interna LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/18/2011)

10/20/2011 1100 ORDER granting 1099 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to File Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jay Zainey on 10/19/11. (ala, ) (Entered: 10/20/2011)

10/20/2011

1101

EXPARTE MOTION to Withdraw Sameer Ahmed and Tushar Sheth as Attorney by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kuria David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Kri Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal V (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Suriyopas, Ivy) Modified on 10/21/2011 to add exparte and remove referral(plh (Entered: 10/20/2011)

10/21/2011

1102

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1101 MOTION to Withdraw Sameer Ahmed and Tushar Sheth as Attorney; **Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective action.; Filing attorney should have selected the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?'. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'.** (plh, ) (Ent 10/21/2011)

10/26/2011 1103 MOTION for Protective Order by Signal International LLC. Motion set for 11/9/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Hanga Erin) Modified on 10/27/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/26/2011)

10/26/2011 1104 EXPARTE Joint MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Join in Signal's Motion for Protective Order by Malvern C. Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 10/27/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/26/2011)

10/27/2011 1105 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1104 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Join in Signal's Motion for Protective Order. Filing attorney should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N Exparte/Consent motions are not set for hearing. Clerk has removed hearing date. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/27/2011)

10/28/2011 1106 ORDER granting 1104 Motion to Join in Signals Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/27/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2011)

10/28/2011 1107 ORDER granting 1101 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for plaintiffs. Attorney Sameer Ahmed and Tushar J. Sheth terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/27/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/28/2011)

11/01/2011 1108 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1103 MOTION for Protective Order, 1104 J MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Join in Signal's Motion for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 11/01/2011)

11/08/2011 1110 ORDER denying 1103 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/8/2011. (caa, ) (Entered: 11/08/2011)

12/12/2011 1112 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Credit Card not accepted or unavailable − payment of f due within 2 business days) by Kurian David. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Washington, Tracie Modified on 12/12/2011 (gbw, ). Modified to fee paid on 12/13/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 12/12/2011)

12/12/2011 1113 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1112 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Credit Card not accepted or unava payment of filing fee due within 2 business days). Document's signature line is either incomplete or blank. All futur documents must reflect either an original signature or an electronic signature of the filing attorney following the for (attorney name)'. No further action is necessary. The $100.00 pro hac filing fee is due. (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/12/2011

12/12/2011

Filing fee paid from Kurian David for SHIRLEY LIN re 1112 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $ 100) (c (Entered: 12/12/2011)

12/13/2011 1114 ORDER granting 1112 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Shirley Lin for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zain 12/13/2011. (blg) (Entered: 12/14/2011)

01/04/2012 1117 ORDER denying 994 Motion to Certify Class; denying 1012 Motion to Strike; denying as moot 1031 Motion for Le File Third Amended Complaint; denying 1082 Motion to Strike ; denying 165 Motion to Certify Class. Signed by J C. Zainey on 1/3/12. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/04/2012)

01/17/2012

1119

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION To Approve Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion Seeking Partial Reconsidera the Court's Order and Reasons Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Ku Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 01/17/2012)

01/18/2012 1120 ORDER granting 1119 Motion to Approve Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion Seeking Partial Reconsideration Court's Order and Reasons Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as set forth in document. Signed by Ju C. Zainey on 1/18/2012. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/18/2012)

01/18/2012

1121

MOTION for Reconsideration re 1117 Order on Motion to Certify Class by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. M set for 2/15/2012 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 1/19/2012 (gbw, ). (Accepted without memo per doc. #1120) (Entered: 01/18/

01/18/2012

1122

Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan regarding 1121 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1117 Order on Motion to Certify Class. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan Modified on 1/19/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/18/2012)

01/18/2012 1123 ORDER − Status Conference set for 2/15/2012 02:30 PM in chambers before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Signed by Judge Zainey on 1/18/2012.(cms, ) (Entered: 01/19/2012)

01/19/2012 1124 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1121 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1117 Order on Motion to Certify Cla Document was previously marked deficient. Document is correct as filed without a memorandum per doc. #1120. (g (Entered: 01/19/2012)

01/19/2012 1125 NOTICE regarding oral argument on 1121 MOTION for Reconsideration by plaintiffs re 1117 Order on Motion to Class. By Clerk.(jrc, ) (Entered: 01/19/2012)

01/25/2012

1126

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 1121 MOTION Reconsideration re 1117 Order on Motion to Certify Class. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Hugh Sandler, # 2 Exh 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) Modified text on 1/26/2012 (gbw, ). (ok per doc. #1120) (En 01/25/2012)

01/26/2012 1127 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Michael J. Madere as Attorney by Malvern C. Burnett. (Attachment Proposed Order)(Madere, Michael) (Entered: 01/26/2012)

01/27/2012 1128 ORDER granting 1127 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Michael J. Madere terminated. Signed by Judge Zainey on 1/27/2012. (caa, ) (Entered: 01/27/2012)

02/07/2012 1136 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1121 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1117 Order on Motion to Cert Class (Alexis, Ralph) Modified to add filers on 2/8/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/07/2012)

02/07/2012 1137 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1121 MOTION for Reconsidera 1117 Order on Motion to Certify Class. (Hangartner, Erin) Modified text on 2/8/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/07/2012

02/07/2012 1138 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 1121 MOTIO Reconsideration re 1117 Order on Motion to Certify Class. (Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 2/8/2012 (gbw, ). (Ente 02/07/2012)

02/08/2012 1139 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1136 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. Filing attorney did select Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. & Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. as a filer(s). Clerk filer(s). (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/08/2012)

02/08/2012 1140 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Elham R. Rabbani by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/08/2012)

02/08/2012 1141 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw E. Ross Buckley, Jr. as Attorney by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/08/2012)

02/09/2012 1142 ORDER granting 1140 Motion to Enroll Elham Rabbani as Additional Counsel of Record for Signal International L Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 02/09/2012)

02/09/2012 1143 ORDER granting 1141 Motion to Withdraw attorney Elliot Ross Buckley, Jr. for Signal International, LLC. Signed Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 02/09/2012)

02/13/2012 1144 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kand Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasude Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Reply Memorandum of Law In Sup

Motion Seeking Partial Reconsideration of the Court's Order and Reasons Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 02/13/2012)

02/13/2012 1145 ORDER denying 1144 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memo. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 02/1

02/15/2012 1147 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 2/15/2012: ORDERED t 3/9/2012 parties submit proposed joint CMO; FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for parties contact MJ Knowles schedule settlement conference to be held no later than 4/20/2012; FURTHER ORDERED that plas' 1121 Motion f Partial Reconsideration is DENIED (rll, ) (Entered: 02/17/2012)

02/15/2012 1149 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/15/2012: (This Minute Entry replaces the Minu entered on 2/15/12 (Rec. Doc. 1147) in its entirety. It has been updated to include all counsel who were present in c for the conference.) (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/27/2012)

02/16/2012 1146 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 4/3/2012 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.(plh, ) (Entered: 02/16/2012)

03/12/2012 1152 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Ralph R. Alexis, III, Glenn B. Adams, Denia S. Aiyegbusi, Michael Madere and law firm of Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson LLP as Attorney by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigra Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alexis, Ralph) (Entered: 03/12/2012)

03/13/2012 1153 ORDER granting 1152 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Burnett defendants. Attorney Ralph R. Alexis, III; Mic Madere; Glenn B. Adams and Denia Sylve Aiyegbusi terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/12/2012. (gb (Entered: 03/13/2012)

04/03/2012 1156 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Settlement Conference held on 4/3/2012. (mm, ) (Entered: 04/03/2012)

04/05/2012 1157 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Susie Morgan for all further proceedings. Judge Jay C. Z no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/4/2012.(gbw, )(NEF: MJ Knowles) (Entered: 04/05

04/24/2012 1160 MOTION for Status Conference by All Plaintiffs. Motion set for 5/9/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support , # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Notice of Submission , # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Cer of Service)(Howard, Alan) Modified text on 4/25/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 04/24/2012)

04/27/2012 1161 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 1160 MOTION Status Conference . (Attachments: # 1 E A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

05/11/2012 1162 ORDERED that re 1160 MOTION for Status Conference is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that a Status Conf is set for 6/15/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/11/2012.(clm, ) (Entered: 05/11/2012)

05/25/2012

1163

MOTION to Compel Unrepresented Business Defendants to Enroll Counsel or Have Their Defenses Stricken by Al Plaintiffs. Motion set for 6/13/2012 before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Ex 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Notice of Submission, # 7 Certificate of service)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 5/29/2012 (clm, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/29/2012: # 8 Certificate of Service, # 9 Certificate of Servi (clm, ). (Entered: 05/25/2012)

05/25/2012 1164 **ERROR: DOCUMENT INCORRECTLY FILED AS SEPARATE DOCUMENT − SEE REC. DOC. 1163** Amendment/Supplement to Document by All Plaintiffs re 1163 MOTION to Compel Unrepresented Business Defe to Enroll Counsel or Have Their Defenses Stricken Amended Certificate of Service (Suriyopas, Ivy) Modified on 5/ (clm, ). (Entered: 05/25/2012)

05/25/2012 1165 **ERROR: DOCUMENT INCORRECTLY FILED AS SEPARATE DOCUMENT − SEE REC. DOC. 1163**Amendment/Supplement to Document by All Plaintiffs re 1163 MOTION to Compel Unrepresented Busine Defendants to Enroll Counsel or Have Their Defenses Stricken 2nd Amended Certificate of Service (Suriyopas, Ivy) Modified on 5/29/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 05/25/2012)

05/29/2012 1166 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1163 MOTION to Compel Unrepresented Business Defendants to Enroll C or Have Their Defenses Stricken. Filing attorney selected incorrect submission/hearing date. Motion set for 6/20/20 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Clerk took corrective action. (clm, ) (Entered: 05/29/2012)

05/29/2012 1167 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1165 Amendment/Supplement to Document, 1164 Amendment/Supplemen Document. Multiple documents were incorrectly filed as separate PDFs. The 'Amendment to Document' should hav filed as attachment(s) to 'Motion to Compel'. Clerk took corrective action by attaching the Amendments to Rec. Doc No further action is necessary. (clm, ) (Entered: 05/29/2012)

05/29/2012 1168 Letter to Court from Michael Pol dated 5/23/2012 (clm, ) (Entered: 05/30/2012)

06/11/2012 1170 ORDER Status Conference set for 6/15/2012 at 10:00 a.m. is reset to 10:30 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed Judge Morgan.(cbn) (NEF: Mag. Knowles) (Entered: 06/11/2012)

06/13/2012 1171 Letter to Court from Kurella Rao dated 6/1/2012 (clm, ) (Main Document 1171 replaced on 6/15/2012) (clm, ). (En 06/13/2012)

06/13/2012 1173 Letter to Court from Erin Casey Hangartner (Middleberg) dated 6/8/2012 (clm, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)

06/13/2012 1174 Letter to Court from Naomi Tsu (SPLC) dated 6/8/2012 (clm, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)

06/13/2012 1175 Letter to Court from Stephen H. Shapiro dated 6/8/2012 (clm, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)

06/15/2012 1172 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1171 Letter to correct image. (clm, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)

06/15/2012 1178 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 6/15/2012. Counsel to co with deadlines set forth in document. (Court Reporter Susan Zielie.) (cbn) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

06/19/2012 1176 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett re 1163 MOTION to Compel Unreprese Business Defendants to Enroll Counsel or Have Their Defenses Stricken. (clm, ) (Entered: 06/19/2012)

06/20/2012 1177 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Unrepres Business Defendants to Enroll Counsel by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, Certificate of Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

06/20/2012 1179 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Ashleigh L. Ferris as Attorney by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 P Order, # 2 Certificate of service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 06/20/2012)

06/21/2012 1180 ORDER granting 1177 Motion for Leave to File reply memorandum. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entere 06/21/2012)

06/21/2012 1181 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support filed by All Plaintiffs re 1163 MOTION to Compel Unrepresented Business Defendants to Enroll Counsel or Have Their Defenses Stricken. (cbn) (Entered: 06/21/2012)

06/21/2012 1182 ORDER granting 1179 Motion to Withdraw Ashleigh Ferris as Attorney for plas. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (c (Entered: 06/21/2012)

06/25/2012 1184 Letter from Erin Casey Hangartner in response to 1178 Status Conference (cbn) Modified on 6/25/2012 to edit text (Entered: 06/25/2012)

06/25/2012 1185 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1184 letter. Clerk entered incorrect filer. Correction made. (cbn). (Entered: 06/25/2012)

06/25/2012 1186 Letter from Stephen Shapiro in response to 1178 Status Conference. (cbn) (Entered: 06/25/2012)

06/25/2012 1187 Letter from James G. Curenton in response to 1178 Status Conference. (cbn) (Entered: 06/25/2012)

06/25/2012 1188 Letter from Naomi Tsu in response to 1178 Status Conference (clm, ) (Entered: 06/28/2012)

07/06/2012 1189 ORDER granting in part 1163 Motion to Compel. Unrepresented corporate defendants set forth in order shall enroll within 45 days. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (dfts served via certified mail) (cbn) (Additional attachment(s) adde 7/6/2012: # 1 certified mail receipts) (cbn, ). (Entered: 07/06/2012)

07/09/2012 1190 ORDER: The deadline for filing any motion for class certification in CA 12−557 shall be no later than 10/15/12 and for submission on 11/21/12. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 07/09/2012)

07/12/2012 1193 Return Receipt of Certified Mail re: 1189 Order as to Gulf Coast Immigration, and Law Office of Malvern Burnett. (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/19/2012: # 1 Receipt) (clm, ). (Entered: 07/19/2012)

07/15/2012

1191

EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasam Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasude Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(W Daniel) (Entered: 07/15/2012)

07/18/2012 1192 ORDERED that 1191 Motion for Extension of Time to File is GRANTED. Therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiffs wi their Motion for Leave to Amend theComplaint on or before 8/3/2012 and serve on all Defendants as stated herein. by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/18/2012. (clm, ) (Entered: 07/18/2012)

07/20/2012

1194

**DEFICIENT** MOTION to Toll Statutes of Limitations by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # Declaration of Naomi Tsu, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Lin, Shirley) Modified on 7/23/2 (clm, ). (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/20/2012

1195

**DEFICIENT** MOTION to Toll Statutes of Limitations by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 8/15/2012 09:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Naomi Tsu, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 E B, # 4 Notice of Submission, # 5 Certificate of Service)(Lin, Shirley) Modified on 7/23/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 07/2

07/20/2012 1196 MOTION to Sever by Signal International LLC. Motion set for 8/15/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

07/23/2012

1197

MOTION to Toll Statutes of Limitations by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 8/15/2012 10:0 before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of Naomi Tsu, # 3 Exhibi Exhibit B, # 5 Notice of Submission, # 6 Certificate of Service)(Lin, Shirley) (Entered: 07/23/2012)

07/26/2012

1198

TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on June 15, 2012 before Judge Susie Morgan, also present was Magistrat Daniel Knowles. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7781. Transcript may be view the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Tran Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcrip with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/24/2012. (rsg) (Entered: 07/26/201

08/03/2012 1199 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by All Plaintiffs. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, I Motion set for 8/29/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandu Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed Pleading: Third Amended Complaint, # 4 Proposed Pleading: ExhibitA, # 5 N Submission, # 6 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) Modifiedon 8/6/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/03/2012)

08/06/2012 1200 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1199 MOTION for Leave to File. Filing attorney should have referred and s motion before the Magistrate Judge. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 8/29/2012 11:00 A before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Clerk took corrective action. (clm, ) (Entered: 08/06/2012)

08/06/2012 1201 ORDER Setting Oral Hearing on 1199 MOTION for Leave to File : Motion set for 8/29/2012 11:00 AM before Ma Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/6/2012.(lag, ) (Entered: 08/06

08/07/2012 1202 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1197 MOTION to Toll Statutes Limitations . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

08/07/2012 1203 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1196 MOTION to Sever . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 08/07/2012)

08/10/2012 1205 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Signal's Motion to Sever by Si International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/10/20

08/14/2012 1206 ORDER granting 1205 Motion for Leave to File reply. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/13/12. (cbn) (Entered: 08/14/2012)

08/14/2012 1207 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Signal International LLC re 1196 MOTION to Sever. (cbn) (Entered 08/14/2012)

08/14/2012

1208

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Toll Statutes of Limitat Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Lin, Shirley) (Entered: 08/14/2012)

08/16/2012 1209 ORDER granting 1208 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 08/16/2012)

08/16/2012 1210 REPLY of plas to dfts opp RE 1197 MOTION to Toll Statutes of Limitations . (cbn) (Entered: 08/16/2012)

08/21/2012 1211 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1199 MOTION for Leave to Fil Amended Complaint. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/22/2012 1212 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Jennifer Stewart as Attorney by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Da Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Ku Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan.

(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 08/22/2012)

08/22/2012 1213 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order )(Buras, Daniel) Mod text on 8/23/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/22/2012)

08/23/2012

1214

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1213 Ex Parte MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record . Document's sign line is either incomplete. All future documents must reflect either an original signature or an electronic signature of filing attorney following the format 's/ (attorney name)'. No further action is necessary. In addition, Proposed Order duplicate text. Select either a category OR enter a description, but not both since this results in duplicate docket text took corrective action. (clm, ) (Entered: 08/23/2012)

08/24/2012 1215 ORDER granting 1212 Motion to Withdraw Jennifer Stewart as counsel for plas. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (c (Entered: 08/24/2012)

08/24/2012 1216 ORDER granting 1213 Motion of Daniel Buras to appear as counsel of record for the Burnett dfts. Signed by Judge Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

08/31/2012 1217 ORDER Resetting ORAL Hearing on 1199 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint: Motion RESET ORAL HEARING 9/5/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Knowles, III on 8/31/12.(plh, ) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/31/2012

1218

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referr Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) Modified text to document description on 9/4/2012 (clm, ). (Entered: 08/31/2012)

09/04/2012 1219 ORDER granting 1218 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Know on 9/4/12. (plh, ) (Entered: 09/04/2012)

09/04/2012 1220 REPLY Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 1199 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amen Complaint. (plh, ) (Entered: 09/04/2012)

09/05/2012 1221 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 9/5/2012 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. ORDERED that 1199 Motion for Leave to File Third Amen Complaint is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (plh, ) (Entered: 09/06/2012)

09/21/2012 1223 ORDER granting 1199 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/21/12. (plh, ) Modified doc type on 9/21/2012 (plh, ). (Entered: 09/21/2012)

09/21/2012 1224 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(plh, ) (Entered: 09/21/2012)

10/03/2012 1227 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 1224 Amended Complaint by Signal Interna LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/03/2012)

10/05/2012 1228 ORDER granting 1227 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer as to Signal International LLC. Answer due 10/26 Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/5/2012. (tsf, ) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/05/2012 1229 MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Signal International 1223 Order on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. Motion hearing set 9/21/2012 10:00 AM before Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified 10/9/2012 (gbw, ). Modified on 11/6/2012 (gbw, ). (NEF: MJ Knowles) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/09/2012 1230 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1229 Objections. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is M Appeal/Review of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event.( (Entered: 10/09/2012)

10/09/2012

1231

MOTION to Compel by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motio 10/24/2012 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, Notice of Submission, # 3 37(a)(1) Certificate, # 4 Affidavit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 E # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) Modified hrg time on 10/10/20 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/09/2012)

10/10/2012 1232 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1231 MOTION to Compel . Filing attorney selected incorrect time. Correct 11:00 AM. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/10/2012 1233 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 1231 MOTION to Compel : Motion set for ORAL HEARING 10/24/2012 11:0 before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/10/12.(pl (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/16/2012 1234 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1231 MOTION to Compel . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/16/2012)

10/16/2012 1235 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1229 MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Lin Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 10/16/2012)

10/16/2012 1236 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 1231 MOTIO Compel . (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 10/16/2012)

10/19/2012 1237 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Objection to September 21, 2 Order by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (E 10/19/2012)

10/22/2012 1238 EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memo filed by All Plaintiffs. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Da Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) Modified event on 10/23/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/22/2012 1239 ORDER granting 1237 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/22/2012 1240 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Signal International LLC re 1229 MOTION for APPEAL/REV MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. (cbn) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/22/2012 1241 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Answer to Third Amended Co by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order for Motion for Extension of Time to Answer)(Buras, Daniel) Mo on 10/23/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/23/2012 1242 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1238 Reply to Response to Motion. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. event is Motion for Leave to File Document. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/23/2012)

10/23/2012 1243 ORDER granting 1241 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn (Entered: 10/23/2012)

10/24/2012 1245 ORDER granting 1238 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Know on 10/24/12. (plh, ) (Entered: 10/24/2012)

10/24/2012 1246 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 1231 MOTION to Compel . (plh, ) (Entered: 10/24/2012)

10/24/2012 1247 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 10/24/201 1231 MOTION to Compel. ORDERED that the Motion to Compel 1231 is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (plh (Entered: 10/24/2012)

10/24/2012 1248 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer 1224 Third Amended Complaint by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 10/25/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered 10/24/2012)

10/25/2012 1249 ORDER granting 1248 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 10/25/2012)

11/27/2012

1254

TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on October 24, 2012 before Magistrate Judge Daniel Knowles. Court Reporter/Recorder Vic DiGiorgio, Telephone number 504−589−7782. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/25/2013. (rsg) (Entered: 11/27/2012)

12/28/2012 1257 ORDER that Signals 1229 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court is OVERRULED. FURTHER ORDERED that Judge Knowles order, granting plaintiffs leave to file their third amend complaint, be and hereby is AFFIRMED. FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall respond to plaintiffs thirdam complaint no later than 1/11/2013. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/28/2012. (caa, ) (Entered: 12/28/2012)

01/03/2013 1258 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Kristi Graunke as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Thanasekar Chellappan David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Kri Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal V (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 01/03/2013)

01/04/2013 1259 ORDER granting 1258 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Kristi L. Graunke. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Ent 01/04/2013)

01/11/2013 1260 BURNETT DEFENDANTS' ANSWER to 1224 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand (Third) by Malvern C. Burn Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C..(Buras, Daniel) (Entered: 01/11/2013)

01/11/2013

1261

ANSWER to 1224 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand (Third), CROSSCLAIM with Jury Demand against Mal Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Global Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C., J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine Industrial, LLC, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Michael Pol, Kurella Rao by Signal International LLC.(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/11/2013)

01/11/2013 1262 Answer to Third Amended Complaint ANSWER to 1224 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Sachin Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd..(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 01/11/2013)

01/17/2013

1265

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Entry of Default as to J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi; Billy R. Wilks; J Marine & Industrial, LLC; Global Resources, Inc.; Indo−Ameri Soft, LLC; Kurella Rao; and Michael Pol by Thana Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thang Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Daniel Werner, # 2 Exhibit A to Werner Decl.: Notice Electronic Filing, Third Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit B to Werner Decl.: Certificate of Service, Third Amended Complaint, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 01/17/2013)

01/18/2013 1266 ORDER granting 1265 Motion for Entry of Default as to defendants Indo−Ameri Soft, LLC; Kurella Rao; J&M As Inc. of Mississippi; Billy R. Wilks, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC; Global Resources, Inc.; and Michael Pol. Signe clerk. (cbn) (Entered: 01/18/2013)

01/18/2013 1267 EXPARTE MOTION to Set Aside Default (unopposed) by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Billy R Wilks. (Curenton, James) Modified on 1/22/2013 (gbw, ). (Additional attachment(s) added 1/22/2013: # 1 Proposed Order) (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/18/2013)

01/18/2013 1268 EXPARTE MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer 1224 Third Amended Complaint by J & M Associates, Inc. Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Billy R Wilks. (Curenton, James) Modified on 1/22/2013 (gbw, ). (Ad attachment(s) added on 1/22/2013: # 1 Proposed Order) (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/18/2013)

01/22/2013

1269

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1268 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer. Filing attorney should ha selected Yes at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk modifi docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be deci the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective action. Docume should have been linked to another document by checking the box 'Should the document you are filing link to anoth document' or by selecting a related document on other appropriate screen. Clerk took corrective action by linking do to document #1224.' (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/22/2013)

01/22/2013 1270 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1267 MOTION to Set Aside Default (unopposed). Filing attorney should ha selected Yes at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk modifi docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/22/2013)

01/22/2013 1271 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1267 MOTION to Set Aside Default (unopposed). Filing attorney did not in proposed order. Proposed Order subsequently provided to Clerk and has now been attached to the motion. (gbw, ) ( 01/22/2013)

01/22/2013 1272 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1268 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer. Filing attorney did not in proposed order. Proposed Order subsequently provided to Clerk and has now been attached to the motion.(gbw, ) (E 01/22/2013)

01/22/2013 1273 ORDER granting 1267 Motion to Set Aside Default against defendants J&M Associates of MS, J&M Marine & Ind LLC, and Billy R. Wilks. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 01/22/2013)

01/22/2013 1274 ORDER granting 1268 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer as to J&M Associates of MS, J&M Marine & Indu LLC, and Billy Wilks. Answer due on or before 21 days from the date of this order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan Modified on 1/25/2013 (cbn, ). (Entered: 01/22/2013)

01/30/2013 1275 ORDER that the 1231 Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Ju Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/30/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 01/30/2013)

01/31/2013 1276 ANSWER to 1261 Crossclaim with Jury Demand filed by Signal by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration L Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C..(Buras, Daniel) Modified on 2/1/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered 01/31/2013)

02/01/2013 1285 MOTION to Set Aside Default re 1266 Order on Motion for Entry of Default by Michael Pol. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/25/2013)

02/04/2013 1277 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer 1261 Cross Claim by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 2/5/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered 02/04/2013)

02/05/2013 1278 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1277 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer and/or File Responsive Pl to Signal's Cross Claims. Document should have been linked to another document by checking the box 'Should the document you are filing link to another document' or by selecting a related document on other appropriate screen. C took corrective action by linking document to document #1261.' (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/05/2013)

02/05/2013 1279 ORDER granting 1277 Motion for Extension of Time to file responsive pleadings. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Entered: 02/05/2013)

02/12/2013 1280 ANSWER to 1224 Third Amended Complaint by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, Billy R Wilks.(Curenton, James) Modified on 2/13/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/12/2013)

02/12/2013 1281 ANSWER to 1261 Crossclaim by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi.(Curenton, James) Modified on 2/13/2013 ( (Entered: 02/12/2013)

02/12/2013 1282 ANSWER to 1261 Crossclaim by J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC.(Curenton, James) Modified on 2/13/2013 (gbw, (Entered: 02/12/2013)

02/26/2013 1286 ORDERED that 1285 MOTION to Set Aside Default re 1266 Order on Motion for Entry of Default is set for submi 3/27/13. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

03/01/2013 1287 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to Amend Its Answer To Third Amended Complaint by Signal Internati LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 3/1/2013 (gbw, ). ( 03/01/2013)

03/01/2013 1288 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1287 MOTION for Leave to Amend its Answer to Third Amended Complain attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. T motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/01/2013)

03/04/2013 1289 ORDER granting 1287 Motion for leave to Amend/Correct answer. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 03/04/2013)

03/04/2013 1290 AMENDED ANSWER to 3rd Amended Complaint by Signal International LLC.(cbn) (Entered: 03/04/2013)

03/04/2013 1291 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct Answer to Third Amended Complaint by J & M Associates, In Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Billy R Wilks. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Answer, # 2 Exhib order)(Curenton, James) (Entered: 03/04/2013)

03/05/2013 1292 ORDER granting 1291 Motion for leave to file amended answers. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 03/05/2013)

03/05/2013 1293 AMENDED ANSWER to third amended complaint by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine & Indus LLC, Billy R Wilks.(cbn) (Entered: 03/05/2013)

03/14/2013 1294 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct 1260 Answer to Amended Complaint To Incude Response to R Fraud Chart by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burn A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended Answer, # 2 Proposed Order)(Buras, Daniel) Modified on 3/15/2013 (Entered: 03/14/2013)

03/15/2013 1295 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1294 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1260 Answer to Amended Complaint To Response to RICO Fraud Chart. Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be de by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw (Entered: 03/15/2013)

03/18/2013 1296 ORDER granting 1294 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/18/2013 1297 AMENDED ANSWER to Third Amended Complaint Rico Fraud Chart by dfts Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, LLC, and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC (cbn) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/18/2013

1298

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1285 MOTION to Set Aside Default re 1266 on Motion for Entry of Default . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit (Declaration) of Daniel Werner), # 2 Exhibit A to Wer Decl. (Global Resources Dep. I), # 3 Exhibit B to Werner Decl. (Global Resources Dep. II), # 4 Exhibit C to Werne (2d RFPs), # 5 Exhibit D to Werner Decl (Pol 2d RFPs Response), # 6 Exhibit E to Werner Decl. (Burnett 2d RFPs Response), # 7 Exhibit F to Werner Decl. (Dewan 2d RFPs Response), # 8 Exhibit G to Werner Decl. (Pol−Dewan

# 9 Exhibit H to Werner Decl. (Green Tech World Article), # 10 Exhibit I to Werner Decl. (Herrington v Buford de # 11 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/18/2013 1299 EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File Amended Answer to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint by Sachin Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 3/ (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/19/2013 1300 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1299 AMENDED ANSWER. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Corr is Motion for Leave to File Document. Clerk took corrective action by re−docketing the event.(gbw, ) (Entered: 03/19/2013)

03/20/2013 1302 ANSWER to 1261 Crossclaim with Jury Demand by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd..(Shapiro, Stephe Modified on 3/21/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/20/2013)

03/21/2013 1303 ORDER granting 1299 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 03/21/2013)

03/28/2013 1305 MOTION for Protective Order by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion s 4/24/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 3/29/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/28/2013)

03/29/2013 1306 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1305 MOTION for Protective Order. Filing attorney should have selected N question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk modified docket text to re 'Exparte' and added hearing date/time of 4/24/2013 11:00 AM. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/29/2013)

04/01/2013 1308 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 1305 MOTION for Protective Order : Motion set for ORAL HEARING 4/24/20 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 4/1/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 04/01/2013)

04/15/2013 1310 ORDER Resetting ORAL Hearing on 1305 MOTION for Protective Order : Motion RESET FOR ORAL HEARIN 5/22/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowle 4/15/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 04/15/2013)

05/07/2013

1312

MOTION for Discovery [Plaintiffs motion to compel defendants to produce documents being withheld on the basis joint defense privilege] by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motio 5/22/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in su plaintiffs' motion to compel, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 FRCP Rule 37(a)(1) certification, # 4 Declaration of Jos Bjarnson in support of plaintiffs' motion to compel, # 5 Ex. A to Bjarnson Declaration, # 6 Ex. B to Bjarnson Decla 7 Ex. C to Bjarnson Declaration, # 8 Ex. D to Bjarnson Declaration, # 9 Ex. E to Bjarnson Declaration, # 10 Ex. F t Bjarnson Declaration, # 11 Ex. G to Bjarnson Declaration, # 12 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 05/07/2013)

05/08/2013 1313 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 1312 MOTION for Discovery [Plaintiffs motion to compel defendants to produ documents being withheld on the basis of the joint defense privilege] : Motion set for ORAL HEARING 5/22/2013 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 5/8/13.( (Entered: 05/08/2013)

05/14/2013 1315 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1312 MOTION for Discovery [Plaintiffs motion to compel defendants to produce documents being withheld on the basis of the joint defense privil (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/14/2013

1316

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Certain Documents Under Seal Pursuant to Protective Order by Thanasek Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Mot referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/14/2013

1317

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 1305 MOTION Protective Order. (Howard, Alan) (Sealed attachment(s) added on 5/16/2013: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C, # 3 Exhi Exhibit J, # 5 Exhibit K) (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/14/2013 1318 Declaration of Hugh D. Sandler filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A to Sandler Declaration., # 2 Ex. B to Declaration., # 3 Ex. C to Sandler Declaration., # 4 Ex. D to Sandler Declaration., # 5 Ex. E to Sandler Declaration. F to Sandler Declaration., # 7 Ex. G to Sandler Declaration., # 8 Ex. H to Sandler Declaration., # 9 Ex. I to Sandler

Declaration., # 10 Ex. J to Sandler Declaration., # 11 Ex. K to Sandler Declaration.)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 5/ (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/14/2013)

05/15/2013 1319 ORDER granting 1316 Motion to File Exhibits under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 5 (plh, ) (Entered: 05/15/2013)

05/15/2013 1320 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1318 Response to Motion. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct Declaration. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/15/2013)

05/15/2013 1321 DEFICIENT** CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs re (Doc. #1317) Response/Memorandum in Opposi Motion . (Howard, Alan) Modified on 5/16/2013 (gbw, ). Modified on 5/16/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 05/15/2013)

05/16/2013 1322 Manual Attachments Sealed Exhibits B,C,I,J, K Received, Scanned and attached to 1317 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by plaintiffs. (gbw, ) (Entered: 05/16/2013)

05/17/2013 1323 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs re 1317 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, . (Howar (Entered: 05/17/2013)

05/17/2013 1324 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Signal's Motion for Protective by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/17/2013)

05/20/2013 1325 ORDER granting 1324 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Know on 5/20/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 05/20/2013)

05/20/2013 1326 REPLY Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 1305 MOTION for Protective Ord (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G Exhibit H)(plh, ) (Entered: 05/20/2013)

05/20/2013

1327

EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File a Reply Brief in further support of plaintiffs' motion to compel [#1312] by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Declaration of Joseph R. Bjarnson, Esq. certifying attachment to proposed Reply Brief., A to proposed Reply Brief., # 5 Certificate of Service.)(Howard, Alan) Modified text on 5/21/2013 (mmm). (Entere 05/20/2013)

05/20/2013 1328 ORDER granting 1327 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Know on 5/20/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 05/20/2013)

05/20/2013 1329 REPLY in Support of Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 1312 MOTION for Discovery [Plaintiffs motion to compel defendants to produce documents being withheld on the basis of the joint defense privilege]. (Attachments: # 1 Dec # 2 Exhibit)(plh, ) (Entered: 05/20/2013)

05/20/2013 1330 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Join in Signal's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Respons Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Propo Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 05/20/2013)

05/21/2013 1331 ORDER granting 1330 Motion to Join in Signal's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 5/21/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 05/21/2013)

05/22/2013 1333 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 5/22/2013 1312 MOTION for Discovery [Plaintiffs motion to compel defendants to produce documents being withheld on the the joint defense privilege], 1305 MOTION for Protective Order . ORDERED that the 1305 Motion for Protective O and the 1312 Motion for Discovery are TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (plh, ) (Entered: 05/22/2013)

05/22/2013 1334 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Discovery Status Conference he 5/22/2013. (plh, ) (Entered: 05/22/2013)

05/23/2013 1335 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Mary C. Bauer as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Thanasekar Chellappan David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Kri Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal V (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 05/23/2013)

05/24/2013 1336 MOTION for Protective Order Quashing Deposition of W.A. Shouse by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referre Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 6/12/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attach # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, E (Entered: 05/24/2013)

05/24/2013 1337 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Quashing Deposition of W.A Shouse by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/24/2013)

05/24/2013 1338 ORDER granting 1335 Motion to Withdraw Mary Bauer as Attorney for plas.. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/ (cbn) (Entered: 05/24/2013)

05/28/2013

1339

ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 1336 MOTION for Protective Order Quashing Deposition of W.A. Shouse. The MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Quashing Deposition of W.A. Shouse is granted. ORDERED that the 1336 MOTION for Protective Order Quashing Deposition of W.A. Shouse is SET FOR ORAL HEARING BY TELEPHONE on 6/3/2013 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by M Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 5/28/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 05/28/2013)

05/30/2013 1341 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1336 MOTION for Protective Order Quashi Deposition of W.A. Shouse . (Attachments: # 1 certificate of service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 05/30/2013)

05/31/2013

1342

ORDER AND REASONS granting 1285 MOTION to Set Aside Default re 1266 Order on Motion for Entry of Defa by Michael Pol. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pol shall file his answer to plaintiffs' third amended complaint no than June 14, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. Pol must also respond to plaintiffs RICO Case Statement by this deadline. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Global Resources shall file a motion to enroll new counsel of record no later than June 2013, at 5:00 p.m. Because no party has requested the entry of default against Global Resources be set aside, the en default remains in effect as to Global Resources. Should Global Resources fail to comply with the Court's order reg enrollment of counsel, plaintiffs may move for a default judgment against Global Resources. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 05/31/2013)

06/03/2013

1343

TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on May 22, 2013 before Judge Daniel Knowles. Court Reporter/Recorder C Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased thro Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtaine through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. R of Transcript Restriction set for 9/3/2013. (rsg) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

06/03/2013 1344 ORDER denying as moot Motion for partial summary judgment, or in the alternative, to restrict intervention, filed b Signal International (rec. doc. 168 in related case 12−557). Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 06/03/20

06/03/2013 1345 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 6/3/2013 MOTION for Protective Order Quashing Deposition of W.A. Shouse filed by Signal International LLC. ORDERED 1336 Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. (plh, ) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

06/03/2013 1346 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Protective Order by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. Motion(s) r to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 06/03/2013)

06/03/2013 1347 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part Motion for Protection from Delay of Litigation (Rec 192 in related case 12−557), as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/3/2013. (NEF: Mag Jdg Knowles (Entered: 06/03/2013)

06/04/2013 1348 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 6/4/13.(plh, ) (Entered: 06/04/2013

06/11/2013 1349 ORDER AND REASONS denying 1196 Motion to Sever. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (NEF: Mag. Judge Knowles) (Entered: 06/11/2013)

06/18/2013 1351 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Defendant Michael Pol's filing of Voluntary Petition for Relief Under Chapter 7 of U.S Bankruptcy Code. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 06/18/2013)

06/19/2013 1352 ORDER that the 1305 Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED and the 1312 Motion for Discovery is GRANTED PART as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 6/18/13. (plh, ) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

07/01/2013

1355

MOTION for Reconsideration (in limited part) re 1349 Order on Motion to Sever by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kuria David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Kri Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal V Motion set for 7/17/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 N Submission, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 07/01/2013)

07/08/2013

1357

MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 1352 Order on Moti Protective Order, Order on Motion for Discovery by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 7/31/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Memorandum of La support of plaintiffs' Rule 72 motion., # 3 Certificate of Service.)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 07/08/2013)

07/09/2013 1358 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1355 MOTION for Reconsidera limited part) re 1349 Order on Motion to Sever . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/15/2013 1359 ORDER AND REASONS denying 1355 Motion for Reconsideration (in limited part), as stated herein. Judge Zaine management plan remains in effect, as does this Court's ruling on Signal's motion to sever. Signed by Judge Susie M on 7/15/2013. (NEF: MJ Knowles) (tsf) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

07/23/2013 1360 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1357 MOTION for APPEAL/RE OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court re 1352 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on M for Discovery . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/23/2013)

07/24/2013 1361 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1360 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. Name of attorney w electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log−in and pass serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is necessary. (gbw, ) (Entere 07/24/2013)

07/29/2013

1362

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File a Reply Memorandum to Signal International's opposition to pl objection to the M/Js 6/19/13 Order granting Signal International LLCs motion for a protective Order. by Thanasek Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thang Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 proposed Reply Memorandum of Law., # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service.)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 07/29/2013)

08/02/2013 1363 ORDER granting 1362 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/1/13. (cbn) (Entered: 08/02/2

08/02/2013 1364 REPLY of plaintiffs to Signal's Response to Motion re 1357 MOTION for APPEAL/REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE DECISION to District Court re 1352 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motion for Discovery . (cbn) (Entered: 08/02/2013)

08/07/2013 1366 ORDER AFFIRMING 1357 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. Sig Judge Susie Morgan on 8/7/13. (cbn) (Entered: 08/07/2013)

08/13/2013 1367 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Shirley Lin as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Thanasekar Chellappan, Ku David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Kri Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal V (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Lin, Shirley) (Entered: 08/13/2013)

08/14/2013 1368 Notice of Related Case(s) (Local Rule 3.1 Statement of Collateral Proceedings) by All Plaintiffs. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/14/2013)

08/14/2013 1369 NOTICE of Impending Deadline by All Plaintiffs re 1197 MOTION to Toll Statutes of Limitations. (Werner, Danie (Entered: 08/14/2013)

08/16/2013

1370

ERROR: REFILED AS DOC. #1371** MOTION to Protect Certain Opt−In Plaintiffs' FLSA Claims by Thanaseka Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thang Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 9/11/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 8/19/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/16/2013)

08/16/2013

1371

MOTION to Protect Certain Opt−In Plaintiffs' FLSA Claims by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Jose Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 9/11/2013 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A: List o Moving Opt−Ins, # 3 Exhibit B: Achara Brief in Opposition to Signal's Motion to Transfer, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 8/19/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/16/2013)

08/19/2013 1372 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1370 MOTION to Protect Certain Opt−In Plaintiffs' FLSA Claims. Attorne document as Doc. #1371 with exhibits. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/19/2013)

08/19/2013

1373

ORDER AND REASONS ENTERED IN 12−557: ORDERED that the EEOC's motion to bifurcate 141 be and here GRANTED IN PART but DENIED to the extent it seeks a determination of its hostile work environment pattern or claim and its punitive damages claim in Phase I. The Court orders the EEOC to submit proposed Discovery Plan an Management Order, and a memorandum in support of its proposal, for Phase I and Phase II within fourteen (14) day Order as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (NEF: Mag. Knowles) (Entered: 08/19/2013)

08/24/2013 1374 First Amended Local Rule 3.1 Statement of Collateral Proceedings by All Plaintiffs. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/24/2013)

08/27/2013 1376 ORDER granting 1367 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Shirley Lin for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/26/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

08/27/2013

1377

DEFICIENT** MOTION for Discovery [by plaintiffs to compel the "Burnett Defendants to comply with plaintiffs' discovery requests] by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attac # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Declaration of Chandra S. Bhatnagar in support of mot compel., # 4 Exhibit A to Bhatnagar Declaration., # 5 Exhibit B to Bhatnagar Declaration., # 6 FRCP Rule 37(a)(1) Certification., # 7 Certificate of Service.)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 8/28/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/27/2013)

08/28/2013

1378

MOTION to Compel by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motio 9/18/2013 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 F Rule 37 Certification., # 3 Memorandum of Law in support of motion to compel discovery., # 4 Declaration of Cha Bhatnagar in support of motion to compel discovery., # 5 Exhibit A to Bhatnagar Declaration., # 6 Exhibit B to Bha Declaration., # 7 Certificate of Service.)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 9/18/2013 (plh, ). (Entered: 08/28/2013)

08/28/2013 1379 ORDER AND REASONS granting 1197 Motion to Toll Statutes of Limitations through the date of this Order, as st herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/28/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 08/28/2013)

08/28/2013 1380 ORDER AND REASONS that plaintiffs submit a proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order by Septem 2013, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/28/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 08/28/2013)

08/29/2013 1381 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 1378 MOTION for Discovery : Motion set for ORAL HEARING 9/18/2013 11 before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/29/13.(plh (Entered: 08/29/2013)

09/03/2013 1382 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record by Timothy W. Cerniglia by Malvern C. Burnett Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Buras, Daniel) (Entered: 09/03/2013)

09/03/2013 1384 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1371 MOTION to Protect Certa Opt−In Plaintiffs' FLSA Claims . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/03/2013)

09/06/2013

1385

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File plaintiffs' reply to defendant Signal's opposition to plaintiffs' mo FLSA claims, by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhas Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasude Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' proposed Reply to defendant Signa opposition to plaintiffs' motion re FLSA claims., # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service.)(Howard, Alan) (E 09/06/2013)

09/09/2013 1386 ORDER granting 1385 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 09/09/2013)

09/09/2013 1387 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 1371 MOTION to Protect Certain Opt−In Plaintiffs' FLSA (cbn) (Entered: 09/09/2013)

09/09/2013 1388 ORDER granting 1382 Motion to Appear Timothy W. Cerniglia as trial counsel for Malvern C. Burnett, Malvern C Burnett, A.P.C., and Gulf Coast Immigration Center LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 09/09/20

09/09/2013 1389 MOTION for Reconsideration 1379 Order re 1197 Motion to Toll Statutes of Limitations by Malvern C. Burnett, L Office of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C.. Motion set for 9/25/2013 10:00 before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 09/09/2013)

09/13/2013 1391 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of submission of a proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order pursuant to C Order dated 8/28/2013 (doc. #1380). (Attachments: # 1 proposed Discovery Plan and Case Management Order., # 2 Certificate of Service.)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 09/13/2013)

09/16/2013 1392 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1378 MOTION for Discovery filed by Plaintiffs. (Buras, Daniel) (Ent 09/16/2013)

09/17/2013 1393 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1389 MOTION for Reconsideration or Clar of This Court's ORder Granting Tolling of Statutes of Limitations. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

09/18/2013 1394 ORDER that the 1378 Motion to Compel Burnett Defendants to Produce a Privilege Log is GRANTED to the exten the Burnett Defendants shall produceto plaintiffs the responsive documents and/or an appropriate privilege log no la

September 30, 2013 under penalty of sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/18/13. (plh (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/19/2013 1395 DEFICIENT** REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1389 MOTION for Reconsideration . (Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified 9/20/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/19/2013)

09/20/2013 1396 Memorandum in Opposition by Signal International LLC re 1380 Order. (Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/23/2013 (Entered: 09/20/2013)

09/20/2013 1397 Response/Reply by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 1380 Order. (Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 9/2 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/20/2013)

09/20/2013 1398 Response/Reply by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 1380 Order. (Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 9/2 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/20/2013)

09/20/2013 1399 Response/Reply by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. B A.P.C. to 1380 Order. (Buras, Daniel) Modified on 9/23/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/20/2013)

09/23/2013 1400 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigr Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Propose Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 09/23/2013)

09/26/2013 1402 ORDER AND REASONS GRANTING 184 , filed in Civil Action 12−557. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/26/13.(cbn) (Entered: 09/26/2013)

09/27/2013 1403 ORDER granting 1400 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/26/2013 ) (Entered: 09/27/2013)

09/27/2013 1404 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offi Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1389 MOTION for Reconsideration. (gbw, ) (Entered: 09/27/2013)

09/27/2013 1405 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Meredith B. Stewart by all plaintiffs Kurian Davi Attorney Meredith B. Stewart added to all plaintiffs (Stewart, Meredith) Modified on 9/30/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/27/2013)

09/27/2013 1406 ORDER: Conference set for 10/10/2013 02:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan for the purpose of discussing case management orders and other matters. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/27/2013.(gbw, ) (Entered: 09/27/2013)

10/02/2013 1407 ORDER granting 1405 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Meredith B. Stewart for all plaintiffs K David et al. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/2/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/02/2013)

10/03/2013

1408

DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Chiemi Suzuki (Filing fee $ 100 receipt n 053L−4177654) by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kand Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasude Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing − California, # Certificate of Good Standing − New York, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) Modified on 10 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/03/2013)

10/03/2013

1409

DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Melia Amal Bouhabib (Filing fee $ 100 number 053L−4177797) by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantha Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing − N York, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) Modified on 10/3/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/03/201

10/03/2013

1410

ORDERED that the EEOC's Motion in EEOC v. Signal, LLC, et al (12−557) is GRANTED insofar as, (1) the time Plaintiff to file its opposition to Defendant Signal's Motion to Review Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. 252) is extend November 1, 2013, and if Signal wishes to file a reply to Plaintiff's opposition, it must do so by November 7, 2013; EEOC shall file its Reply to Signal's Response and Objections to EEOC's Proposed Discovery Plan and Case Mana Order (Doc. 231) on or before November 1, 2013; (3) the conference presently set for October 10, 2013 is reschedu November 8, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. The date for the conference scheduled in David et al. v. Signal et al. (08−1220) wil October 10, 2013.. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/3/2013.(gbw, ) (Entered: 10/03/2013)

10/03/2013

1411

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Chiemi Suzuki (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−4 by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananj Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing − California, # 2 Certific Good Standing − New York, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Registration Form, # 5 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) (Ente 10/03/2013)

10/03/2013

1412

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Melia Amal Bouhabib (Fee previously paid) by Thanase Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thang Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing − New York, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Registration For Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 10/03/2013)

10/04/2013 1413 Application for Refund of Electronic Fees filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkar Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan for the following reason: paid receipt number 053L−4178418 re 1411 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice,,. (Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 10/04/2013

10/07/2013 1414 ORDER granting 1411 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Chieni D Suzuki for all plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Su Morgan on 10/4/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/07/2013)

10/07/2013 1415 ORDER granting 1412 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Melia Amal Bouhabib for all plaintiffs. Signed by Jud Morgan on 10/4/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/07/2013)

10/10/2013

1424

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/10/2013. Another Sta Conference set for 4/30/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Pretrial Conference set for 12/17/2014 02:00 P before Judge Morgan. 4 week Jury Trial set for 1/12/2015 09:00 AM before Judge Morgan. The parties are to comp all deadlines set forth herein. (Attachments: # 1 Pretrial Notice Form) (cbn) (NEF: all counsel in CA 12−557) (Ente 10/23/2013)

10/11/2013 1416 DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississipp Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Billy R Wilks. (Curenton, James) Modified on 10/1 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/11/2013)

10/14/2013 1417 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 1389 Motion for Reconsideration, or in the alternativ Clarification of Order. IT IS ORDERED that the Court's 1379 Order of 8/28/2013 is clarified to provide that the sta limitations are tolled through 8/28/2013, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/14/2013. (tsf) (Ente 10/14/2013)

10/17/2013 1419 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney James G. Curenton, Jr. by J&M Associates, Inc. of Mis J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Billy R Wilks. (Curenton, James) Modified on 10/18/2013 (gbw, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2013: # 1 Proposed Order) (gbw, ). Modified on 10/18/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/17/

10/18/2013 1420 Second Amended Notice of Related Case(s), (Local Rule 3.1 Statement of Collateral Proceedings) by All Plaintiffs (Werner, Daniel) Modified on 10/21/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/18/2013)

10/18/2013 1421 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1419 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney James G. Curenton, Jr.. Filing atto did not include a proposed order. Proposed Order subsequently provided to Clerk and has now been attached to the motion.(gbw, ) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

10/21/2013 1422 ORDER: The Court will conduct a telephone status conf in CA 12−557 on 10/21/13 to discuss coordinating discove 08−1220. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/17/13.(cbn) (Entered: 10/21/2013)

10/21/2013 1425 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/21/2013 to discuss coordinating discovery in 08−1220 and 12−557. Another status conference set for 11/8/2013 10:00 AM before Judg Morgan. (cbn) (NEF: all counsel in 12−557) (Entered: 10/23/2013)

10/22/2013 1423 ORDER & REASONS denying 1371 Motion to Protect Opt−In Plaintiffs FLSA Claims. Signed by Judge Susie Mo 10/22/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/22/2013)

10/23/2013 1426 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1419 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan 10/23/13. (cbn) (Entered: 10/23/2013)

10/23/2013 1427 Status conference held in CA 12−557 on 10/21/13. (Rec doc #271). Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 10/23/2013)

10/29/2013 1429 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION To Attend Status Conference By Telephone by J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississi J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC. (Curenton, James) Modified on 10/30/2013 (gbw, ). (Additional attachment(s) add 11/7/2013: # 1 Proposed Order) (tsf). (Entered: 10/29/2013)

11/06/2013 1431 MOTION for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings by Signal International LLC. Motion set for 12/4/2013 10:00 AM b Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (En 11/06/2013)

11/07/2013 1432 ORDER granting 1429 Motion for Attorney James Curenton to Attend Status Conference by Telephone. Signed by Susie Morgan on 11/7/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/07/2013)

11/08/2013 1433 ORDER: The Court will conduct a telephone Status Conference on 11/15/2013 04:00 PM to discuss discovery issue Court will provide the parties with call−in instructions. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(cbn) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

11/08/2013 1435 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/8/2013. Counsel to co with deadlines set forth herein. (CC: all counsel in 13−6218 and consolidated cases) (cbn) (Entered: 11/19/2013)

11/15/2013

1436

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 11/15/2013. Status Confe scheduled during 2014 in all Signal cases: 1/13/2014 12:00 PM, 4/30/2014 10:00 AM, 7/31/2014 2:00 PM, 10/30/2 PM, and 12/17/2014 3:00 PM. Pretrial Conference in 08−1220 set for 12/17/2014 2:00 PM and Jury Trial (for the fi plaintiffs ONLY) set for 1/12/2015. Phase I trial in 12−557 set for 6/1/2015 09:00 AM. Parties are to comply with t additional deadlines set forth herein. (tsf) (Entered: 11/20/2013)

11/20/2013 1437 ORDER Status Conference set for 12/17/2013 12:00 PM. The Court will provide the parties with the call−in instruc Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/19/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/20/2013)

11/20/2013

1438

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Regarding Defendant Signal International, LLC's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings by Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganan Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani and Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Dan Modified on 11/21/2013 (caa, ). (Entered: 11/20/2013)

11/21/2013

1439

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1438 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines Regarding Defendant Signal International, LLC's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. Filing attorney selected incorrect event and Do does not contain Magistrate Judge. Correct event is MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and Al pleadings must reflect Magistrate Judge 3. Clerk took corrective action by either changing the event. No further acti necessary at this time.(caa, ) (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/26/2013 1440 ORDER granting 1438 MOTION for Extension of Time to Reply until 12/20/2013. FURTHER ORDER resetting th submission date re 1431 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (Partial Judgment) for 1/15/2014 10:00 AM. Sig Judge Susie Morgan on 11/26/2013. (tsf) (Entered: 11/26/2013)

11/26/2013 1441 Notice of Related Case(s) (Third Amended Local Rule 3.1 Statement of Collateral Proceedings) by All Plaintiffs of case(s) 13−6218. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 11/26/2013)

12/13/2013 1445 DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Renewed as Attorney by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC. (Curenton, James) Modified on 12/16/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 12/13/2013)

12/16/2013

1446

EXPARTE/CONSENT Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and to extend submission d to 1431 MOTION for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings by Thanasekar Chellappan, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappall Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 12/17/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 12/16/2013)

12/17/2013 1447 ORDER granting 1446 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1431 MOTION for P Judgment on the Pleadings. The Submission Date on Signal's Motion for Partial Judgment is extended to 2/12/2014 by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/17/2013.(REF: 08−1220)(gbw, ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)

12/17/2013 1452 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/17/2013. ( (Entered: 12/31/2013)

12/18/2013 1448 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney James G. Curenton, Jr. by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Curenton, James) (Entered: 12/18/2013)

12/30/2013 1451 ORDER granting 1448 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney James G. Curenton, Jr terminated for J&M Asso Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/27/2013. (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/3

01/02/2014 1453 NOTICE of Change of Address of Erin Casey Hangartner, Alan Dean Weinberger, Hal D. Ungar, and Elham R. Ra Signal International LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/02/2014)

01/03/2014 1454 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines of Witness and Exhibit Lists by Signal International L (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/03/2014)

01/06/2014

1455

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Kristi L. Graunke (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−4287251) by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kand Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasude Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Declaration Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 01/06/2014)

01/06/2014 1456 ORDER granting 1454 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/06/2

01/07/2014 1457 ORDER granting 1455 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Kristi L. Graunke. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/7/2014. (caa, ) (Entered: 01/07/2014)

01/07/2014

1458

MOTION to Compel discovery of the Burnett defendants by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referr Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 1/22/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attach # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 FRCP Rule 37 Certification., # 3 Memorandum in Support, # 4 Declaration of Chand Bhatnagar in support of motion to compel discovery of the Burnett defendants., # 5 Exhibit A to Bhatnagar Declara 6 Exhibit B to Bhatnagar Declaration., # 7 Exhibit C to Bhatnagar Declaration., # 8 Exhibit D to Bhatnagar Declara 9 Certificate of Service.)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 01/07/2014)

01/08/2014 1459 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 1458 MOTION to Compel discovery of the Burnett defendants : Motion set for HEARING 1/22/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Danie Knowles, III on 1/8/14.(plh, ) (Entered: 01/08/2014)

01/13/2014 1468 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 1/13/2014. Status Confer for 2/21/2014 02:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/23/2014)

01/14/2014 1460 Letter to the Court from Billy R. Wilks (bwn) (Entered: 01/14/2014)

01/14/2014

1461

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1458 MOTION to Compel discovery of the Burnett defendants . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified on 1/21/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered: 01/14/2014)

01/20/2014 1462 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Pleadings Under Seal by Signal International LLC. (Attachmen Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 1/21/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entere 01/20/2014)

01/21/2014 1463 ORDER granting 1462 Motion for Leave to File Pleadings Under Seal by Signal International LLC. Signed by Judg Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/21/2014)

01/21/2014 1464 ORDER Resetting ORAL Hearing on 1458 MOTION to Compel discovery of the Burnett defendants : Motion RES ORAL HEARING on 1/29/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Ju Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/21/14.(plh, ) (Entered: 01/21/2014)

01/21/2014 1465 MOTION Clarification of Previous Orders by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., La Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion set for 2/12/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachme Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 01/21/2014

01/22/2014 1466 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Signal International LLC. Motion set for 2/12/2014 10:00 AM before J Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission) (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/22/2014: # 2 Memorandum in Support − SEALED, # 3 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts − SEALED) (tsf). (Entered: 01/22/2014)

01/22/2014 1467 MOTION to Amend/Correct 913 Protective Order and MOTION to File this Protective Order in Related Case 12−5 Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 2/12/2014 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission) (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) ad 1/22/2014: # 2 Memorandum in Support − SEALED) (tsf). (Entered: 01/22/2014)

01/24/2014 1471 ORDER Setting Hearing on 1467 MOTION to Amend/Correct 913 Protective Order MOTION to File this Protectiv in Related Case 12−557 : IT IS ORDERED that Signal's Motion for Modification of Protective Order be setbefore J Morgan. Any memorandum in opposition shall be filed by January 29,2014. The Court has deemed oral argument unnecessary, as submission on the pleadingsis sufficient. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 01/24/201

01/27/2014

1472

Emergency MOTION Entry of Order Regarding Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 2/12/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attach 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A: Proposed ESI Protocol, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 E E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 E M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit R, # 20 Exhibit S, # 21 Exhibit T, # Exhibit U, # 23 Exhibit V, # 24 Exhibit W, # 25 Exhibit X, # 26 Exhibit Y, # 27 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Da (Entered: 01/28/2014)

01/28/2014

1473

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite plaintiffs' motion for entry of order regarding protocol for productio by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananj Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Cer of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 01/28/2014)

01/29/2014

1474

MOTION to Compel by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 2/26/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrat Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Certificate of Compliance, # 5 Notice of Submission, # 6 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified on 1/30/2014 to edit tex (Entered: 01/29/2014)

01/29/2014 1475 ORDER re 1472 Emergency MOTION Entry of Order Regarding Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information . Any opposition shall be filed by 2/4/2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/29/2014. (tsf) (Entered 01/29/2014)

01/29/2014

1476

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal Memorandum in Opposition to 1467 MOTION to Amend/Correct 913 Protective Order by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandu Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 1/30/2014 to modify text (bwn). (Additional attachmen added on 1/30/2014: # 3 Proposed Pleading) (bwn). (Entered: 01/29/2014)

01/29/2014 1477 ORDER Status Conference set for 2/6/2014 12:00 PM to discuss discovery issues with electronically stored informa stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/29/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 01/29/2014)

01/30/2014 1478 ORDER Resetting ORAL Hearing on 1458 MOTION to Compel discovery of the Burnett defendants : Motion RES ORAL HEARING 2/5/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Knowles, III on 1/30/14.(plh, ) (Entered: 01/30/2014)

01/30/2014

1479

MOTION to Compel Answers to Request for Production by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Cent L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 2/2 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Defendants' RPDs, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Objections, # 4 Exhibit Disc. conference summary, # 5 Exhibit Certificate Compliance, # 6 Notice of Submission, # 7 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 01/30/2014)

01/30/2014 1480 ORDER denying 1473 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/30/2014)

01/30/2014 1481 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 1474 MOTION to Compel , 1479 MOTION to Compel Answers to Request for Production : Motion set for ORAL HEARING 2/26/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/30/14.(plh, ) (Entered: 01/30/2014)

01/31/2014 1483 ORDER granting 1476 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/30/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 01/31/2014)

02/03/2014 1485 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Modify Protective Order by Signal International LLC. Motion(s) referred to Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 2/4/2014 (bwn). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2014: # 2 Proposed − SEALED) (tsf). (Entered: 02/03/2014)

02/04/2014

1487

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Anjai J. Nair (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−433 by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananj Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order ECF Attorney Registration)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 02/04/2014)

02/04/2014 1488 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 1465 MOTION Clarification of Previous Orders . (Bjarnson, Joseph) (Entered: 02/04/2014)

02/04/2014

1489

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Entry of Stipulation and Order Currently Resolving Rec. Doc. 1458 by Thanasek Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thang Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order and Stipulation)(W Daniel) (Entered: 02/04/2014)

02/04/2014

1490

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1472 Emergency MOTION Ent Order Regarding Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − EEO 12−12−13 letter, # 2 Exhibit 2 − SPLC 12−13−13 letter, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Excel spreadsheet, # 5 Exhib Affidavit of Matthew Blonde)(Hangartner, Erin) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/10/2014: # 6 Exhibit SIGE00 − SIGE00570105) (caa, ). (Entered: 02/04/2014)

02/04/2014 1491 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1431 MOTION for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 02/04/2014)

02/04/2014 1492 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document Opposition to Signal's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 02/04/2014)

02/05/2014 1493 STIPULATION AND ORDER regarding Protocols for the Burnett defendants' production of Electronic Mail. Signe Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 2/5/14.(plh, ) (Entered: 02/05/2014)

02/05/2014 1494 ORDER granting 1485 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Modify Pr Order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/05/2014)

02/05/2014 1495 Sealed Reply Memorandum by Signal International, L.L.C. re 1467 MOTION to Amend/Correct 913 Protective Or MOTION to File this Protective Order in Related Case 12−557 by Signal International LLC. (bwn) (Entered: 02/05

02/05/2014 1496 ORDER granting 1492 Motion to Seal Document Opposition to Signal's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Sig Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/05/2014)

02/05/2014 1497 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to Supplement Exhibits re Doc. 1490 by Signal International L (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit SIGE0057104−SIGE0057105)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 2/6/2 edit text (bwn). (Entered: 02/05/2014)

02/06/2014

1514

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: A status conference was held on February 6, 2014, a p.m. in the chambers of Judge Susie Morgan. Counsel for the parties discussed the discovery issues and production Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in EEOC v. Signal (12−557) (the "EEOC case"), David v. Signal (08−1220 "David case"), and Achari v. Signal (13−6218) (and all cases consolidated therewith) (the "Achari cases"). Parties a directed to comply with the dates set forth herein. The next in−person status conference will be held on February 21 at 4:00 p.m. in Judge Morgan's chambers. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (tbl) [Docketed in 08−1220, 13−6218 and its consolidated cases] (Entered: 02/14/2014)

02/07/2014 1498 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigr Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed P Reply Memorandum)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 02/07/2014)

02/10/2014 1499 ORDER granting 1497 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/10/2014. (caa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2014)

02/10/2014 1500 ORDER granting 1487 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Anjali J. Nair. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/10 (caa, ) (Entered: 02/10/2014)

02/10/2014 1501 ORDER granting 1498 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/10/2014 (Entered: 02/10/2014)

02/10/2014 1502 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Malvern C. Burnett re 1465 MOTION Clarification of Previous Orders. (ca (Entered: 02/10/2014)

02/10/2014 1503 ORDER Telephone Status Conference set for Tuesday, February 11, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. The Court will provide the with the call−in instructions. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/10/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 02/10/2014)

02/11/2014 1504 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum Supporting Signal's Motion for Pa Judgment On The Pleadings by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/11/2014)

02/11/2014

1508

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/11/2014. The Court gra Signal's request to depose plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally for four (4) days. The Court ordered Signal to p costs associated with changing the witness' flights. The Court will hold an additional telephone status conference on February 13, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. The Court ordered Signal to file its answer by Monday, February 17, 2014. (bwn) (E 02/12/2014)

02/12/2014 1505 SEALED RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re Signal's 1466 MOTION for Partia Summary Judgment. (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/12/2014: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested F SEALED) (tsf). (Entered: 02/12/2014)

02/12/2014 1509 ORDER denying 1466 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/12/2014)

02/13/2014 1510 Witness List by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burn A.P.C.. (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 02/13/2014)

02/13/2014 1511 Witness List by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 02/13/2014)

02/13/2014 1512 Witness List by Signal International LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/13/2014)

02/13/2014 1513 Witness List by All Plaintiffs. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 02/13/2014)

02/13/2014

1515

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: A status conference was held on February 13, 2014, p.m. in the chambers of Judge Susie Morgan. Counsel for the parties discussed the discovery issues and production Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in EEOC v. Signal (12−557) (the "EEOC case"), David v. Signal (08−1220 "David case"), and Achari v. Signal (13−6218) (and all cases consolidated therewith) (the "Achari cases"). Parties a directed to comply with the deadlines/schedule set forth herein. (tbl) [Docketed in 08−1220, 12−557, 13−6218 and consolidated cases] (Entered: 02/14/2014)

02/13/2014 1535 MOTION to Dismiss Action by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Billy R Wil Motion set for 3/26/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(bwn) (Entered 02/27/2014)

02/14/2014 1516 ORDER granting 1504 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum Supporting Signal's Motion for Partial Judgm The Pleadings. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/14/2014)

02/14/2014 1517 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 1431 MOTION for Partial Judgment on the Ple (bwn) (Entered: 02/14/2014)

02/17/2014 1518 ORDER that plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint no later than MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2014, as stated h Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/17/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 02/17/2014)

02/18/2014 1519 CLAWBACK ORDER. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/14/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 02/18/2014)

02/18/2014 1520 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 1479 MOTION Compel Answers to Request for Production . (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 02/18/2014)

02/18/2014 1521 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1474 MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Dec. 19, 2013 Letter)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 02/18/2014)

02/19/2014

1522

ERROR: See Document 1524 for correction − EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend t complaint, by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasam Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasude Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 2/20/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 02/19/2014)

02/19/2014

1523

ERROR: See Document 1525 for correction − EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite plaintiffs' motion for a extension of time to amend their complaint, by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappa Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 2/20/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 02/19/2014)

02/19/2014

1524

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend the complaint, by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kuri David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Kri Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal V (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Certificate of Service, # 3 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) (Entere 02/19/2014)

02/19/2014

1525

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to amend their complaint, b Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service, # 2 Proposed Order)(Howard, A (Entered: 02/19/2014)

02/19/2014 1526 ORDER Regarding Protocols for the Production of Electronically Stored Information. Signed by Judge Susie Morg (Attachments: # 1 List of Custodians)(bwn) (Entered: 02/19/2014)

02/20/2014 1527 ORDER finding as moot 1525 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bbc, ) (Entered: 02/20/2014)

02/20/2014 1528 ORDER granting 1524 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend. IT IS ORDERED that an extension of one week to 3, 2014, for Plaintiffs to file an amended and restated Complaint, is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/20/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 02/21/2014)

02/21/2014

1529

TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on February 6, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorde Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased thro Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtaine through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. R of Transcript Restriction set for 5/22/2014. (rsg) Modified docket text on 2/24/2014 (jtd). (Entered: 02/21/2014)

02/21/2014 1549 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 2/21/2014. (bwn) (Entere 03/07/2014)

02/24/2014 1532 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum to Plaintiff's 1465 Motion for Clar by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Proposed Exhibit 1, # 4 Proposed Exhibit 2, # 5 Prop Exhibit 3)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

02/26/2014 1533 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Substitute Exhibits by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Exhibit 1, # 2 Redacted Exhibit 2, # 3 Prop Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 02/26/2014)

02/26/2014

1534

Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 2/26/2014 1479 MOTION to Compel Answers to Request for Production of Documents filed by Gulf Coast Immigration Law L.L.C., Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., 1474 MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories filed by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C Burnett, A.P.C. ORDERED that the 1474 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and 1479 Motion to Compe Answers to Request for Production of Documents are TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. (plh, ) (Entered: 02/26/20

02/27/2014

1537

ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum be and hereb GRANTED. Any opposition to the Burnett Defendants' supplemental memorandum shall be filed by Thursday, Ma 2014. The Burnett Defendants may file a reply by Monday, March 10, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Substitute Redacted Exhibits and withdraw originals be and hereby is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDE that both the redacted and un−redacted versions of Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 in the record shall be filed under seal. Si Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/27/2014)

02/27/2014 1538 Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1465 MOTION Clarification of Previous Orders . (Attachments: # 1 Exhib Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(bwn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/27/2014: # 4 Exhibit Redacted Exhibit 1, # 5 E Redacted Exhibit 2) (bwn). (Entered: 02/27/2014)

02/28/2014 1539 ***WITHDRAWN PER ORDER SIGNED 3/27/2014*** MOTION for Sanctions against Signal International LLC counsel by EEOC Plaintiff−Intervenors' and David Plaintiffs. Motion set for 3/26/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Sus Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A: Safe Harbor Notice, # 3 Notice of Submission) Naomi) Modified docket text on 3/3/2014 (jtd). Modified on 3/27/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 02/28/2014)

03/03/2014

1540

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1539 MOTION for Sanctions . Name of attorney who electronically filed th document (Naomi Tsu) does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading (Thomas Fritzsche). The user log−in password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. If attorney Thomas Fritzsche wishes any future pleadings, a motion to appear pro has vice MUST be filed or the document will be stricken. (jtd) (Entered 03/03/2014)

03/03/2014

1541

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint (and Exhibits 1 and 2 thereto) by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Proposed Pleading (Exhibit 1), # 4 Proposed Pleading (Exhibit 2))(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/03/2014)

03/03/2014 1543 Supplemental Memorandum filed by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Billy R in support of 1535 MOTION to Dismiss Action. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(bwn) (Entered: 03/06/2014)

03/05/2014 1542 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for an Extension of Time for plaintiff Sony Sulekha to Review and Sign Depositio Transcript by Sony Vasudevan Sulekha. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certi Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 03/05/2014)

03/06/2014 1544 ORDER granting 1541 Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint (and Exhibits 1 and 2 thereto). Signed Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/06/2014)

03/06/2014

1545

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT against Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Gl Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C., J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Michael Pol, Kurella Rao International LLC, Billy R Wilks filed by Kurian David, Krishan Kumar, Sabulal Vijayan, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkar Dhananjaya Kechuru, Thanasekar Chellappan, Hemant Khuttan, Kuldeep Singh, Palanyandi Thangamani, Andrews Padaveettiyl, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)( (Entered: 03/06/2014)

03/06/2014 1546 ORDER granting 1542 Motion for an Extension of Time for plaintiff Sony Sulekha to Review and Sign Deposition Transcript. It is hereby ordered that the time for Plaintiff Sony Sulekha to review and sign his deposition transcript i extended by two (2) weeks. Plaintiff Sony Sulekha shall review, sign, and submit any changes to his deposition tran by April 1, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/06/2014)

03/06/2014

1547

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document Opposition to Burnett Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum Support of Motion to Clarify Protective Order by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkara Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Pro Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 03/06/2014)

03/07/2014 1548 ORDER granting 1547 Motion to Seal Opposition to Burnett Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum in Support o Motion to Clarify Protective Order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/07/2014)

03/10/2014 1551 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offi Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1465 MOTION Clarification of Previous Orders . (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 03/10/2014)

03/10/2014 1552 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/10/2014. Status Confer for 3/11/2014 01:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. Judge Morgan ordered the defendants in the David case and th Achari cases to file their answers to the recently filed amended complaints by March 24, 2014. (bwn) (Entered: 03/1

03/11/2014

1553

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/11/2014. Counsel for S will produce an additional 200,000 documents without review by March 17, 2014 due to the removal of these defen search terms. Judge Morgan extended Signal's deadline to review emails and produce a privilege log to March 31, 2 Court directed those defendants with pending motions to dismiss to file a brief memorandum within 7 days of this o clarifying their intention to reassert their motions to dismiss with respect to the amended complaints. (bwn) (Entere 03/13/2014)

03/12/2014 1554 FIRST AMENDED ORDER REGARDING PROTOCOLS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY S INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/12/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 03/13/2014)

03/14/2014 1556 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Intent to Raise Issue of Foreign Law (pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1). (Werner, Dani (Entered: 03/14/2014)

03/14/2014 1557 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by All Plaintiffs regarding 1431 MOTION for Partial Judgment on the Pleadin (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/14/2014)

03/18/2014 1558 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Exchange Expert Lists by Thanasekar Che Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khut Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, S Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

03/18/2014 1559 ORDER re 1557 Request/Statement of Oral Argument − IT IS ORDERED that the request be and hereby is GRAN The Court will hear oral argument on Wednesday April 23, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. Signal will receive twenty (20) minu argument. Plaintiffs will receive twenty (20) minutes for argument. The submission date for Signal's Motion for Par Judgment on the Pleadings shall remain the same. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

03/18/2014 1560 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1539 MOTION for Sanctions ag Signal International LLC and its counsel . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

03/18/2014 1561 EXPARTE/CONSENT Ex Parte MOTION to Withdraw Dominic J. Gianna, Paul J. Mirable and Middleberg Riddle Gianna as Attorney of Record by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (E 03/18/2014)

03/18/2014 1562 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1535 MOTION to Dismiss Action filed by th M Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of service.)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

03/18/2014 1563 Memorandum To Adopt Signal's Pending Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaints by Signal Internation (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/18/2014)

03/19/2014 1564 ORDER − The Court will conduct a telephone status conference in EEOC v. Signal (12−557), David v. Signal (08− and Achari v. Signal (13−6218) (and all cases consolidated therewith) on March 24, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. Signed by Ju Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 03/19/2014)

03/19/2014 1565 ORDER granting 1558 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. ORDERED that the deadline for the parties to exchange lists is extended from April 1, 2014 to May 16, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/19/2014)

03/19/2014 1566 ORDER granting 1561 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Dominic Joseph Gianna and Paul John Mirabile terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/19/2014)

03/24/2014 1568 ANSWER to 1545 Amended Complaint,, with Jury Demand by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law C L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C..(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 03/24/2014)

03/24/2014 1569 ANSWER to 1545 Amended Complaint,, with Jury Demand by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd..(Shap Stephen) (Entered: 03/24/2014)

03/24/2014

1584

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/24/2014. The Court dir counsel for plaintiffs in the David case to amend their complaint to include which law their state law claims arise un March 31, 2014. Judge Morgan ordered counsel for Signal to file a supplemental memorandum by April 7, 2014 dis why Signal's motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted in light of plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plai may file a response to Signal's supplemental memorandum by April 14, 2014. The Court granted leave for the plain the Achari cases to file a response to the memoranda filed by Signal and the Burnett defendants4 by March 31, 2014 Court also allowed Signal to file a brief response to the plaintiffs' memoranda by April 7, 2014. Judge Morgan orde counsel for the Dewan defendants to enroll as counsel of record in the Achari cases by March 31, 2014. Judge Morg ordered counsel for the Dewan defendants to file either a motion to dismiss or an answer to plaintiffs' amended com in the Achari cases by April 7, 2014. The Court moved the next status conference, previously scheduled for April 30 to April 29, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. Judge Morgan scheduled oral argument on Signal's Motion for Judgment on the Plead the David case, and the motions to dismiss in the Achari cases filed by Signal and the Burnett defendants, for April 2014 at 10:00 a.m. (bwn) (Entered: 04/02/2014)

03/25/2014 1570 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs re 1539 MOTION for Sanctions against Signal International LLC and its counsel of With of Rec. Doc. 1539 Motion for Sanctions. (Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 03/25/2014)

03/26/2014

1571

EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION Leave to Serve in Excess of Twenty−Five Interrogatories on the Dewan Defendants by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasam Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasude Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Interrogatories, # 2 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 03/26/2014)

03/26/2014

1572

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Document re 1539 MOTION for Sanctions against Signal Internati LLC and its counsel by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 03/26/2014)

03/27/2014 1573 ORDER granting 1571 Motion to Serve in Excess of Twenty−Five Interrogatories on the Dewan Defendants. Signe Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 3/27/14. (plh) (Entered: 03/27/2014)

03/27/2014 1574 ORDER granting 1572 Motion to Withdraw 1539 MOTION for Sanctions against Signal International LLC and its counsel. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/27/2014)

03/27/2014 1575 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint, by Thanaseka Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thang Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service.)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 03/27/201

03/29/2014 1576 ERROR − See document 1577 for corrected filing: MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Malvern C. Burnett Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion set for 4/29/2014 10:00 before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Cerniglia, Timothy) Mo on 3/31/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 03/29/2014)

03/29/2014

1577

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supporting Memo in excess of 25 pages by Malvern C. Burnett, Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Ord Proposed Pleading: Motion, # 3 Proposed Pleading: Memorandum in Support, # 4 Proposed Pleading: Proposed Ord Proposed Pleading: Notice of Submission) )(Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified on 3/31/2014 to edit text (bwn). (Entered 03/29/2014)

03/31/2014 1578 EXPARTE/CONSENT Ex Parte MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Brian C. Roux by Signal International L (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/31/2014)

03/31/2014 1579 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1576 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings − Documents should have be attached to Motion 1577 as proposed pleadings. Clerk attached documents to appropriate filing. No further action necessary. (bwn) (Entered: 03/31/2014)

03/31/2014 1580 ORDER granting 1575 Motion for Extension of Time to File. ORDERED that the time for Plaintiffs to file their Fif Amended Complaint is extended until April 10, 2014. Defendants, other than the Burnett Defendants, may file resp no later than April 17, 2014, and Plaintiffs may file opposition papers by no later than April 24, 2014. Signed by Ju Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/31/2014)

03/31/2014 1581 ORDER granting 1577 Motion for Leave to File Supporting Memo in excess of 25 pages. Signed by Judge Susie M on 3/31/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 04/01/2014)

03/31/2014 1582 MOTION for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. Motion set for 4/23/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachmen Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(bwn) (Entered: 04/01/2014)

04/02/2014 1583 ORDER granting 1578 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Brian C. Roux for Signal International Signal International, Inc. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/1/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 04/02/2014)

04/10/2014 1586 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION For Oral Arguments re 1582 MOTION for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (Attac # 1 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 04/10/2014)

04/10/2014 1587 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to review, sign and submit any changes to his deposit transcript by Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) (En 04/10/2014)

04/10/2014

1588

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Fifth Amended Complaint by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian D Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Ku Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Proposed Exhibit 1, # 4 Proposed Exhibit 2)(Werner (Entered: 04/10/2014)

04/11/2014 1592 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants filed by Kurian David, Krishan Kum Sabulal Vijayan, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Thanasekar Chellappan, Hemant Khuttan, Singh, Palanyandi Thangamani, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Sony Vasudevan Sulek (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(bwn) (Entered: 04/14/2014)

04/14/2014 1589 ORDER Setting Oral Argument Hearing on 1582 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings: Hearing set for 4/29/20 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/11/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 04/14/2014)

04/14/2014 1590 ORDER granting 1587 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to review, sign and submit any changes to his deposition transcript. It is hereby ordered that the time for Plaintiff Sabulal Vijayan to review and sign his deposition transcrip extended by thirty (30) days. Plaintiff Sabulal Vijayan shall review, sign, and submit any changes to his deposition transcript by May 12, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/11/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 04/14/2014)

04/14/2014 1591 ORDER granting 1588 Motion for Leave to File Fifth Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/11 (bwn) (Entered: 04/14/2014)

04/17/2014 1594 MOTION to Dismiss (Partially) Complaints for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted by Si International LLC. Motion set for 5/7/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Support, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Indian Contract Act, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 4/21/2014 t submission date (bwn). (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/17/2014 1595 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (For Production of Electronically Information from the Signal ERP System) by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangart Erin) (Entered: 04/17/2014)

04/21/2014 1596 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1594 MOTION to Dismiss (Partially) Complaints for Failure to State a Cla Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted − Filing attorney selected incorrect submission/hearing date. Correct date is 5/7 10:00 a.m. Clerk took corrective action. (bwn) (Entered: 04/21/2014)

04/21/2014 1598 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1582 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadin (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 04/21/2014)

04/22/2014 1599 ORDER granting 1595 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. It is hereby ordered that the deadline Production of Electronically Stored Information from the Signal ERP System is extended. All productions from the ERP system will be completed as agreed to by May 12, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/21/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

04/24/2014 1601 ORDER − Oral argument will be held on April 29, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. on the following motions 1594 MOTION to (Partially) Complaints for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, 1431 MOTION for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, 1582 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. Hearing schedule detailed herein. Signe Judge Susie Morgan on 4/23/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 04/24/2014)

04/24/2014 1602 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1594 MOTION to Dismiss (Partially) Comp for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted . (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 04/24/2014)

04/25/2014

1603

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Solely for Porposes of Taking Dep of Dewan Defendants' Witnesses in India by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappall Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 04/25/2014)

04/28/2014 1604 ORDERED that 1603 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery is GRANTED. The discovery deadline extended to August 15, 2014 solely for purposes of taking depositions of the Dewan Defendants' witnesses in India. by Judge Susie Morgan. (cml) (Entered: 04/28/2014)

04/29/2014 1611 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 4/29/2014. Motions argu taken under submission by the Court. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper.) (bwn) (Entered: 05/08/2014)

04/29/2014

1615

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 4/29/2014. The Court ord counsel for Signal to send the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices in the EEOC case, the David case, and the Achari ca counsel for plaintiffs in the Texas cases. The Court ordered the depositions of Signal employees to begin on Monda instructed counsel for all parties to inform deponents that they must be available the entire week. The Court extende deadline for the depositions of Signal's employees to July 11, 2014. The Court directed counsel for Signal to distrib updated chart by May 5, 2014 outlining its Rule (30)(b)(6) designees, the topics on which the witnesses will testify, dates on which the depositions will occur. The Court ordered counsel for all parties to meet and confer regarding Si proposed schedule. (bwn) (Entered: 05/13/2014)

05/02/2014

1605

EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION to Amend 1493 STIPULATION AND ORDER regarding Protocols for Burnett defendants' production of Electronic Mail by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referr Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/02/2014)

05/05/2014 1606 STIPULATION AND ORDER Amending Original 1493 STIPULATION AND ORDER regarding Protocols for th Burnett defendants' production of Electronic Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 5/5/14.(pl (Entered: 05/05/2014)

05/07/2014

1609

TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on April 29, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder C Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased thro Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtaine through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. R of Transcript Restriction set for 8/5/2014. (rsg) Modified docket text on 5/8/2014 (jtd). (Entered: 05/07/2014)

05/12/2014 1612 Witness List by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burn A.P.C.. (Buras, Daniel) (Entered: 05/12/2014)

05/12/2014 1613 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1612 Witness List − Name of attorney who electronically filed this docume not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log−in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is necessary. (bwn) (Entered: 05/12/2014)

05/13/2014 1616 NOTICE of Change of Address by Daniel Werner on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/13/201

05/16/2014 1619 Witness List by Signal International LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/16/2014)

05/16/2014 1620 Witness List by All Plaintiffs. (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 05/16/2014)

05/20/2014 1621 ORDER − The Court will conduct a telephone status conference in EEOC v. Signal (12−557), David v. Signal (08− and Achari v. Signal (13−6218) (and all cases consolidated therewith) on May 21, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. The Court wi provide the parties with the call−in instructions necessary to participate in the conference via telephone. Signed by J Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 05/20/2014)

05/20/2014 1622 Motion to Transfer For Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings re MDL 2554 by Signal International LLC (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support, # 2 Exhibit List, # 3 Schedule of Actions, # 4 Corporate Disclosure Statement, # Correspondence, # 6 Proof of Service)(bwn) (Entered: 05/21/2014)
05/21/2014 1625 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Conference held on 5/21/2014. (bwn) (E 05/27/2014)
05/23/2014 1623 NOTICE OF FILING BANKRUPTCY by All Plaintiffs re Defendants Kurella Rao and Indo−Ameri Soft, LLC. (W Daniel) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
06/02/2014 1627 ORDER clarifying Court's previous order 1549 relating to depositions taken in David v. Signal (08−1220) (the "Da case"), EEOC v. Signal (12−557) (the "EEOC case"), and Achari v. Signal (13−6218, c/w 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6 14−732) (the "Achari cases"). Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
06/02/2014 1628 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Answer to Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint by Sachin Dewa Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entere 06/02/2014)
06/03/2014 1629 ORDER granting 1628 Motion for Leave to File an Answer to the Fifth Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Susi Morgan on 6/3/2014. (caa) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
06/03/2014 1630 ANSWER to 1592 Fifth Amended Complaint, with Jury Demand by Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants Pvt. Lt (Entered: 06/03/2014)
06/05/2014 1633 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION Partial Relief from Protective Order by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Ja Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
06/09/2014 1634 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Stephen H. Shapiro as Attorney by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consulta Ltd. Motion set for 7/2/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 6/11/2014 (bwn). (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/19/2014: # Exhibit A, In Globo) (bwn). (Entered: 06/09/2014)
06/09/2014 1635 ORDER granting 1633 Motion Partial Relief from Protective Order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cml) (Entered 06/09/2014)
06/10/2014 1636 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for James L. Cornblatt (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−4479631) by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Certificate of Good Standing for James Cornblatt, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Declaration of James Cornblatt, # 3 Exhibit 3 − ECF Registration Form, # 4 Proposed Order)(Bollman, Patricia) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
06/11/2014 1639 ORDER granting 1636 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to James L. Cornblatt. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (b (Entered: 06/11/2014)
06/13/2014 1640 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Set 1634 MOTION to Withdraw Stephen H. Shapiro as Attorney for Hearing/Submission by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, S (Entered: 06/13/2014)
06/18/2014 1641 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Supplement Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record With In Globo Exhibit Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Exhibit A, In Globo)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
06/18/2014 1642 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for the Dewan Defendants is hereb hearing/submission on the 2nd day of July, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. The David plaintiffs opposition memorandum shall be on the 24th day of June, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
06/19/2014 1643 ORDER granting 1641 Motion to Supplement Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record With In Globo Exhibit. Si Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
06/20/2014 1644 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Re−Set Hearing Date re 1634 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel by Sachin Dew Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
06/22/2014 1645 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Document Motion to Re−Set Hearing Date on Motion to Withdraw Counsel of Record by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Ste (Entered: 06/22/2014)
06/23/2014 1646 ORDER granting 1645 Motion to Withdraw 1644 MOTION to Re−Set Hearing Date re 1634 Motion to Withdraw a Counsel. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 06/23/2014)

06/23/2014 1647 ORDER − Telephone Status Conference set for 6/25/2014 11:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. Signed by Judge Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 06/23/2014)

06/24/2014 1649 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1634 MOTION to Withdraw Stephen H. Sh Attorney . (Bjarnson, Joseph) (Entered: 06/24/2014)

06/25/2014 1652 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 6/25/2014. Status Confer for 7/28/2014 04:00 PM before Judge Susie Morgan. (caa) (Entered: 06/30/2014)

06/27/2014 1650 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Review, Sign and Submit Any Changes to Depositio Transcript by Hemant Khuttan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Bjarnson, Joseph (Entered: 06/27/2014)

06/30/2014 1651 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to David Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Withdraw as of Record for Dewan Defendants by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Orde Proposed Pleading)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 06/30/2014)

06/30/2014 1653 MOTION for Protective Order by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. Motion set for 7/16/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Exh Prior Depositions, # 2 Exhibit Rule 37.1 Certificate, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Cerniglia, Timo (Entered: 06/30/2014)

06/30/2014 1654 ORDER granting 1650 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/30/2014. (caa) (Ent 06/30/2014)

07/01/2014 1655 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Lance R. Rydberg by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/01/2014)

07/02/2014 1657 ORDER granting 1651 Motion for Leave to File Reply to David Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Withdraw as Co Record for Dewan Defendants. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 07/02/2014)

07/02/2014 1658 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 1634 MOTION to Withdraw Stephen H. Shapiro as Attorney . (bwn) (Entered: 07/02/2014)

07/02/2014 1659 ORDER granting 1655 Motion to Enroll Attorney Lance R. Rydberg as Additional Counsel of Record for Signal International LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 07/02/2014)

07/07/2014

1660

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Further Opposition to Motion to Withdraw as Co Record For Dewan Defendants (Rec. Doc. 1634) by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Bjarnson, Joseph) (Entered: 07/07/2014)

07/07/2014 1661 MOTION for Protective Order and to Continue Deposition Dates by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. M set for 7/30/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Certificat Conference, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 7/8/2014 to remove refe (bwn). (Entered: 07/07/2014)

07/07/2014 1666 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 7/7/2014. (bw (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/08/2014 1662 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1653 MOTION for Protective O (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/08/2014 1663 ORDER granting 1660 Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Further Opposition to Motion to Withdraw as Couns Record For Dewan Defendants. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/08/2014 1664 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 1634 MOTION to Withdraw Stephen H. Shapiro as Attorne (bwn) (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/08/2014 1665 ORDER − Upon request by counsel, the Court extended the deadline for oppositions to the Dewan Defendants' mot protective order to July 9, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/08/2014 1667 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1653 MOTION for Protective Order . (Attac # 1 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/9/2014: # 2 Declaration of Hugh Sa (bwn). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/9/2014: # 3 Exhibit A) (bwn). (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/08/2014 1668 ***FILED IN ERROR − Documents attached to 1667 *** Declaration of Hugh D. Sandler, Esq. All Plaintiffs re 16 MOTION for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 7/9/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 07/08/2014)

07/08/2014 1669 ORDER re Deadlines for Expert Reports. In the David case, plaintiffs' reports in the Global Categories are due on A 20, 2014. In the Achari case and the Chakkiyattil case, plaintiffs' reports in the Global Categories are due on Decem 2014. These reports must be provided by August 20, 2014 in the David case and by December 31, 2014 in the Acha and the Chakkiyattil case. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/8/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
07/09/2014 1670 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1661 MOTION for Protective O MOTION to Continue . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
07/09/2014 1671 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1661 MOTION for Protective Order MOTIO Continue . (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
07/09/2014 1672 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relative to Attorney's Fees by Signal International LLC. Motion set for 7/30/2014 10:0 before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Exhibit 1, # Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
07/09/2014 1673 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Oppositions to Motion for Protective Order by Sachin Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
07/11/2014 1674 ORDER granting 1673 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Oppositions to Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Ju Susie Morgan on 7/10/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
07/11/2014 1675 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 1661 MOTION for Protecti Order MOTION to Continue . (bwn) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
07/11/2014 1676 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs and Signal's Opposition to Burnett's Motion Protection Order by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. B A.P.C. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
07/11/2014 1677 ORDER AND REASONS − IT IS ORDERED that 1661 Dewan's Motion for Protective Order be andhereby is GRA IN PART as set forth herein and otherwise DENIED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
07/11/2014 1678 ORDER AND REASONS − IT IS ORDERED that 1653 Burnett's Motion for Protective Order be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
07/15/2014 1681 ORDER finding as moot 1676 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs and Signal's Opposition to Burnett's Mo Protection Order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
07/23/2014 1685 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1672 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relative t Attorney's Fees . (Howard, Alan) (Entered: 07/23/2014)
07/28/2014 1686 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal Further Supporting Motion to Bi Trial Relative to Attorney's Fees by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
07/28/2014 1715 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 7/28/2014. Signals 1672 to bifurcate filed in the David case, the EEOC case, and the Achari cases be and here by is DENIED as moot. (bwn) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
07/30/2014 1688 ORDER granting 1686 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal Further Supporting Motion to Bifur Trial Relative to Attorney's Fees. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
07/30/2014 1689 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC re 1672 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relative to Attorney's Fees. (bwn) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
08/01/2014 1691 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Fact Witness List by Signal International LLC. Motion set for 8/27/2014 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed Pleading Notice of Submission, # 5 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
08/01/2014 1692 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Signal's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Fact Witness List by International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Han Erin) Modified on 8/1/2014 to remove submission info (bwn). (Entered: 08/01/2014)
08/01/2014 1700 DEFICIENT: MOTION to Dismiss by J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, Billy R Wilks. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(bwn) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
08/03/2014 1693 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1691 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemen Witness List . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/03/2014)

08/03/2014 1694 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/03/2014)

08/04/2014 1695 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal to Opposition to Plaintif Motion for Leave to Supplement Fact Witness List by Signal International LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/04/2014

1696

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Sixth Amended Complaint by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian D Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Ku Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Proposed Exhibit 1, # 4 Proposed Exhibit 2, # 5 Dec of Joseph Bjarnson, # 6 Exhibit A to Declaration)(Bjarnson, Joseph) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/04/2014 1697 ORDER Granting 1694 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document. (bwn) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/04/2014 1698 ORDER granting 1692 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/04/2014 1699 ORDER denying 1691 Motion for Leave to Supplement the Fact Witness List in the David case, as stated herein. FURTHER ORDER denying as moot 1691 Motion for Leave to Supplement the Fact Witness List in the EEOC and cases, as stated herein. FURTHER ORDER quashing 1691 Motion to Notice Depositions for August 5 and 6, 2014, further stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/4/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 08/04/2014)

08/05/2014 1702 NOTICE OF DEFICIENT ProSe DOCUMENT: re 1700 Motion to Dismiss. Please see attached letter for steps nee remedy deficiency. Deficiency remedy due by 8/26/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (bwn) (Entered: 08/05/20

08/05/2014 1703 SEALED RESPONSE in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1691 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Fact W List. (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/5/2014: # 1 SEALED Exhibit A) (tsf). (Entered: 08/05/2014)

08/05/2014 1704 ORDER finding as moot 1695 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal to Opposition to Plaintiffs to for Leave to Supplement Fact Witness List. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/05/2014)

08/05/2014 1705 ORDER granting 1696 Motion for Leave to File Sixth Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/05/2014)

08/05/2014

1706

SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT against Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Glob Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C., J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Michael Pol, Signal Intern LLC, Billy R Wilks, Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Declaration of Joseph R. Bjarnson, # 4 Exhibit to Declaration)(bwn) (Entered: 08/05/2014)

08/07/2014

1707

**WITHDRAWN PER DOC #1721** MOTION to Quash and Objection to Subpoena Duces Tecum by Capital On Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 9/10/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Notice of Submission)Attorney Patrick Johnson, Jr added to party Capital One, N.A.(pty:mov).(Johnson, Patrick) Modified on 8/14/2014 (plh). (Entered: 08/07/2014)

08/08/2014 1708 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 1707 MOTION to Quash and Objection to Subpoena Duces Tecum : Motion se ORAL HEARING 9/10/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judg E. Knowles, III on 8/8/14.(plh) (Entered: 08/08/2014)

08/08/2014

1709

MOTION to Quash Signal's Bank Record Subpoenas by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion referred Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 8/27/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Kn III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) Modified hearing info 8/12/2014 (plh). (Entered: 08/08/2014)

08/12/2014 1710 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Exchange Initial Exhibit Lists by Thanasekar Chell Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khut Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, S Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 8/12/2014 (caa). (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/12/2014 1711 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 1709 MOTION to Quash Signal's Bank Record Subpoenas : Motion set for ORA HEARING 8/27/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Danie Knowles, III on 8/12/14.(plh) (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/12/2014 1712 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1709 MOTION to Quash Signal's Bank Record Subpoenas; **Filing attorne should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This mot be decided by the magistrate judge. Motion set for 8/27/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowle Clerk took corrective action.** (plh) (Entered: 08/12/2014)

08/12/2014 1713 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 1431 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denyin Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 1594 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/12/20 (bwn) (Entered: 08/13/2014)

08/12/2014

1714

ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the parties in the David case and the Achari cases shall file cross−motions for part summary judgment on the choice of law issue for Plaintiffs' state law claims. With respect to the Achari cases, the p briefs shall include a discussion of whether or not the ruling in Ferens v. John Deere Co. applies. 494 U.S. 516 (199 parties shall file their cross motions no later than September 9, 2014. Oppositions to the cross motions shall be filed than September 23, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/12/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 08/13/2014)

08/12/2014 1716 ORDER Denying MDL Transfer and Consolidation. Signed by MDL Panel.(bwn) (Entered: 08/13/2014)

08/13/2014 1717 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw 1707 MOTION to Quash and Objection to Subpoena Duces Tecum Recognize Withdrawal of Subpoena by Capital One, N.A. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachmen Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Proposed Order)(Johnson, Patrick) (Entered: 08/13/2014)

08/13/2014 1719 Notice of Related Case(s) (Fourth Amended Local Rule 3.1 Statement of Collateral Proceedings) by All Plaintiffs o case(s) 14−1818. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/13/2014)

08/14/2014 1720 ORDER granting 1710 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to Exchange Initial Exhibit Lists. ORDERED that the de for the parties to exchange expert lists is extended from August 18, 2014 to September 12, 2014. Signed by Judge S Morgan on 8/13/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 08/14/2014)

08/14/2014 1721 ORDER granting 1717 Motion to Withdraw 1707 MOTION to Quash and Objection to Subpoena Duces Tecum. FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on Motion to Quash set for 9/10/2104 is removed from the Court's hearing as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/14/14. (plh) (Entered: 08/14/2014)

08/14/2014 1722 ORDER AND REASONS denying 1535 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/14

08/15/2014 1724 ANSWER to 1706 Amended Complaint,, with Jury Demand Answer to Plaintiffs' Sixth Amended Complaint by Sac Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd..(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 08/15/2014)

08/15/2014 1725 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 1706 Amended Complaint,, by Signal Intern LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/15/2014)

08/18/2014 1726 ORDER AND REASONS denying 1465 Motion for Clarification of Protective Order, as stated herein. Signed by Ju Susie Morgan on 8/18/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

08/18/2014 1727 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 1467 Motion to Amend/Correct 913 Protective Orde stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/18/2014. (tsf) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

08/18/2014 1728 ORDER granting 1725 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signal International, LLC shall have fourteen (14 from the entry of this judgment in which to file responsive pleadings to Plaintiffs Sixth Amended Complaint. Signe Judge Susie Morgan on 8/18/2014. (my) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

08/19/2014 1729 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC re 1709 MOTION to Quash Signal Record Subpoenas Issued to M & M Bank. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/19/2014)

08/19/2014 1730 ANSWER to 1706 Amended Complaint,, with Jury Demand by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law C L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C..(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 08/19/2014)

08/20/2014

1733

TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on July 28, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder C Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased thro Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtaine through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. (R to 12−557, 13−6218, 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6221, 14−773; Applies to all cases) Release of Transcript Restriction 11/18/2014. (rsg) (Entered: 08/20/2014)

08/22/2014 1734 ORDER that the 1474 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and the 1479 Motion to Compel Answers to R for Production of Documents are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth in document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/22/14. (plh) Modified doc type on 8/22/2014 (plh). (Entered: 08/22/20

08/22/2014 1735 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Signal's Bank Records Subpoenas by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl

Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading (Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Further Support of their Mot Quash Signal's Bank Records Subpoenas), # 2 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/22/2014)

08/25/2014 1736 ORDER granting 1735 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Know on 8/25/14. (plh) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

08/25/2014 1737 REPLY Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 1709 MOTION to Quash Signal's Bank Recor Subpoenas. (plh) (Entered: 08/25/2014)

08/26/2014 1743 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Mitchell Hasenkampf by Signal International LLC (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/26/2014)

08/27/2014 1744 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 8/27/2014 under advisement 1709 MOTION to Quash Signal's Bank Record Subpoenas. (lag) (Entered: 08/27/2014)

08/28/2014 1745 ORDER granting 1743 Motion to Enroll Attorney Mitchell P. Hasenkampf as Counsel of Record for Signal Interna LLC. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/28/2014)

08/29/2014 1746 NOTICE by Signal International LLC of Expert Witness Disclosure. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/29/2014)

08/29/2014 1747 NOTICE of Expert Witness Disclosure by Burnett Defendants. (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 08/29/2014)

08/29/2014

1748

Affirmative Defenses & ANSWER to 1706 Amended Complaint,, with Jury Demand , CROSSCLAIM with Jury De against Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Global Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immig Law Center, L.L.C., Indo−Ameri Soft L.L.C., J & M Associates, Inc. of Mississippi, J&M Marine & Industrial, LLC Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Michael Pol, Kurella Rao, Billy R Wilks by Signal International LLC.(Hang Erin) (Entered: 08/29/2014)

08/29/2014 1756 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/29/2014. (b (Entered: 09/08/2014)

09/04/2014 1750 ANSWER to 1748 Crossclaim with Jury Demand by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. Attorney Timothy W. Cerniglia added to party Law Offices of Malvern C. B A.P.C.(pty:crd).(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 09/04/2014)

09/05/2014 1751 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Amendment to the Briefing Schedule Set Out in the Court's 1714 Order by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 09/05/2014)

09/05/2014 1752 MOTION for Protective Order by Signal International LLC. Motion set for 9/24/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susi Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A), # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 9/8/2014 to remove referral (bw (Entered: 09/05/2014)

09/08/2014 1753 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Exchange Exhibit Lists by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 09/08/2014)

09/08/2014

1754

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Document re 1751 MOTION for Amendment to the Briefing Schedu Out in the Court's 1714 Order by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Marugan Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (E 09/08/2014)

09/08/2014 1755 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Amendment to the Briefing Schedule Set Out in 1714 Order by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thang Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 09/08/2014)

09/08/2014

1757

TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on April 29, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Ca Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased thro Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtaine through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. R of Transcript Restriction set for 12/8/2014. (rsg) (Entered: 09/08/2014)

09/08/2014 1758 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that any opposition to the 1752 Motion for Protective Order be filed in the record by September 11, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephone status conference is SET for September 16, 201 10:00 a.m. Counsel in all of the above−captioned matters are required to participate. The Court will provide call−in

instructions. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 09/08/2014)

09/08/2014 1759 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 1634 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Ent 09/08/2014)

09/09/2014 1762 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law by Signal Defendants. Motion set for 9/24/2 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/09/2014)

09/09/2014 1763 ORDER granting 1755 MOTION for Amendment to the Briefing Schedule Set Out in the Court's 1714 Order. Sign Judge Susie Morgan on 9/9/2014. (bwn) Modified on 9/10/2014 (tsf). (Entered: 09/10/2014)

09/09/2014 1764 ORDER granting 1753 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to Exchange Exhibit Lists. The deadline for the all the pa change exhibit lists is hereby extended for a period of 7 days, or from September 12, 2014 to September 19, 2014. S by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/9/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 09/10/2014)

09/10/2014 1765 ORDER granting 1754 Motion to Withdraw 1751 MOTION for Amendment to the Briefing Schedule Set Out in the 1714 Order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/9/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 09/10/2014)

09/11/2014

1766

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Opposition to Signal's Motion for a Protective Order 1752 and Related E Under Seal by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 9/12/2014 to remove submission info (bwn). (Additional attachment(s) added 9/12/2014: # 4 Proposed Pleading, # 5 Proposed Exhibit 1, # 6 Proposed Exhibit 2, # 7 Proposed Exhibit 3, # 8 Prop Exhibit 4, # 9 Proposed Exhibit 5) (bwn). (Entered: 09/11/2014)

09/12/2014 1767 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1766 MOTION to File Opposition to Signal's Motion for a Protective Orde and Related Exhibits Under Seal − Filing attorney should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Con Motion Y/N?'. Exparte/Consent motions are not set for submission. Clerk has removed submission date. (bwn) (Ent 09/12/2014)

09/16/2014 1768 ORDER granting 1766 Motion to Seal Document Opposition to Signal's Motion for a Protective Order 1752 and Re Exhibits Under Seal. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/16/2014)

09/16/2014 1769 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 1752 MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5) (bwn) (Entered: 09/16/2014)

09/16/2014 1770 ORDER granting in part 1709 Motion to Quash as outlined herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, 9/16/2014. (caa) (Entered: 09/16/2014)

09/16/2014 1771 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1762 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−o . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 09/16/2014)

09/16/2014 1772 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 1762 MOTIO Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 09/16/2014)

09/16/2014 1797 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Conference held on 9/16/2014. (bwn) (E 10/01/2014)

09/17/2014

1773

***STRICKEN AS DIRECTED BY 1779 ORDER*** RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by All Plai 1762 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibi Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibi Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit, # 37 Exhibit, # 38 Exhibit, # 39 Exhibit, # 40 Exhibit, # 41 Exhibi Exhibit, # 43 Exhibit, # 44 Exhibit, # 45 Exhibit, # 46 Exhibit, # 47 Exhibit)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 9/22/2014 (b (Entered: 09/17/2014)

09/17/2014

1774

TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on August 29, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorde Tusa, Telephone number 504−589−7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased throug Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtaine through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. R of Transcript Restriction set for 12/16/2014. (rsg) (Entered: 09/17/2014)

09/17/2014 1775 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Correct and Re−File Papers in Support 1773 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM i Support by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 09/17/2014)

09/18/2014 1776 MOTION to Stay re 1727 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 1467 Motion to Amend/C 913 Protective Order and to Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal. Motion set for 10/8/2014 10:00 AM before Jud Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Notice Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/18/2014)

09/19/2014

1777

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1776 MOTION to Stay re 1727 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 1726 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief MOTION To Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) − Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'I motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the District Judge. Clerk took corrective action. (bwn) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

09/19/2014 1778 Exhibit List by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burne A.P.C.. (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

09/19/2014 1779 ORDER granting 1775 MOTION to Correct and Re−File Papers in Support 1773 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM i Support. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

09/19/2014

1780

RESPONSE to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 1762 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncont Facts, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exh 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exh 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exh 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit, # 37 Exhibit, # 38 Exh 39 Exhibit, # 40 Exhibit, # 41 Exhibit, # 42 Exhibit, # 43 Exhibit, # 44 Exhibit, # 45 Exhibit, # 46 Exhibit, # 47 Exh 48 Exhibit)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

09/19/2014 1781 Exhibit List by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Sig International, Inc.. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

09/19/2014 1782 Exhibit List by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

09/19/2014 1783 Exhibit List by All Plaintiffs. (Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

09/23/2014

1784

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1775 MOTION to Correct and Re−File Papers in Supp 1773 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Indian Contract Act, # 2 Exhibit 2 v. M. Skotak, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Anand v. Advent, # 4 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 5 Exhibit A)(Hang Erin) (Entered: 09/23/2014)

09/24/2014

1785

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Submission Date of the Signal Defendants' Motion for Stay and to C Orders for Interlocutory Appeal (Rec. Doc. 1776) by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # Proposed Order)(Bjarnson, Joseph) Modified on 9/25/2014 (caa). (Entered: 09/24/2014)

09/24/2014 1786 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum Supporting Motion of Signal For Partial S Judgment Concerning Choice−Of−Law by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Han Erin) (Entered: 09/24/2014)

09/25/2014 1787 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1785 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Change Submission Date of t Signal Defendants' Motion for Stay and to Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal (Rec. Doc. 1776). Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is MOTION to Continue. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event further action necessary at this time.(caa) (Entered: 09/25/2014)

09/26/2014 1788 ***DEFICIENT*** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Determine Taking of Video Conference Depositions by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapi Stephen) Modified on 9/30/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 09/26/2014)

09/30/2014 1789 ORDER granting in part 1785 Motion to Continue Submission Date of the Signal Defendants' Motion for Stay and Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal (Rec. Doc. 1776). Oppositions are due by October 8, 2014. Replies are due October 13, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 1790 ORDER granting 1786 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum Supporting Motion of Signal For Partial Sum Judgment Concerning Choice−Of−Law. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/30/2014)

09/30/2014 1791 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P. re 1762 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law. (bwn) (Entered: 09/30/

09/30/2014 1792 **ERROR−ATTORNEY FILED IN INCORRECT CASE−DOC TO BE REFILED IN CORRECT CASE** Witne by All Plaintiffs. (Colby, Eben) Modified on 10/1/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 09/30/2014)
09/30/2014 1793 Witness List by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burn A.P.C.. (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
10/01/2014 1794 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1792 Witness List − Document filed in incorrect case. Document to be re−f attorney in correct case. (bwn) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
10/01/2014 1795 MOTION for Protective Order by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 10/1/2014 01:00 PM befor Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
10/01/2014 1796 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
10/01/2014 1798 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 1795 MOTION for Protective Order . The 1796 MOTION to Expedite is grante ORDERED that the 1795 MOTION for Protective Order is SET FOR ORAL HEARING BY TELEPHONE 10/6/20 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/1/14.(plh) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
10/02/2014 1799 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Determine Taking of Video Conference Depositions by Sachin Dewan, Dew Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. Motion set for 10/22/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memora Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
10/02/2014 1800 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Join Signal's Motion for Stay and to Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal b Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
10/02/2014 1801 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Determine Whether Video Conference Deposit India Witness Will be Taken by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sh Stephen) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
10/03/2014 1802 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1795 MOTION for Protective Order . (Attachments: # 1 Exhi 2 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
10/03/2014 1803 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 1795 MOTION Protective Order . (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
10/03/2014 1804 ORDER that the 1795 Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. FURTHER ORDERED that t telephone hearing set on 10/6/2014 is CANCELLED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/3/1 (Entered: 10/03/2014)
10/03/2014 1805 ORDER granting 1799 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to Determine Taking of Video Conference Depositions. ORDERED that the deadline for Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. to determine whether video confe depositions of witnesses in India will go forward is hereby extended from September 26, 2014 to October 10, 2014. by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
10/03/2014 1806 ORDER finding as moot 1801 Motion to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Determine Whether Video Conference Depositions of India Witness Will be Taken. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
10/03/2014 1807 ORDER granting 1800 Motion to Join Signal's Motion for Stay and to Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal. Sign Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
10/03/2014 1808 MOTION to Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal and to Join Signal's Motion for Stay and to Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal. Motion set for 10/22/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memora Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified on 10/6/2014 to edit submis (bwn). (Entered: 10/03/2014)
10/04/2014 1809 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Notice of Submission by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigratio Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 10/04/2014)
10/07/2014 1810 ORDER Denying as Moot 1809 Motion to Substitute Notice of Submission. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
10/08/2014 1811 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Opposition Brief to Signal Defendants' Motion For Stay And To Certify 17 Under Seal by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasam

Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasude Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/9/2014: # 3 Proposed Pleading) (bwn). (Entered: 10/0

10/09/2014 1812 ORDER granting 1811 Motion to File Opposition Brief to Signal Defendants' Motion For Stay And To Certify Ord Interlocutory Appeal 1776 Under Seal. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/09/2014)

10/09/2014

1813

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkara Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 1776 MOTION to Stay re 1 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 1467 Motion to Amend/Correct 913 Protective Orde Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal. (bwn) (Entered: 10/09/2014)

10/10/2014 1814 Amended Witness List by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 10/10/2014)

10/13/2014 1815 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to File Daubert and Dispositive Motions by International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/13/2014)

10/14/2014

1816

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Opposition Brief to 1808 Motion to Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appe Under Seal by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasam Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasude Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 10/14/2014)

10/14/2014 1817 ORDER granting 1815 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to File Daubert and Dispositive Motions. It is hereby ord that the deadline for filing Daubert Motions is October 17, 2014; the deadline for filing any Daubert Motion related Ware is October 21, 2014; and the deadline for filing any dispositive Motion is October 27, 2014. Signed by Judge Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/14/2014)

10/14/2014 1818 ORDER AND REASONS denying 1776 Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal or Alternatively to Stay Pendin Application for Mandamus Relief; denying 1808 MOTION to Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal and to Join S Motion for Stay and to Certify Orders for Interlocutory Appeal. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/14/2014)

10/14/2014 1819 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Stay and to Certif Orders for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) of Signal Defendants by Signal International LLC, S International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Propose Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/14/2014)

10/16/2014 1820 ORDERED that 1816 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Opposition Brief to 1808 Motion to Certify Orders Interlocutory Appeal Under Seal is MOOT. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cml) (Entered: 10/16/2014)

10/16/2014 1821 ORDERED that 1819 Motion for Leave to File Reply is DENIED as untimely. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cm (Entered: 10/16/2014)

10/17/2014 1822 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Profferred Expert Dr. Louise Shelley by Plaintiffs. Motion set fo 11/5/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 E B)(Werner, Daniel) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2014: # 4 Notice of Submission (Civil Only)) (bwn). (Entered: 10/17/2014)

10/17/2014 1823 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Kevin Fox Gotham by Plaintiffs. Motion set for 11/5/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submi 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Tsu, Naomi) (Attachment 1 replaced on 12/28/2014) (tsf). (Entered 10/17/2014)

10/17/2014 1824 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Ron McAlear by Plaintiffs. Motion set for 11/5 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 E # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 10/17/2014)

10/17/2014 1825 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Dr. Pablo Stewart by Signal International LLC, Signal Internatio Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. Motion set for 11/5/2015 10:00 AM bef Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/17/2014)

10/17/2014 1826 MOTION to Exclude/Limit Report and Testimony of Smita Narula by Signal International LLC, Signal Internationa GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. Motion set for 11/5/2014 10:00 AM before Jud Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/17/2014)

10/17/2014

1827

MOTION in Limine to to Exclude Legal Opinion Testimony of Plaintiffs' and Signal's Immigration Law Experts by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. Motio for 11/5/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 E # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified on 10/20/2014 to edit submission information. (Add attachment(s) added on 10/20/2014: # 6 Notice of Submission (Civil Only)) (bwn). (Entered: 10/17/2014)

10/17/2014 1828 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony and Strike the Report of Ronald J. Signorino by Plaintiffs. Motion set for 11/5/ 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 3, # 5 Declaration Melia Bouhabib, # 6 Exhibit A, # 7 Notice of Submission)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 10/17/2014)

10/17/2014 1829 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony and Strike the Report of Don H. Strobel by Plaintiffs. Motion set for 11/5/2014 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Notic Submission)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 10/17/2014)

10/17/2014 1830 MOTION to Exclude Portions of the Report and Testimony of Signal's Proposed Expert Enrique Gonzalez, III by P Motion set for 11/5/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 E # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 10/17/2014)

10/17/2014

1831

***FILED IN ERROR − See 1833 for corrected filing*** MOTION to Exclude/Limit Report and Testimony of Am by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal Internati Inc. Motion set for 11/5/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 10/20/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 10/17/2014)

10/17/2014 1832 MOTION to Exclude/Limit Report and Testimony of Florence Burke by Signal International LLC, Signal Internatio Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. Motion set for 11/5/2014 10:00 AM bef Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 E B, # 6 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/17/2014)

10/17/2014 1833 MOTION to Exclude/Limit Report and Testimony of Amy Mowl by Signal International LLC, Signal International T GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. Motion set for 11/5/2014 10:00 AM before Jud Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/17/2014)

10/17/2014 1834 MOTION to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony of Louise Shelley by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. M set for 11/5/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A Proposed Order, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 10/17/2014)

10/20/2014 1835 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1827 MOTION in Limine to to Exclude Legal Opinion Testimony of Plainti Signal's Immigration Law Experts − Filing attorney selected incorrect submission/hearing date. Correct date is 11/5 Clerk took corrective action. (bwn) (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/20/2014 1836 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Withdrawal of FLSA Consent Form (Venkata S.N.R. Peddabaliyarisimhuni). (Werner, (Entered: 10/20/2014)

10/23/2014 1837 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the page limit for memoranda in support of or in opposition to summary judgment enlarged to 30 pages, exclusive of exhibits. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/23/2014.(bwn) (Entered: 10/24/20

10/24/2014 1838 ANSWER to 1748 Crossclaim with Jury Demand by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (Shapiro, Stephe (Entered: 10/24/2014)

10/26/2014

1839

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability of Defendants Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Law Center, and the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC for Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Signal Internatio LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Motion set fo 11/19/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit A−J, # 5 Exhibit K−X, # 6 Exhibit Y−AA, # 7 1−10, # 8 Exhibit 11−13, # 9 Exhibit 14−17, # 10 Exhibit 18−19, # 11 Exhibit 20−Part 1, # 12 Exhibit 20−Part 2, # Exhibit 20A, # 14 Exhibit 21−25, # 15 Exhibit 26−31)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/26/2014)

10/27/2014

1840

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Second Claim for Relief Under RICO and Fifteenth Claim for Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Internation Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. Motion set for 11/19/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachmen Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit 1, # Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit A), # 7 Exhibit B, # 8 Exhibit C, # 9 Exhibit D, # 10 Exhibit E)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/27/2014)

10/27/2014 1841 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability for Retaliation under 42 USC 1981 by Plaintiffs. Motion set f 11/19/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Ex 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 1

Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 18 Notice of Submission)(Tsu, Naomi) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/5/2014: # 19 Exhibit A, # 20 Exhibit B, # 21 Exhi 22 Exhibit E, # 23 Exhibit F) (bwn). (Entered: 10/27/2014)

10/27/2014

1842

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding First Claim Relief by Signal International LLC, Signal Interna Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. Motion set for 11/19/2014 10:00 AM be Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit A), # 5 Exhibit B), # 6 Exhibit C), # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E)(Hangartner, Erin (Entered: 10/27/2014)

10/27/2014

1843

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Claims of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress by Signal Internat LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Motion set fo 11/19/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/27/2014)

10/27/2014

1844

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Claims of Assault and Battery by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Motion set for 11/19/2014 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontes Facts, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhib 10 Exhibit G)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/27/2014)

10/27/2014 1845 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on FLSA Certification by Signal International LLC, Signal International T GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Motion set for 11/19/2014 10:00 AM before J Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Noti Submission, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/27/2014)

10/27/2014

1846

MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37(B)(2) for Failure to Comply with Discovery Order by Malvern C. Burn Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. Motion(s) referred to Dani Knowles, III. Motion set for 11/12/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Proposed Order, # 7 Notic Submission)(Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified on 10/28/2014 to edit submission time (bwn). (Entered: 10/27/2014)

10/27/2014

1847

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment On Certain Principal−Agent Relationships by Plaintiffs. Motion set for 11/19/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Memorandum in S # 3 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Exhibits 1 − 26, # 6 Exhibit 27A, # 7 Exhibit 27 Exhibits 28 − 50, # 9 Exhibits 51 − 75, # 10 Exhibits 76 − 99)(Howard, Alan) (Attachment 5 replaced on 11/3/2014 (Attachment 6 replaced on 11/3/2014) (bwn). (Attachment 7 replaced on 11/3/2014) (bwn). (Attachment 8 replaced 11/3/2014) (bwn). (Attachment 9 replaced on 11/3/2014) (bwn). (Attachment 10 replaced on 11/3/2014) (bwn). (Ad attachment(s) added on 11/5/2014: # 11 Exhibit 18, # 12 Exhibit 26, # 13 Exhibit 37, # 14 Exhibit 91) (bwn). (Enter 10/27/2014)

10/27/2014

1848

MOTION for Summary Judgment on Liability Related to Signals Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by Pla Motion set for 11/19/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncon Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Affidavit (Declaration of Daniel Werner), # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 E K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit O, # 19 Exhibit P, # 20 Exhibit Q, # 21 Exhibit R, # Exhibit S, # 23 Exhibit T, # 24 Exhibit U, # 25 Exhibit V, # 26 Exhibit W, # 27 Exhibit X, # 28 Exhibit Y, # 29 Exh 30 Exhibit AA, # 31 Exhibit BB, # 32 Exhibit CC, # 33 Exhibit DD, # 34 Exhibit EE, # 35 Exhibit FF, # 36 Exhibit 37 Exhibit HH, # 38 Exhibit II, # 39 Exhibit KK, # 40 Exhibit LL, # 41 Exhibit MM, # 42 Exhibit NN, # 43 Exhibit 44 Exhibit PP, # 45 Exhibit QQ, # 46 Exhibit RR, # 47 Exhibit SS, # 48 Exhibit TT, # 49 Exhibit UU, # 50 Exhibit 51 Exhibit WW, # 52 Exhibit XX, # 53 Exhibit YY, # 54 Exhibit ZZ, # 55 Exhibit AAA, # 56 Exhibit BBB, # 57 E CCC, # 58 Exhibit DDD, # 59 Exhibit EEE, # 60 Exhibit FFF, # 61 Exhibit GGG, # 62 Exhibit HHH, # 63 Exhibit Exhibit JJJ, # 65 Exhibit KKK, # 66 Exhibit LLL, # 67 Exhibit MMM, # 68 Exhibit NNN, # 69 Exhibit OOO, # 70 PPP, # 71 Exhibit QQQ, # 72 Exhibit RRR, # 73 Exhibit SSS, # 74 Exhibit TTT, # 75 Exhibit UUU, # 76 Exhibit V 77 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/5/2014: # 78 Exhibit D, # 79 Exh EEE, # 80 Exhibit PPP) (bwn). (Entered: 10/27/2014)

10/28/2014

1849

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment For Retaliation by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas G LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Motion set for 11/19/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Exhi 19 Exhibit P)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/28/2014)

10/28/2014 1850 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1846 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37(B)(2) for Failure to Com Discovery Order − Filing attorney selected incorrect time. Correct time is 11:00 a.m. Clerk took corrective action. (

(Entered: 10/28/2014)

10/28/2014 1851 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 1846 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37(B)(2) for Failure to Comply Discovery Order : Motion set for ORAL HEARING 11/12/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Know Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/28/14.(plh) (Entered: 10/28/2014)

10/28/2014 1854 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 10/28/2014. ( (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/29/2014 1852 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend 1823 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Exp Kevin Fox Gotham and to seek additional time for Signal's response by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Plead Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/29/2014 1853 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1828 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony and Strike th Report of Ronald J. Signorino . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Hangartn (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/29/2014 1855 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Certain Exhibits Related to Summary Judgment Motions Under Seal by P (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/29/2014

1856

***DEFICIENT*** MOTION to Compel Signal Responses to Plaintiffs' Sixth Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Third Set of Requests for Admission by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Mo for 11/19/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Supp Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 10/ (bwn). (Entered: 10/29/2014)

10/29/2014 1857 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1840 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 1842 Motion f Partial Summary Judgment. Signal shall re−file the motions with adequate record citations by November 3, 2014. P may move for a corresponding extension of time to file their oppositions, if necessary. Signal may maintain the orig submission date of November 19, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/29/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 10/30/2014

10/30/2014 1858 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Plaintiffs re 1827 MOTION in Limine to to Exclude Legal O Testimony of Plaintiffs' and Signal's Immigration Law Experts . (Howard, Alan) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

10/30/2014 1859 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1826 MOTION to Exclude/Limit Report and Testimony of Smita Narula . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

10/30/2014 1860 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1824 MOTION to Exclude Report and Testimony of P Expert Ron McAlear. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

10/30/2014 1861 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1827 MOTION in Limine to to Exclude Legal Opinion Testimony of Plaintiffs' and Signal's Immigration Law Experts (Enrique Gonzalez). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

10/30/2014 1862 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1830 MOTION to Exclude Portions of the Report and Testimony of Signal's Proposed Expert Enrique Gonzalez, III . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhi C)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

10/30/2014

1863

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1822 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony o Profferred Expert Dr. Louise Shelley, 1834 MOTION to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony of Louise Shelley . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

10/30/2014 1864 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1829 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony and Strike th Report of Don H. Strobel . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

10/30/2014 1865 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Plaintiffs re 1825 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testi Dr. Pablo Stewart . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

10/30/2014 1866 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Plaintiffs re 1832 MOTION to Exclude/Limit Report and Te of Florence Burke . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 10/30/2014)

10/30/2014 1867 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Padaveettiyl, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani re 1833 MOTION to Exclude/Limit Report and Te of Amy Mowl. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Graunke, Kristi). (Entered: 10/30/2014)

10/30/2014 1964 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 10/30/2014. (bwn) (Ente 12/02/2014)

10/31/2014

1868

ORDER granting 1852 Motion to Amend 1823 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Fox Gotham and to seek additional time for Signal's response. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs brief in support of th Motion to Exclude Testimony and Report of Proffered Expert Kevin Fox Gotham (No. 1823) shall be filed. Defend Signal shall file any response to the motion to exclude Mr. Gotham by November 5, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie M (bwn) (Entered: 10/31/2014)

10/31/2014 1869 MEMORANDUM filed by Plaintiffs re 1823 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert K Fox Gotham. (bwn) (Entered: 10/31/2014)

10/31/2014 1870 ORDER granting 1855 Motion to File Certain Exhibits Related to Summary Judgment Motions Under Seal. Signed Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/31/2014)

11/03/2014

1871

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding First Claim Relief by Signal International LLC, Signal Interna Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Motion set for 11/19/2014 10:00 AM b Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E)(Hangartner, Erin) ( 11/03/2014)

11/03/2014 1872 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Continuance of the Submission and Hearing Date of the Burnett Defendants' for Sanctions by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bjarns Joseph) Modified on 11/4/2014 to add referral (bwn). (Entered: 11/03/2014)

11/03/2014

1873

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Second Claim for Relief Under RICO and Fifteenth Claim for Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Internation Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. Motion set for 11/19/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachmen Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Exhibit 1, # Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit A, # 7 Exhibit B, # 8 Exhibit C, # 9 Exhibit D, # 10 Exhibit E)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/03/2014)

11/04/2014

1874

ORDER Resetting ORAL Hearing on 1846 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37(B)(2) for Failure to Comp Discovery Order. The 1872 MOTION for Continuance of the Submission and Hearing Date of the Burnett Defenda Motion for Sanctions is granted. ORDERED that the 1846 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37(B)(2) for Fa Comply with Discovery Order is RESET FOR ORAL HEARING 12/10/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge D Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/4/14.(plh) (Entered: 11/04/2014)

11/04/2014

1875

MOTION to Compel Signal Responses to Plaintiffs' Sixth Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Third S Requests for Admission by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. Motion set for 11/19/2014 11:00 before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exh 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Certificate of Compliance, # 8 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel (Entered: 11/04/2014)

11/04/2014 1876 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1847 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment On C Principal−Agent Relationships by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Internatio Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Motion set for 11/19/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachme Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/04/2014)

11/04/2014 1877 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Signal's Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply To P Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain Principal−Agent Relationships by Signal International LLC, Sig International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Propose Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 11/5/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 11/04/2014)

11/05/2014 1878 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1877 MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Signal's Motion for Extension of Ti File Reply To Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain Principal−Agent Relationships − Filing should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?'. Clerk modified docket text to r 'Exparte'. (bwn) (Entered: 11/05/2014)

11/05/2014 1879 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1876 MOTION for Extension of Time to Fil Response/Reply as to 1847 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment On Certain Principal−Agent Relationships . ( Daniel) (Entered: 11/05/2014)

11/05/2014 1880 ORDER Setting ORAL Hearing on 1875 MOTION to Compel Signal Responses to Plaintiffs' Sixth Set of Requests Production of Documents and Third Set of Requests for Admission : Motion set for ORAL HEARING 11/19/2014 1 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/5/14 (Entered: 11/05/2014)

11/05/2014

1881

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1823 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony o Proffered Expert Kevin Fox Gotham, 1852 MOTION to Amend 1823 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimo Proffered Expert Kevin Fox Gotham and to seek additional time for Signal's response . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/05/2014)

11/06/2014 1882 ORDER granting 1876 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signal shall respond to Plaintiffs' mo November 18, 2014. Plaintiffs may file a reply by November 25, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 1877 for Expedited Consideration is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 11/06/2014)

11/06/2014

1883

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1839 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability of Defe Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Law Center, LLC and the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC for Malpractice Breach of Fiduciary Duty . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Statement of Contested Facts, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Ex 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibi Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 11/06/2014)

11/06/2014 1884 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1832 MOTION to Exclude/Limit Report and Testimony of Florence Burke (Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 11/7/2014 (bwn). Modified on 11/7/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 11/06/2014)

11/07/2014 1885 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1825 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Dr. Pablo Stewart (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 1886 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply in support of Motion to Exclude Ron McAlear by Plaintif (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 1887 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply in support of Motion to Exclude Kevin Fox Gotham by Pl (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 1888 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1884 Response/Memorandum in Support of Motion − Document no longer deficient. (bwn) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 1889 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1826 MOTION to Exclude/Limit Report and Testimony of Smita Narula . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 1890 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1833 MOTION to Exclude/Limit Report and Testimony of Amy Mowl . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 1891 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs re 1829 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony and Strike the Repor H. Strobel . (Howard, Alan) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 1892 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1833 MOTION to Exclude/Limit Report and Testimony of Amy Mowl . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 1893 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs re 1828 MOTION to Exclude the Testimony and Strike the Repor Ronald J. Signorino . (Howard, Alan) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 1894 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs re 1830 MOTION to Exclude Portions of the Report and Testimo Signal's Proposed Expert Enrique Gonzalez, III . (Howard, Alan) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 1895 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1826 MOTION to Exclude/Limit Report and Testimony of Smita Narula . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 1896 Declaration of Hugh D. Sandler filed by Plaintiffs re 1830 MOTION to Exclude Portions of the Report and Testimo Signal's Proposed Expert Enrique Gonzalez, III. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 11/07/2014

11/07/2014 1897 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 1822 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Pr Expert Dr. Louise Shelley . (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 1898 Supplemental Memorandum filed by All Plaintiffs, in in support of 1762 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law as Directed by the Court in October 30, 2014 Status Conference. (Attachments: # 1 A # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 1 Exhibit)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 11/07/2014)

11/07/2014 1899 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that a telephone status conference is SET in the above captioned matters for Novembe 2014 at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the possibility of mediation in the David case. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (E 11/07/2014)

11/10/2014 1912 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 11/10/2014. ( (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/10/2014 1919 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Billy R Wilks re 1841 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgm Liability for Retaliation under 42 USC 1981. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(bwn) (Entered: 11/13/2014)

11/11/2014 1900 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1845 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgm FLSA Certification . (Attachments: # 1 Counter Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Meredith # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 11/11/2014)

11/11/2014 1901 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1875 MOTION to Compel Signal Responses to Plainti Sixth Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Third Set of Requests for Admission . (Attachments: # 1 Exh (Email of November 7, 2014))(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/11/2014)

11/11/2014 1902 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Dismiss Certain Claims Pursuant to FRCP 41 by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kur David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Kri Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal V (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 11/11/2014)

11/11/2014

1903

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document [unredacted brief in Opposition To Signal Defendants Motion Partial Summary Judgment On Plaintiffs Claim for Retaliation, their unredacted Counter−Statement of Facts and E I and M to the Declaration of Melia Amal Bouhabib], by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 11/11/2014)

11/11/2014

1904

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 1849 MOTION Partial Summary Judgment For Retaliation [redacted Memorandum]. (Howard, Alan) (Additional attachment(s) ad 11/12/2014: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts) (my). (Entered: 11/11/2014)

11/11/2014

1905

**ERROR: DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED SEPARATELY; DOCUMENT HAS BEEN ATT TO RECORD DOC 1904**Statement of Facts by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkara Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan regarding 1849 MOTION for P Summary Judgment For Retaliation [Plaintiffs' REDACTED COUNTER−STATEMENT] (Howard, Alan) Modified 11/12/2014 (my). (Entered: 11/11/2014)

11/11/2014

1906

Declaration of Melia Amal Bouhabib filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappa Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 1849 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment For Retaliation [Declaration of Melia Amal Bouhabib, Esq.]. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A to Bouh Declaration., # 2 Ex. B to Bouhabib Declaration., # 3 Ex. C to Bouhabib Declaration., # 4 Ex. D to Bouhabib Decla # 5 Ex. E to Bouhabib Declaration., # 6 Ex. F to Bouhabib Declaration., # 7 Ex. G to Bouhabib Declaration., # 8 Ex Bouhabib Declaration., # 9 Ex. I (redacted) to Bouhabib Declaration., # 10 Ex. J to Bouhabib Declaration., # 11 Ex. Bouhabib Declaration., # 12 Ex. L to Bouhabib Declaration., # 13 Ex. M (redacted) to Bouhabib Declaration., # 14 Bouhabib Declaration., # 15 Ex. O to Bouhabib Declaration., # 16 Ex. P to Bouhabib Declaration.)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 11/12/2014 (my). (Entered: 11/11/2014)

11/12/2014 1907 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1905 Statement of Facts. **Document 1905 was incorrectly filed as a separ document instead of an attachment to document 1904. Clerk took corrective action. No further action is needed.** ( (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014 1908 ORDER granting 1886 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 08−1220. (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014 1909 ORDER granting 1887 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/12/201 (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014 1910 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 1824 MOTION to Exclude Report and Testimony of Proffe Expert Ron McAlear . (cms) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014 1911 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 1823 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Pr Expert Kevin Fox Gotham. (cms) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014 1913 ORDER that Plaintiffs file a brief statement by November 15, 2014 addressing which currently pending motions are moot. Defendants shall respond by November 18, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/12/2014. (tsf) (Entere 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014 1914 ORDER granting 1902 Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims Pursuant to FRCP 41 as set forth in document. Signed by Susie Morgan on 11/12/2014. (my) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014 1915 ORDERED that the parties in the above−captioned matter contact Judge Knowles immediately for the purpose of scheduling a settlement conference. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/12/2014.(cms) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014 1916 ORDER granting 1903 Motion to Seal Document.. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/12/2014. (cms) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014

1917

EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to File Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Retaliation Claim of Kadakkarappally (Doc. 1841) and to Extend Reply Deadline by Signal Internatio LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014

1918

EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to File Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on FLSA Claims (Doc. 1848) and to Extend Reply Deadline by Signal International LLC, Signal Internati Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 E D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit O, # 19 Exhibit P, # 20 Exhibit Q, # 21 Exhibit R, # 22 Exhibit S, # Exhibit T, # 24 Exhibit U, # 25 Exhibit V, # 26 Exhibit W, # 27 Exhibit X, # 28 Exhibit Y)(Hangartner, Erin) (Ente 11/12/2014)

11/13/2014 1920 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 12/3/2014 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. Signed Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.(plh) (Entered: 11/13/2014)

11/14/2014 1921 ORDER that plaintiffs' 1875 Motion to Compel Signal Responses to Their Sixth Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Third Set of Requests for Admission is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the oral hearing set o 11/19/2014 is CANCELLED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III. (plh) (Entered: 11/14/2014)

11/14/2014 1922 ORDER granting 1917 Motion for Leave to File Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Retaliation Claim of Kadakkarappally 1841 and to Extend Reply Deadline. The Deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to Signal's Opposition to Doc 1841 is hereby extended to November 19, 2014. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/1 (bwn) (Entered: 11/14/2014)

11/14/2014

1923

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1841 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Liab Retaliation under 42 USC 1981. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Ex # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M)(bwn) (Entered: 11/14/2014)

11/14/2014 1924 ORDER granting 1918 Motion for Leave to File Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claims 1848 and to Extend Reply Deadline. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 11/14/2014)

11/14/2014

1925

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1848 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Liability R Signals Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhi 18 Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit R, # 20 Exhibit S, # 21 Exhibit T, # 22 Exhibit U, # 23 Exhibit V, # 24 Exhibit W, # 25 E X, # 26 Exhibit Y)(bwn) (Entered: 11/14/2014)

11/14/2014 1926 Statement by All Plaintiffs made pursuant to Nov 12, 2014 Order regarding mooting of certain motions (Tsu, Naom (Entered: 11/14/2014)

11/17/2014 1927 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1921 Order on Motion to Compel by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Kn III. Motion set for 12/10/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles III. (Attachments: # 1 Memor in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 11/18/2014 to edit submission time (bwn). (Ente 11/17/2014)

11/17/2014 1928 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial S Judgment on FLSA Certification by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Internati Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Proposed Exh A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/17/2014)

11/18/2014 1929 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1927 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1921 Order on Motion to Compel, ; attorney selected incorrect time (10:00 a.m.). Correct time is 11:00 a.m. Clerk took corrective action. (bwn) (Entere 11/18/2014)

11/18/2014 1930 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Burnett Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Sig Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability of Malvern C. Burnett for Malpractice and Breach of Fiducia by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal Internati Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

11/18/2014 1931 Statement re 1913 Order by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Tex L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

11/18/2014 1932 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to File Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

11/18/2014

1933

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1847 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment On Cer Principal−Agent Relationships . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Ex # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit 30)(Hangartner, Erin) (E 11/18/2014)

11/18/2014

1934

***DEFICIENT*** MEMORANDUM filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarap Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 1841 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability for Retaliation under 42 USC 1981 [REPLY MEMORANDUM]. (Howard, Alan) M on 11/19/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 11/18/2014)

11/18/2014

1935

***DEFICIENT*** REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 1841 MOTION Partial Summary Judgment on Liability for Retaliation under 42 USC 1981 [REPLY DECLARATION OF ALAN B. HOWARD]. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A to Howard Declaration., # 2 Ex. B to Howard Declaration.)(Howard, Alan) M on 11/19/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 11/18/2014)

11/18/2014 1936 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite re 1927 Motion for Reconsideration of Order denying Plaintiffs' Mot Compel Responses to Discovery Requests by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

11/18/2014 1937 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed Plaintiffs re 1873 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Reg Second Claim for Relief Under RICO and Fifteenth Claim for Relief Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 . (Attachments: Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibits 1 − 10, # 4 Exhibits 11 − 22 )(Howard, Ala (Entered: 11/18/2014)

11/18/2014

1938

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Signal's Mot Partial Summary Judgment For Retaliation by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Sign International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 E A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H)(Hangart Erin) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

11/19/2014 1939 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1927 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1921 Order on to Compel, ; . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/19/2014)

11/19/2014 1940 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs re 1841 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability for Retaliation under 42 USC 1981 filed pursuant to Court Order doc. #1625 dated 5/21/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Decla # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Certificate of Service.)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 11/19/2014)

11/19/2014 1941 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs re 1848 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Liability Related to Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act filed pursuant to Court Order doc. 1625 dated 5/21/2014. (Attachments Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 11/19/2014)

11/19/2014 1944 ORDER granting 1928 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Ju on FLSA Certification. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/19/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 11/20/2014)

11/19/2014 1945 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1845 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on FLSA Certification. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(bwn) (Entered: 11/20/2014)

11/19/2014 1946 ORDER finding as moot 1936 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/19/14 (Entered: 11/20/2014)

11/19/2014 1947 ORDER and REASONS re: 1927 Motion for Reconsideration. ORDERED that the 1927 Motion for Reconsideratio DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 11/19/14. (plh) (Entered: 11/20/2014)

11/20/2014

1942

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1871 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgm Regarding First Claim Relief (Human Trafficking Claims). (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested F 2 Affidavit Decl. of Gabriela Maxcy, # 3 Exhibit to Decl. of Gabriela Maxcy − Rental Housing Availability Index, Affidavit Decl. of Daniel Werner, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Exhibit D, # 9 Exhibit E, # 10 Ex # 11 Exhibit G, # 12 Exhibit H, # 13 Exhibit I, # 14 Exhibit J, # 15 Exhibit K, # 16 Exhibit L, # 17 Exhibit M, # 18 N, # 19 Exhibit O, # 20 Exhibit P, # 21 Exhibit Q, # 22 Exhibit R, # 23 Exhibit S, # 24 Exhibit T, # 25 Exhibit U, # Exhibit V, # 27 Exhibit W, # 28 Exhibit X, # 29 Exhibit Y, # 30 Exhibit Z, # 31 Exhibit AA, # 32 Exhibit BB, # 33 CC, # 34 Exhibit DD, # 35 Exhibit EE, # 36 Exhibit FF, # 37 Exhibit GG, # 38 Exhibit HH, # 39 Exhibit II, # 40 Ex # 41 Exhibit KK, # 42 Exhibit LL, # 43 Exhibit MM, # 44 Exhibit NN, # 45 Exhibit OO, # 46 Exhibit PP, # 47 Exh # 48 Exhibit RR, # 49 Exhibit SS, # 50 Exhibit TT, # 51 Exhibit UU, # 52 Exhibit VV, # 53 Exhibit WW, # 54 Exh # 55 Exhibit YY, # 56 Exhibit ZZ, # 57 Exhibit AAA, # 58 Exhibit BBB, # 59 Exhibit CCC, # 60 Exhibit DDD)(W Daniel) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/25/2014: # 61 Unredacted Memorandum, # 62 Unredacted Statemen Exhibit E, # 64 Exhibit K, # 65 Exhibit II, # 66 Exhibit PP, # 67 Exhibit SS, # 68 Exhibit WW) (bwn). (Entered: 11/20/2014)

11/20/2014 1943 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Certain Documents Under Seal Pursuant to Protective Order by Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 11/20/2014)

11/21/2014 1948 ORDER granting 1930 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Burnett Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Signa Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability of Malvern C. Burnett for Malpractice and Breach of Fiduciar Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 11/21/2014)

11/21/2014 1949 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1839 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability of Defendant Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Law Center, LLC and the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC for Malpractice Breach of Fiduciary Duty. (bwn) (Entered: 11/21/2014)

11/21/2014 1950 ORDER granting 1932 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to File Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Sum Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 11/21/2014)

11/21/2014 1951 ORDER granting 1938 Motion for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Signal's Motion Partial Summary Judgment For Retaliation. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 11/21/2014)

11/21/2014 1952 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1849 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment For Retaliation. (Attachme Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(bw (Entered: 11/21/2014)

11/21/2014 1953 ORDER granting 1943 Motion to File Certain Documents Under Seal Pursuant to Protective Order. Signed by Judg Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 11/21/2014)

11/25/2014 1954 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal Responding to Plaintiffs' Opposit [#1942] to Signal's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding First Claim for Relief by Signal International Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 P Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Proposed Exhibit 1, # 4 Proposed Exhibit 2)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/25/2

11/25/2014 1955 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Signal's Motion for Partial S Judgment [#1873] Regarding Plaintiffs' Second Claim for Relief by Signal International LLC, Signal International T

GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Propos Pleading, # 3 Proposed Exhibit 1, # 4 Proposed Exhibit 2)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
11/25/2014 1956 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Plaintiffs re 1847 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment On Certain Principal−Agent Relationships (filed pursuant to leave granted in 1882 dated and entered 11/6/2014). (Attachment Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
11/30/2014 1957 Witness and Exhibit List by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malv Burnett, A.P.C.. (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 11/30/2014)
12/01/2014 1958 Witness List by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
12/01/2014 1959 Exhibit List by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
12/01/2014 1960 Witness List by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Sig International, Inc.. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
12/01/2014 1961 Final Witness List by All Plaintiffs. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
12/01/2014 1962 Final Exhibit List by All Plaintiffs. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
12/01/2014 1963 Exhibit List by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Sig International, Inc.. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
12/02/2014 1965 ORDER − The deadlines herein apply to the claims of Sony Vasudevan Salekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Hemant Padaveettiyil Issac Andrews, and Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, which will be tried before a jury on January 12, 2 Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/30/2014.(bwn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/2/2014: # 1 Pre−Trial N Revised September 2014) (bwn). (Entered: 12/02/2014)
12/02/2014 1966 ORDER granting 1954 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Signal Responding to Plaintiffs' Oppositio [#1942] to Signal's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding First Claim for Relief. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
12/02/2014 1967 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1871 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding First Claim Reli (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(bwn) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
12/02/2014 1968 ORDER granting 1955 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum in Support of Signal's Motion for Partial Sum Judgment [#1873] Regarding Plaintiffs' Second Claim for Relief. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
12/02/2014 1969 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1873 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Second Claim fo Under RICO and Fifteenth Claim for Relief Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(bwn) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
12/02/2014 1970 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response in Opposition to Burnett Defend Motion for Sanctions by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
12/02/2014 1971 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to File Final Exhibit List Supplement by Signal International L Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
12/03/2014 1972 ORDER granting 1971 Motion for Leave to File Final Exhibit List Supplement. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bw (Entered: 12/03/2014)
12/03/2014 1973 Witness List by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Sig International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(bwn) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
12/03/2014 1974 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Settlement Conference held on 12/3/2014. Settlement can not be reached at this time. (plh) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
12/04/2014 1975 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Dismiss Crossclaims Against Michael Pol by Signal International LLC, Signa International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Propose Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
12/05/2014 1976 ORDER granting 1975 Motion to Dismiss Crossclaims Against Michael Pol. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 12/05/2014)

12/07/2014 1977 RESPONSE to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 1846 MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37(B)(2) for Failure Comply with Discovery Order . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 12/07/2014)

12/08/2014 1978 ORDER dismissing as moot 1846 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/8 (mmm) (Entered: 12/08/2014)

12/08/2014 1979 ORDER granting 1970 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply until 12/4/2014. Signed by Magistrate Daniel E. Knowles, III on 12/8/2014. (mmm) (Entered: 12/08/2014)

12/11/2014 1980 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Entry of Default as to Defendants J&M Associates, Inc., J&M Marine, LLC, Billy R. Wilks by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alan Howard, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 12/11/2014)

12/11/2014 1981 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/11/2014. T deadline for submitting the proposed pre−trial order is extended to December 15, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. (bwn) (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014

1982

ORDER AND REASONS− IT IS ORDERED that Signal's 1845 Motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs move for certification within 30 days of this Order. Because Plaintiffs have already opted in and substanti discovery has occurred, the Court will not entertain a motion for conditional certification but instead will proceed d to final certification and impose a heightened evidentiary burden. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Signal respond Plaintiffs' motion within 15 days of service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will DEFER a decision on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability Related to Signals Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Ac after it has ruled on certification. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no FLSA claims will be adjudicated at the Janu 2015 jury trial. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/14/2014. (bwn) (Main Document 1982 replaced on 1/7/2015 t footnote #5) (tsf). (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/15/2014

1983

Proposed Pretrial Order by Trial Plaintiffs (Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Hemant Khuttan, Padaveettiyil Isaac Andrews, Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappally); Signal International, LLC; Signal International, Inc.; Malvern C. Burnett; Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC; Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC; Sachin D Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 12/16/2014 to edit filers (bwn). (Entered: 12/15/2014)

12/16/2014 1984 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Final Exhibit List by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texa LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. Motion set for 1/14/2014 10:00 AM before Judge S Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartne Modified on 12/16/2014 to add submission information (bwn). (Entered: 12/16/2014)

12/16/2014 1985 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Signal's Motion to Supplement its Final Exhibit Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal Internationa (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/16/2014)

12/16/2014 1986 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1984 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Final Exhibit List − Filing a should have selected No at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?'. Clerk took corrective action to se motion for submission on 1/14/2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. No further action is necessary. (bwn) (Entered: 12/16/2014)

12/18/2014 1987 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Submission Date as to 1980 MOTION for Entry of Default as to Defendants J&M Associates, Inc., J&M Marine, LLC, and Billy R. Wilks by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memoran Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 12/18/2014)

12/18/2014 1988 ORDER granting 1980 Motion for Entry of Default as to J&M Associates, Inc., of Mississippi; J&M Marine & Indu LLC and Billy R. Wilks. Signed by Clerk on 12/18/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/19/2014 1989 ORDER denying 1987 Motion for Extension of Submission Date as to 1980 MOTION for Entry of Default. Signed Judge Susie Morgan on 12/19/2014. (bwn) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 1990 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Related to Gender Based Equal Pay Act Lawsuit by Signal International L Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 1991 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Unfairly Prejudicial Financial Records From Trial by Signal International LLC, Si International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memor in Support, # 2 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 1992 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Related to the Denial of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by Plain Motion set for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 N Submission)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 1993 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Plaintiffs' Contention That They Did Not Read Or Understan Contracts by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signa International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (En 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 1994 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Signal's Post−Lawsuit Conduct and Certain Other Irrelevant Evidence Plaintiffs. Motion set for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit A)(Howard, Alan) (Attachment 3 replaced on 1/8/2015 per Order 2062) (tsf). (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 1995 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Improper Evidence Related to Immigration Filings for Non−Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs. set for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 1996 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony, Evidence and Argument about Katrina−Related Property Damage Prio August 2006 by Plaintiffs. Motion set for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 1997 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Certain Testimony, Evidence and Argument about Non−Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs. Mo for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 1998 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Improper Evidence Related to Number, Political Views, or Resouces of Parties' Co and Evidence Related to Other Cases Involving Indian Workers by Plaintiffs. Motion set for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM b Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) (Ente 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014

1999

MOTION in Limine to Exclude Improper Evidence Related to Post−Signal Evidence of Plaintiff or Plaintiff Family Member, and Particularly Evidence of Immigration Status, Residence, or Employment by Plaintiffs. Motion set for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) (Main Document 1999 replaced on 12/23/2014) (bwn). (Attachment 1 replaced on 12/23/2014) (bwn). (Attachment 2 replaced on 12/23/2014) (bwn). (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 2000 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony, Evidence and Argument about Proceedings Brought by Dewan in India Plaintiffs. Motion set for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Sup Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 12/23/2014 (bwn). (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 2001 MOTION in Limine to Authorize Cross−Examination of the Plaintiffs, at Trial, Concerning Their Post−Signal Live Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal Internationa (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 2002 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Motion in Limine to Exclude Unfairly Prejudicial Video Clips o Ronald Schnoor from Trial Under Seal by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 2003 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Motion in Limine Regarding the Use of Inflammatory Terms Un Seal by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 2004 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony and Evidence of Proceeding Against Dewan in India by Sachin Dewan, Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. Motion set for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memoran Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014

2005

MOTION in Limine for a Jury Instruction Regarding Spoliation of Electronic Evidence and to Exclude Testimony t Defendant Signal Internationals Electronically Stored Information Was Not Viewed or Forwarded by Plaintiffs. Mo for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit (De Divya Prasad), # 3 Exhibit 1 (filed separately under seal), # 4 Exhibit 2 (filed separately under seal), # 5 Exhibit 3 ( separately under seal), # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 10, # 13 Notice of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) (Attachment 3 replaced on 12/31/2014) (my). (Attachment 4 replac 12/31/2014) (my). (Attachment 5 replaced on 12/31/2014) (my). (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 2006 MOTION in Limine by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion set for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Notice of Submission, # 6 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) ( 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 2007 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Certain Documents Under Seal by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memoran Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/22/2014 2008 MOTION for Writ of Mandamus by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Internat Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc., received at the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit. (bwn) (Entered: 12/23/2014)

12/23/2014 2009 ORDER of USCA re 2008 Motion for Writ of Mandamus. IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners' motion for stay pending the writ of mandamus is DENIED MOOT. USCA Judge Name: Davis, Clement and Costa (bwn) (Entered: 12/23/2014)

12/23/2014 2010 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 1843 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and 1844 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 12/23/2014)

12/23/2014 2011 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 2002 Motion for Leave to File Motion in Limine to Exclude Unfairly Prejudicial Video Clips of Ronald Schnoor from Trial Under Seal and 2003 Motion for Leave to File Motion in Lim Regarding the Use of Inflammatory Terms Under Seal. Signal may re−urge the motions in compliance with this Co Local Rules. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 12/23/2014)

12/23/2014 2012 ORDER granting 2007 Motion to File Certain Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Ente 12/23/2014)

12/23/2014 2013 **STRICKEN PER ORDER AT REC DOC 2058** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Document re 1 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Final Exhibit List by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texa LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Er Modified on 1/5/2015 (tsf). (Entered: 12/23/2014)

12/23/2014 2014 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal Motion in Limine Regarding the Use of Inflammato Terms by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/23/2014)

12/23/2014 2015 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal its Motion in Limine to Exclude Unfairly Prejudicial Video Clips of Ronald Schnoor from Trial by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (E 12/23/2014)

12/29/2014 2016 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1999 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Improper Eviden Related to Post−Signal Evidence of Plaintiff or Plaintiff Family Member, and Particularly Evidence of Immigration Residence, or Employment . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2017 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1992 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Related Denial of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2018 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Support filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 2006 MOTION in Limine filed by Burnett Defendants. (Attac # 1 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2019 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 2001 MOTION in Limine to Authorize Cross−Examination of the Plaintiffs, at Trial, Concerning Their Post−Signal Lives . (Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 12/29/

12/29/2014

2020

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute the Memorandum of Law (attached hereto as Exhibit A) in place of Memorandum of Law originally filed by plaintiffs on December 22, 2014 under document number 1994−2, by Than Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thang Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A., # 3 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) ( 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2021 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1994 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Sign Post−Lawsuit Conduct and Certain Other Irrelevant Evidence . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Ex # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2022 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 1991 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Unfair Prejudicial Financial Records From Trial . (Bjarnson, Joseph) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2023 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett re 1995 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Improper Evidence Related to Immigration Filings for Non−Plaintiffs . (Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified to remove fi

12/30/2014 (cms). (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2024 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1997 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Certain Testimony, Evidence an Argument about Non−Plaintiffs . (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2025 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Padaveettiyl, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani re 1990 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence to Gender Based Equal Pay Act Lawsuit . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 −Spears Deposition Excerpts)(Graunke, Kris (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014

2026

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 2002 MOTION Leave to File Motion in Limine to Exclude Unfairly Prejudicial Video Clips of Ronald Schnoor from Trial Under Se (Howard, Alan) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2027 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1999 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Improper Evidence Related to Post−Signal Evidence of Plaintiff or Plaintiff Family Member, and Particularly Evidence of Immigration Status, Re or Employment . (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2028 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1998 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Improper Evidence Related to N Political Views, or Resouces of Parties' Counsel and Evidence Related to Other Cases Involving Indian Workers . (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2029 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1996 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony, Evide Argument about Katrina−Related Property Damage Prior to August 2006 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhib Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2030 ORDERED that each party file a supplemental memorandum on choice oflaw for each of these claims by January 2 at 12:00 p.m. FURTHER ORDERED that the supplemental memoranda address the choice−of−law analysis implica Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain Principal−Agent Relationships. Signed by Judge Susie on 12/29/2014.(my) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014

2031

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Document [plaintiffs' Opposition Brief to Signal Defendants' motion in li regarding the use of inflammatory terms], by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappal Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandu Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2032 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 2006 MOTION Limine . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2033 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1997 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Certain Testimon Evidence and Argument about Non−Plaintiffs . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/29/201

12/29/2014

2034

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 2005 MOTION in Limine for a Jury Instruction Regar Spoliation of Electronic Evidence and to Exclude Testimony that Defendant Signal Internationals Electronically Sto Information Was Not Viewed or Forwarded . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Roux, Brian) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014

2035

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan re 1993 MOTION Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Plaintiffs' Contention That They Did Not Read Or Understand The Contra (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 12/29/2014)

12/29/2014 2036 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 1998 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Improper Eviden Related to Number, Political Views, or Resouces of Parties' Counsel and Evidence Related to Other Cases Involvin Workers . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7

G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Hangartner, Erin) (Main Document 2036 replaced on 1/5/2015) (bwn). (Entered: 12/29/2014)
12/29/2014 2037 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 1997 MOTIO Limine to Exclude Certain Testimony, Evidence and Argument about Non−Plaintiffs . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
12/30/2014 2038 ORDER granting 1822 Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Profferred Expert Dr. Louise Shelley ; 1832 Motion to Exclude/Limit Report and Testimony of Florence Burke; 1834 Motion to Exclude Expert Witness Testim Louise Shelley. Dr. Shelley and Ms. Burke will not be permitted to testify at trial.Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/30/2014. (my) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
12/30/2014 2039 ORDERED that a status conference is SET in chambers for 1/8/2015 at 9:00 a.m.Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/30/2014.(my) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
12/30/2014 2040 ORDER denying 1839 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/30/2014. (my) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
12/30/2014 2041 ORDERED that Signal and the cross−claim defendants submit memoranda on the choice−of−law issue with respec Signal's cross claims by 1/2/2015 at 12:00 p.m.Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/30/2014.(my) (Entered: 12/30/
12/30/2014 2042 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Entry of Default as to J&M Associates, Inc., J&M Marine, LLC, and Billy R. by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal Internati Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) (Addi attachment(s) added on 12/31/2014: # 4 Proposed Order) (cms). (Entered: 12/30/2014)
12/30/2014 2043 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Signal's Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default of Defendan Associates, Inc., J&M Marine, LLC and Billy R. Wilks, Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.55(a) by Signal International LLC, International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memor in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
12/30/2014 2044 By agreement of the parties, the Court has reviewed in camera two documents Signal seeks to clawback pursuant to Clawback Order in this case. The Court has determined the documents are not privileged and may not be clawedbac Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/30/2014.(my) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
12/31/2014 2045 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1823 Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Exper Fox Gotham. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/31/2014. (my) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
01/02/2015 2046 EXPARTE/CONSENT Ex Parte MOTION to Withdraw Document re 2013 Ex Parte MOTION to Withdraw Docum 1984 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Final Exhibit List by Signal International LLC, Signal International GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartne (Entered: 01/02/2015)
01/02/2015 2047 Brief by All Plaintiffs Regarding Choice of Law Pursuant to Court's December 29, 2014 Order (Attachments: # 1 E Opening Report of Plaintiffs' Expert on Indian Law Seema Sharma, # 2 Exhibit Excerpts from Dep Tr. of Michael P Naomi) (Entered: 01/02/2015)
01/02/2015 2048 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Interna Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc., in in support of 1762 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/02/2015)
01/02/2015 2049 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., in Supplemental of 1762 MOTIO Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law . (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 01/02/2015)
01/02/2015 2050 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., in support of 1762 MOTION for P Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law on Cross Claims. (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 01/02/2015)
01/02/2015 2051 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., in opposition of 1762 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of On Plaintiffs' Claims. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 01/02/2015)
01/02/2015 2052 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., in Supplemental of 1762 MOTIO Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law . (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 01/02/2015)
01/02/2015 2053 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Opposition Filed Under 2036 by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Memora Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A (Revised Document), # 4 Exhibit B (Comparison Document))(Hangartn Erin) (Entered: 01/02/2015)

01/02/2015

2054

RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Law Offices of Malvern C. A.P.C., Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vi 2046 Ex Parte MOTION to Withdraw Document re 2013 Ex Parte MOTION to Withdraw Document re 1984 MOT Leave to File Supplemental Final Exhibit List . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhib 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 01/02/2015)

01/02/2015 2055 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Interna Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc., in in support of 1762 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law (re crossclaims). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/02/20

01/05/2015 2056 ORDER Telephone Status Conference set for 1/5/2015 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/3/2015.(tsf) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 2057 ORDER that parties submit a joint proposed agenda by January 6, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan 1/3/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015

2058

ORDER granting 2046 Ex Parte MOTION to Withdraw 2013 Ex Parte MOTION to Withdraw. ORDER 2013 Ex P MOTION to Withdraw is STRICKEN from the record. FURTHER ORDER granting 1985 Consent MOTION to Ex 1984 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Final Exhibit List. Any opposition to 1984 MOTION for Leave to F Supplemental Final Exhibit List shall be filed by January 6, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1 (tsf) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 2059 ORDER denying 2005 Motion in Limine for a Jury Instruction Regarding Spoliation of Electronic Evidence and to Exclude Testimony that Defendant Signal Internationals Electronically Stored Information Was Not Viewed or Forw as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/3/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 2060 ORDER granting 2014 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Motion in Limine Regarding the Use of Inflammatory T Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/5/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 2061 ORDER granting 2015 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal its Motion in Limine to Exclude Unfairly Prejudicial V Clips of Ronald Schnoor from Trial. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/5/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 2062 ORDER granting 2020 Motion to Substitute the Memorandum of Law (attached as Exhibit A) in place of the Memo of Law originally filed by plaintiffs on December 22, 2014 under document number 1994−2. Signed by Judge Susie on 1/5/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 2063 ORDER granting 2042 Motion for Entry of Default as to J&M Associates, Inc., of Mississippi; J&M Marine & Indu LLC and Billy R. Wilks. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015

2064

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 2031 MOTION to Seal Document [plaintiffs' Opposition Brief to Signal Defendants' motion in limine regarding the use of inflammatory terms],, 2014 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Seal Motion in Limine Regarding the Use of Inflammatory Terms, 2015 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Under Motion in Limine to Exclude Unfairly Prejudicial Video Clips of Ronald Schnoor from Trial − Filing counsel is rem that when filing a motion to seal a document, the document to be sealed should be provided to the court within 24 h the filing of the motion to seal. At the time of filing, a "Notice of Manual Attachment" should be attached to the mo noting how the document to be sealed was provided to the court. Upon receipt, the Court will attach the document t appropriate filing, under seal, for the Court's review. For all similar filings in the future, please abide by these instru (bwn) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 2065 ORDER granting 2031 Motion to Seal plaintiffs' Opposition Brief to Signal Defendants' 2014 Consent MOTION fo to File Under Seal Motion in Limine Regarding the Use of Inflammatory Terms. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/5/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 2066 ORDER denying 2043 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/5/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 2067 Proposed Voir Dire by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L Signal International, Inc.. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 2068 Proposed Voir Dire by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Howard, Alan) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 2069 ORDER AND REASONS granting 1824 Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Proffered Expert Ron Mc Mr. McAlear is EXCLUDED from testifying at trial. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 2070 Proposed Voir Dire by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 01/05/2015)

01/05/2015 2071 ORDER AND REASONS denying 1841 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denying 1849 Motion for Parti Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiff Jacob Joseph Kadakkarappallys 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim. The Court def judgment on Signals motion with respect to Plaintiff Sabulal Vijayans 42 U.S.C. § 1981 retaliation claim. Signed by Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
01/05/2015 2072 ORDER granting 2053 Motion to Substitute Opposition Filed Under 2036 . Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
01/05/2015 2073 Joint Brief Statement of the Case by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan (Howard, Alan) (Entered: 01/0
01/05/2015 2076 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 1/5/2015. After considering the argument of counsel and the applicable law, and for the reasons stated orally and on the record, the DENIED (1) Signal's 1984 Motion for Leave to Amend its Exhibit List, and (2) Signal's 2087 Sealed Motion to Exc Video Clips of Ronald Schnoor. (bwn) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
01/06/2015 2074 ORDER granting 1998 Motion in Limine Exclude Improper Evidence Related to Number, Political Views, or Reso Parties' Counsel and Evidence Related to Other Cases Involving Indian Workers. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/5/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
01/06/2015 2075 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that Signal submit a supplemental memorandum on choice of law with respect to its crossclaims by January 7, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
01/06/2015 2077 ORDER denying 1871 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding First Claim Relief. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
01/06/2015 2078 Brief on Objections to Excerpts of Depositions Designated to be Used in Opening Statements by Plaintiffs. (Attachm 1 Exhibit A)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
01/06/2015 2079 OBJECTIONS by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., International, Inc. To Plaintiffs' Proposed Deposition Designations of Thomas Rigolo (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
01/06/2015 2080 MOTION in Support of Objections to Dewan Video in Opening by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration La Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified on 1/7/2015 to edit docket text (bwn). (Entered: 01/06/2015)
01/06/2015 2081 OBJECTIONS by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., International, Inc. To Plaintiffs' Proposed Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Ex # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
01/06/2015 2082 OBJECTIONS by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Bu A.P.C. To Certain Plaintiffs' Exhibits (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
01/06/2015 2083 OBJECTIONS by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. to Signal's Deposition Designations and Counter−Designations (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
01/06/2015 2084 OBJECTIONS by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. to Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations and Counter−Designations (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
01/07/2015 2085 OBJECTIONS by All Plaintiffs to Defendants' Proposed Exhibits (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Objections t Defendants' Exhibits)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
01/07/2015 2086 SEALED MOTION in Limine Regarding the Use of Inflammatory Terms by Signal International LLC, Signal Inter Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/7/2015: # 1 Memorandum in Support − SEALED, # 2 Exhibit A − SEALED, # 3 Exhibit B − SEALED) (tsf). (En 01/07/2015)
01/07/2015 2087 SEALED MOTION in Limine to Exclude Unfairly Prejudicial Video Clips of Ronald Schnoor from Trial by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/7/2015: # 1 Memorandum in Support − SEALED, # 2 Exhibit A − SEALED) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
01/07/2015 2088 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 1762 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law. Signed Judge Susie Morgan on 1/6/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
01/07/2015 2089 ORDER that Crossclaim Defendants respond to supplemental memorandum to be filed by Signal per 2075 Order by JANUARY 7, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/7/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/07/2015 2090 ORDER AMENDING 2077 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The last sentence of the first full para on page 3 is amended as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/7/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/07/2015 2091 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Interna Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc., in in support of 1762 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law (Response to Rec. Doc. 2075). (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/07/2015 2092 ORDER that Plaintiffs file a revised exhibit 2 to the 1706 Sixth Amended Complaint by January 7, 2015 at 5:00 p.m stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/7/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/07/2015

2093

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 1994 Motion in Limine Exclude Evidence of Signal's Post−Lawsuit Conduct and C Other Irrelevant Evidence. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion in Limine is Granted in Part and any photographic or v evidence that cannot be properly authenticated or that was taken after any improvements, repairs or other material c were made to the facility or portion of the facility is excluded; and the Motion in Limine is Deferred in Part with res evidence of Signals conduct towards employees other than Plaintiffs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Signal shal Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 5:00 P.M. inform other counsel of the portions of any photographic or video evidence the man camp after March 7, 2008 Signal believes is admissible in accordance with this Order. If other parties disag Signals position, the Court must be informed by Friday, January 9, 2015 at 5:00 P.M.Signed by Judge Susie Morgan (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/07/2015 2094 Statement by All Plaintiffs setting forth claims in a revised exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs' Sixth Amended Complaint (Tsu, N (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/07/2015 2095 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1762 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law Supplem Memorandum on Choice of Law for Cross Claims. (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/07/2015 2096 Supplemental Memorandum by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. on Choice of Law on Signal's Cross C (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/07/2015 2097 ORDER denying 1990 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Related to Gender Based Equal Pay Act Lawsuit, as herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/7/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/07/2015 2098 ORDER denying 1847 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain Principal−Agent Relationships. Signed by Susie Morgan on 1/7/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/07/2015 2099 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Interna Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc., in in support of 1762 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice−of−Law (re cross−claims in response to Rec. Doc. 2075). (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/07/2015 2100 OBJECTIONS by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. to Exhibits Containing Words and Names (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 01/07/2015)

01/08/2015 2101 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−4708820) by Ku David. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Dahsong Kim with Application, # 2 Proposed Order)(Washingto Tracie) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

01/08/2015 2102 ORDER re 2086 MOTION in Limine to Regarding the Use of Inflammatory Terms filed. IT IS ORDERED that the file their oppositions, if any, by January 9, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/7/2015.(bwn) (E 01/08/2015)

01/08/2015 2103 Emails to Court re Supplemental Briefing on Choice of Law. (Attachments: # 1 Email) (bwn) (Entered: 01/08/2015

01/08/2015

2104

SEALED RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 2086 MOTION in Limine Regard Use of Inflammatory Terms. (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/8/2015: # 1 Exhibit A − SEALED, # 2 Exhi SEALED, # 3 Exhibit C − SEALED, # 4 Exhibit D − SEALED, # 5 Exhibit E − SEALED, # 6 Exhibit F − SEALED Exhibit G − SEALED, # 8 Exhibit H − SEALED, # 9 Exhibit I − SEALED, # 10 Exhibit J − SEALED, # 11 Exhibi SEALED, # 12 Exhibit L − SEALED) (tsf). (Entered: 01/08/2015)

01/08/2015

2105

ORDER denying as moot 1829 Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Strike the Report of Don H. Strobel; 1992 Mo Limine to Exclude Evidence Related to the Denial of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; 2000 Motion in Lim Exclude Testimony, Evidence and Argument about Proceedings Brought by Dewan in India; and 2004 Motion in L Exclude Testimony and Evidence of Proceeding Against Dewan in India, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie M on 1/8/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

01/09/2015 2106 Objections to Defendants' Designations and Demonstratives for Use in Opening Statements by Plaintiffs (Attachme Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015

2107

MOTION to Exclude MATERIALS DESIGNATED BY DEFENDANTS FOR USE IN OPENING STATEMENTS by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, # 5 Notice of Hearing)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2108 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Interna Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc., in in support of 1991 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Unfairly Prejudicial Fi Records From Trial (re Bifurcation of Liability and Damages). (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2109 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 2107 MOTION to Exclude MATERIALS DESIGNATE DEFENDANTS FOR USE IN OPENING STATEMENTS . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2110 Brief by All Plaintiffs to 2079 Objections to the Excert of Thomas Rigolo Designated to be Used in Plaintiffs' Open Statement (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2111 Response to Plaintiffs' Objections filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law O Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 1999 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Improper Evidence Related to Post−Signal Evi Plaintiff or Plaintiff Family Member, and Particularly Evidence of Immigration Status, Residence, or Employment. (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2112 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A 2107 MOTION to Exclude MATERIALS DESIGNATED BY DEFENDANTS FOR USE IN OPENING STATEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2113 Response/Reply by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P. International, Inc. to 2085 Objections (Attachments: # 1 Chart itemizing response to each of Plaintiffs' objections)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2114 ORDER re Trial Time Limits. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2115 ORDER denying 1873 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Second Claim for Relief Under RICO and Fifteenth Claim for Relief Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/9/20 (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2116 ORDER granting 2101 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Dahsong Kim. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2117 SEALED ORDER denying 2086 SEALED Motion in Limine Regarding the Use of Inflammatory Terms. Signed by Susie Morgan on 1/9/2015. (tsf) (tsf). (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2118 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiy Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, in opposition of 1991 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Unfairly Preju Financial Records From Trial . (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2119 MOTION to Exclude Mancamp Video Designated by Signal by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Supp Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2120 Supplemental Memorandum filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Interna Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc., in in support of 1991 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Unfairly Prejudicial Fi Records From Trial (re Bifurcation of Punitive Damages). (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

01/09/2015 2121 Response/Reply by Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Sony Vasudeva Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani to 2082 Objections by Burnett Defendants (Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 01/09/2015

01/09/2015 2122 Opposition by All Plaintiffs to 2081 Objections Plaintiffs' Proposed Exhibits (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 01/09/2015

01/10/2015 2123 Response in Opposition by All Plaintiffs to 2100 Objections to Plaintiffs' Exhibits (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 01/10

01/10/2015 2124 ORDER granting 1825 Motion to Exclude. Dr. Stewart will not be permitted to testify at trial. Signed by Judge Susi Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 01/10/2015)

01/10/2015 2125 ORDER denying 1991 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cbn) (Entered: 01/10/2015)

01/10/2015 2126 ORDER granting 2107 Motion to Exclude Materials Designated by Defendants for Use in Opening Statements and in part and denying in part 2080 Motion in Support of Objections to Dewan Video in Opening, as stated herein. Sig Judge Susie Morgan on 1/10/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/10/2015)

01/10/2015 2127 ORDER denying 2001 Motion in Limine to Authorize Cross−Examination of Plaintiffs at Trial and denying 2006 M in Limine, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/10/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/10/2015)

01/11/2015 2128 ORDER that Signal identify for opposing counsel and the Court by JANUARY 11, 2015 at 5:00 p.m., which portio video referenced in 2119 MOTION to Exclude MANCAMP VIDEO DESIGNATED BY SIGNAL it intends to use in statements. FURTHER ORDER that Plaintiffs notify the Court of any objections by JANUARY 12, 2015 at 8:30 a. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/11/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/11/2015)

01/11/2015 2129 ORDER that Signal's objection to the use of Exhibit 1939 in Plaintiffs' opening statement is OVERRULED. Signed Judge Susie Morgan on 1/11/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/11/2015)

01/11/2015 2130 ORDER that Signal identify for opposing counsel and the Court which portions of the video re 2119 MOTION to E MANCAMP VIDEO DESIGNATED BY SIGNAL it intends to use at ANY point during trial by January 12, 2015 at 5 p.m. FURTHER ORDER that Plaintiffs notify the Court of any objection by January 13, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. Signed b Susie Morgan on 1/11/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/11/2015)

01/11/2015

2131

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1826 Motion to Exclude/Limit Report and Testimony of Smita Narula 1833 Motion to Exclude/Limit Report and Testimony of Amy Mowl. Plaintiffs must choose either Ms. Narula or M as their expert to testify at trial as stated herein. Plaintiffs are to inform Defendants of which expert they intend to h testify by MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/11/2015. (tsf) (Entered 01/11/2015)

01/11/2015 2132 ORDER granting 1828 Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Strike the Report of Ronald J. Signorino and Clyde P stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/11/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/11/2015)

01/11/2015 2133 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1996 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Signal's Post−Lawsuit Conduct and Certain Other Irrelevant Evidence, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/11/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/11/2015)

01/11/2015 2134 ORDER granting 1999 Motion in Limine to Exclude Improper Evidence Related to Post−Signal Evidence of Plaint Plaintiffs' Family Members, and Particularly Evidence of Immigration Status, Residence or Employment, as stated h Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/11/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/11/2015)

01/11/2015 2135 ORDER denying 1995 Motion in Limine to Exclude Improper Evidence Related to Immigration Filings for Non−Pl as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/11/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/11/2015)

01/11/2015 2136 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1827 Motion in Limine to Exclude Legal Opinion Testimony of Plaint Signal's Immigration Law Experts and 1830 Motion to Exclude Portions of the Report and Testimony of Signal's Pr Expert Enrique Gonzalez, III, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/11/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/11/2

01/11/2015 2137 ORDER denying 1997 Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Testimony, Evidence and Argument about Non−Plaint Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/11/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/11/2015)

01/11/2015 2138 ORDER denying 1993 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Plaintiffs' Contention That They Did No or Understand the Contracts, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/11/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/11/20

01/12/2015 2139 Memorandum by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., S International, Inc. (Concerning Defaulted Defendants and Concepts and Procedures Applicable Thereto at Trial) (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/12/2015)

01/12/2015 2140 Memorandum by All Plaintiffs Concerning Defaulting Defendants (Kim, Dahsong) (Entered: 01/12/2015)

01/12/2015 2178 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Selection held on 1/12/2015. Continued to 1/13 (Court Reporter Mary Thompson and Susan Zielie.) (cbn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/22/2015: # 1 Exhib #1, # 2 Exhibit Court #2) (cbn). (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/13/2015 2141 Memorandum by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., S International, Inc. Requesting The Addition of Four Exhibits to Bench Book (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Safety A 2 Exhibit B − DAVID00007270, # 3 Exhibit C − DAVID00007285 (redacted), # 4 Exhibit D − SIGP0053188)(Han Erin) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

01/13/2015 2142 ORDER OVERRULING 2082 Objections filed by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Malvern C. Burnet Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., and 2100 Objections filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., a herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/12/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

01/13/2015 2143 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 1/13/2015. Parties discus Signal's crossclaim, expert testimony, outstanding objections, exhibit list, deposition designation, mancamp video a updated time limits, as set forth herein. (tsf) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

01/13/2015 2144 MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice Count Five and Count Ten As To The Labor Broker Defendants by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

01/13/2015

2145

MOTION Final Certification of FLSA Collective Action by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 2/11/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of M Stewart, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit O, # Exhibit P, # 19 Exhibit Q, # 20 Exhibit R, # 21 Exhibit S, # 22 Exhibit T, # 23 Exhibit U, # 24 Exhibit V, # 25 Exhi 26 Exhibit X, # 27 Exhibit Y, # 28 Exhibit Z, # 29 Exhibit AA, # 30 Exhibit BB, # 31 Exhibit CC, # 32 Exhibit DD Exhibit EE, # 34 Exhibit FF, # 35 Exhibit GG, # 36 Exhibit HH, # 37 Exhibit II, # 38 Exhibit JJ, # 39 Exhibit KK, # Exhibit LL, # 41 Exhibit MM, # 42 Exhibit NN, # 43 Exhibit OO, # 44 Exhibit PP, # 45 Exhibit QQ, # 46 Exhibit R Exhibit SS, # 48 Exhibit TT, # 49 Exhibit UU, # 50 Exhibit VV, # 51 Exhibit WW, # 52 Exhibit XX, # 53 Exhibit Y Exhibit ZZ, # 55 Exhibit AAA, # 56 Exhibit BBB, # 57 Exhibit CCC, # 58 Exhibit DDD, # 59 Exhibit EEE, # 60 E FFF, # 61 Exhibit GGG, # 62 Exhibit HHH, # 63 Exhibit III, # 64 Exhibit JJJ, # 65 Exhibit KKK, # 66 Exhibit LLL Exhibit MMM, # 68 Exhibit NNN, # 69 Exhibit OOO, # 70 Exhibit PPP, # 71 Exhibit QQQ, # 72 Exhibit RRR, # 7 Exhibit SSS, # 74 Exhibit TTT, # 75 Exhibit UUU, # 76 Exhibit VVV, # 77 Declaration of Daniel Werner, # 78 Ex 79 Exhibit 2, # 80 Exhibit 3, # 81 Notice of Submission)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

01/13/2015 2179 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 1/13/2015. Evidence entered. Con to 1/14/15 (Court Reporter Mary Thompson and Susan Zielie.) (cbn) (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/14/2015 2146 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 2141 Memorandum. Signal may add Exhibits A and B to its exhibit list. Signed by Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 01/14/2015)

01/14/2015

2147

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 1/14/2015. Plaintiffs requ an extension of time to submit proposed jury instructions and jury interrogatories. None of the parties objected. The deadline is extended to January 17, 2015 at midnight. The parties discussed Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to exclude video of Signal's mancamp. In accordance with a prior court order, Signal has provided Plaintiffs with its designatio Plaintiffs provided the Court and Signal with their objections at the status conference. By 5:30 p.m. today (January 2015), Signal shall file a response. (bwn) (Main Document 2147 replaced on 1/14/2015 to correct conference date i of document) (tsf). (Entered: 01/14/2015)

01/14/2015 2148 ORDER granting 2144 Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice Count Five and Count Ten As To The Labor Broker Defe Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/14/2015)

01/14/2015 2149 Response by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signa International, Inc. to Plaintiffs' Objections to Designated Portions of Man Camp Video (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/14/2015)

01/14/2015 2180 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 1/14/2015. Evidence entered, con to 1/15/15. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson and Susan Zielie.) (cbn) (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/15/2015 2150 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 2119 Motion to Exclude Mancamp Video Designated by Signal. Signed by Judge S Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/15/2015)

01/15/2015 2151 Supplemental Memorandum by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Concerning Defaulted Defendants) (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/15/2015)

01/15/2015 2181 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 1/15/2015. Evidence held, contin 1/16/15. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson and Susan Zielie.) (cbn) (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/16/2015 2152 EXPARTE/CONSENT Ex Parte MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Resources, Inc. by Signal Internationa Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Hangartner, Erin) (Ente 01/16/2015)

01/16/2015 2153 EXPARTE/CONSENT Ex Parte MOTION for Entry of Default as to Global Resources, Inc. by Signal Internationa Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of Erin Casey Hangartner, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibi Exhibit C)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/16/2015)

01/16/2015 2182 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 1/16/2015. Evidence entered, con to 1/20/15. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson and Susan Zielie.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Court #3) (cbn) (Entered 01/22/2015)

01/17/2015 2154 Brief by All Plaintiffs re Outstanding Issues Concerning Defaulting Defendants (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 01/17/2

01/17/2015 2155 Proposed Post−Trial Jury Instructions for Signal's Cross Claims by Signal International LLC. (Hangartner, Erin) M on 1/20/2015 (lag). (Entered: 01/17/2015)

01/18/2015

2156

Proposed Post−Trial Jury Instructions by Malvern C. Burnett, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sachin Dewa Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Law Offices of Malvern C. A.P.C., Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Signal International LLC, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyan Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Plaintiffs', Signal Defendants', and Burnett Defendants' Proposed Pre−Trial Jury Instructions, # 2 Exhibit 2: Dewan Defendants' Proposed Pre−Trial Jury Instructions)(Wer Daniel) Modified on 1/20/2015 (lag). (Entered: 01/18/2015)

01/18/2015

2157

Proposed Post−Trial Jury Verdict Form by Malvern C. Burnett, Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Sachin Dew Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Law Offices of Malvern C. A.P.C., Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Signal International LLC, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyan Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 1/20/2015 (lag). (En 01/18/2015)

01/19/2015 2158 Memorandum by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Bur A.P.C. In Support of Reading Trial Transcript (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 01/19/2015)

01/19/2015 2159 ORDER that the parties file a memorandum of law supporting or opposing the Court's proposal by noon on January 2015. If the parties agree the testimony should be read to the jury, the parties shall make every attempt to agree on w read the testimony of the witnesses. FURTHER ORDER that any future objections to the interpreter must be made contemporaneously with the objection. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 01/17/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/19/2015)

01/19/2015

2160

ORDER that plaintiffs submit another memorandum regarding the issue of default judgment by January 19, 2015 at midnight. FURTHER ORDER that Plaintiffs submit evidence as to how service of process was effectuated on J&M Global with respect to the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amended Complaints, as stated herein. FURTHER ORDE the memorandum address which claims are brought by which Plaintiff(s) against which Defendant(s) and any differ the claims as further stated herein. FURTHER ORDER that Plaintiffs engage in a proper Wooten analysis as stated Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 01/17/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/19/2015)

01/19/2015 2161 ORDER that Signal's crossclaims against J&M are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signal may amend its crosscl within 30 days of this Order. The amended crossclaim must be properly served on J&M. Signed by Judge Susie Mo 1/18/2015.(tsf) (Entered: 01/19/2015)

01/19/2015 2162 ORDER denying 2152 Motion for Entry of Default 2153 Motion for Entry of Default, as stated herein. Signed by Ju Susie Morgan on 1/18/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/19/2015)

01/19/2015 2163 Brief by All Plaintiffs Regarding Reading of Transcript to Jury (Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 01/19/2015)

01/19/2015 2164 Memorandum by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in Support of Reading Trial Transcript of Two Plain the Jury (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 01/19/2015)

01/19/2015 2165 Memorandum by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., S International, Inc. (Opposing the Court's Proposal to Read Plaintiffs' Transcribed Testimony to the Jury) (Hangartn (Entered: 01/19/2015)

01/19/2015 2166 Brief by All Plaintiffs (David Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum of Law on Issues Concerning Defaulted Defen (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Claims Difference Chart)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 01/19/2015)

01/19/2015

2167

EXPARTE/CONSENT Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages on Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum Law on Issues Concerning Defaulting Defendants, Rec. Doc. 2166, by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 01/19/2015)

01/19/2015 2168 Brief by All Plaintiffs Regarding Signal's Proffer of Kevin Fox Gotham's testimony (Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 01/19/2

01/20/2015 2169 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Request for Permission to Use Impeachment Evidence During S Cross Examination of Plaintiff Palanyandi Thangamani Under Seal by Signal International LLC, Signal Internation Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/20/2015

01/20/2015 2183 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 1/20/2015. Evidence entered, con to 1/21/15. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper and Terri Hourgian.) (cbn) (Main Document 2183 replaced on 2/6/2015) (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/21/2015 2170 Submission to the Court Regarding HUD Report and Rand Corporation Report Relied on by Dr. Kevin Fox Gotham Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal Internationa (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/21/2015)

01/21/2015 2171 MOTION Requesting Permission to Use Impeachment Evidence During Signal's Cross Examinations of Plaintiff Palanyandi Thangamani by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Tex Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(bwn) (Entered: 01/21/2015)

01/21/2015 2172 ORDER denying 2171 Motion Requesting Permission to Use Impeachment Evidence During Signal's Cross Examin of Plaintiff Palanyandi Thangamani, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 01/21/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/21/2015)

01/21/2015 2173 ***DEFICIENT*** MOTION for Dismissal by Billy R Wilks. (bwn) (Entered: 01/21/2015)

01/21/2015 2174 NOTICE OF DEFICIENT ProSe DOCUMENT: re 2173 Motion to Dismiss. Please see attached letter for steps nee remedy deficiency. Deficiency remedy due by 2/11/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (bwn) (Entered: 01/21/20

01/21/2015 2175 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Request for Permission to Use Impeachment Evidence During S Cross Examination of Plaintiff Andrews Padavettiyil Under Seal by Signal International LLC, Signal International T GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/21/2015)

01/21/2015 2184 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 1/21/2015. Evidence entered, con to 1/22/15. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper and Terri Hourgian.) (cbn) (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/22/2015 2176 MOTION Requesting Permission to Use Impeachment Evidence During Signal's Cross Examinations of Plaintiff A Padavettiyil by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Sig International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(bwn) (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/22/2015 2177 ORDER denying 2175 Motion for Leave to File Request for Permission to Use Impeachment Evidence During Sign Cross Examination of Plaintiff Andrews Padavettiyil Under Seal; denying 2176 Motion Requesting Permission to U Impeachment Evidence During Signal's Cross Examinations of Plaintiff Andrews Padavettiyil. Signed by Judge Sus Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/22/2015 2185 TRIAL BRIEF Concerning Jury Instructions by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Sig International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/22/2015 2186 MOTION in Opposition to Signal's Objections to Trial Exhibits 1922, 1923, 1962, 1966, and 1980 by All Plaintiffs set for 2/11/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 1/23/2015 to edit docket text and a submission information (bwn). (Entered: 01/22/2015)

01/22/2015 2188 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 1/22/2015. Evidence entered, con to January 23, 2015. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper/Terri Hourgian.) (cbn) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/22/2015

2189

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 1/22/2015. By January 2 at 9:00 a.m., the parties shall submit memoranda addressing the following: (1) whether punitive damages are availa under the TVPRA; (2) whether the standard for obtaining punitive damages is the same for all causes of action; (3) in pari delicto is a cognizable affirmative defense under the TVPRA, and, if so, whether that defense is appropriate case; and (4) whether reputational harm and psychological harm are components of "serious harm" under the pre−amendment version of Section 1589 of the TVPRA. The memoranda shall not exceed 12 pages. By January 24 12:00 p.m., Plaintiffs will provide Defendants with amended jury instructions and jury verdict forms for the TVPRA Defendants must respond within twenty−four hours of receipt or any objections will be waived. The parties shall fil updated jury instructions and jury verdict forms by January 26, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. These submissions must conform format described in the pretrial notice. Plaintiffs will file a memorandum in support of admissibility by the end of th Signal shall respond by January 23, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. The Court set a follow−up status conference for January 28, 2 5:30 p.m. (bwn) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/23/2015 2187 Memorandum by All Plaintiffs Responding to 2170 Proffer of Narrowed Testimony for Kevin Fox Gotham (Tsu, Na (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/23/2015 2190 ORDER granting 2167 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/23/2015)

01/23/2015 2191 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on February 21, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Record Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7781. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchase

through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it ma obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction R (Applies to all cases) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/23/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
01/23/2015 2192 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal Request for Permission to Use Impeachment Eviden During Signal's Cross Examination of Plaintiff Hemant Khuttan by Signal International LLC, Signal International T GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
01/23/2015 2193 SEALED ORDER denying 1752 Motion for Protective Order, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/19/2015. (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2015: # 1 SEALED Attachment, # 2 SEALED Attachmen SEALED Attachment, # 4 SEALED Attachment, # 5 SEALED Attachment, # 6 SEALED Attachment) (tsf). (Enter 01/23/2015)
01/23/2015 2194 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Opposition to Signal's Objections to Trial Exhibits 1922, 1923, 1966 and 1980 by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., International, Inc. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
01/23/2015 2200 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 1/23/2015. Evidence entered, con to 1/26/15. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper and Terri Hourigan.) (cbn) (Entered: 01/25/2015)
01/24/2015 2195 MOTION Requesting Permission to Use Impeachment Evidence During Signal's Cross Examination of Plaintiff He Khuttan by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Khuttan Depo Excerpts 5.20.14) (tsf) (Additional attachment(s) ad 1/24/2015: # 2 Exhibit B − SEALED, # 3 Exhibit C − SEALED) (tsf). (Entered: 01/24/2015)
01/24/2015 2196 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2192 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal and denying 2195 Motion Requesting Permission to Use Impeachment Evidence During Signal's Cross Examination of Plaintiff Hemant Khut stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 01/24/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/24/2015)
01/24/2015 2197 ORDER excluding the testimony of expert Kevin Fox Gotham, as stated herein. The Court's previous 2045 Order o Motion to Exclude deferred a ruling on admissibility until trial. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 01/24/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 01/24/2015)
01/24/2015 2198 Memorandum In Support Of Admissibility of Exhibits 1774, 1803, 1729, 1762, and 1723 For Use With Bill Bingle Signal International, Inc.. (Roux, Brian) (Entered: 01/24/2015)
01/24/2015 2199 Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Signal's Memorandum in Support of Admissibility of Exhibits 1774, 1803 and 1723 for Use with Bill Bingle by All Plaintiffs. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 01/24/2015)
01/26/2015 2201 Proposed Jury Instructions by Plaintffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed TVPRA Jury Instructions)(Werner, Daniel) (En 01/26/2015)
01/26/2015 2202 Trial Memorandum re Punitive Damages and TVPRA by Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Hemant Khuttan, Andre Padaveettiyl, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani as directed by 2189 Minute Entry (Graunke, Kristi (Entered: 01/26/2015)
01/26/2015 2203 MOTION to Exclude Video Deposition of Soloman Arava by Plaintiffs. Motion set for 2/11/2015 10:00 AM before Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit, # Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
01/26/2015 2204 Second Memorandum Concerning Jury Instructions by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
01/26/2015 2211 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 1/26/2015. Evidence held, contin 1/27/15. (Court Reporter Susan Zielie/Mary Thompson.) (cbn) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
01/27/2015 2205 ***DEFICIENT*** Proposed Jury Instructions by Plaintiffs. (Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 1/27/2015 (bwn). (Entered 01/27/2015)
01/27/2015 2206 ***DEFICIENT*** Proposed Jury Verdict Form by Plaintiffs. (Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 1/27/2015 (bwn). (Entere 01/27/2015)
01/27/2015 2207 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court pay jurors who have served eleven (11) or more days in the cap matter $50.00 per day. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/27/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
01/27/2015 2208 Requested TVPRA Jury Instructions by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/27/2015)
01/27/2015 2209 Proposed TVPRA Post−Trial Jury Instructions by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Jury Instructions)(Tsu, Na (Entered: 01/27/2015)

01/27/2015 2210 Proposed TVPRA Post−Trial Jury Verdict Forms by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Jury Verdict Forms)(Ts Naomi) (Entered: 01/27/2015)

01/27/2015 2214 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 1/27/2015. Evidence entered, con to 1/28/15. (Court Reporter Susan Zielie/Mary Thompson.) (cbn) (Main Document 2214 replaced on 2/6/2015) (cbn (Entered: 01/28/2015)

01/28/2015 2212 ORDER re deposition testimony of Saket Soni. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/27/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 01/28

01/28/2015 2213 ORDER re Trafficking Victim Protection Act (TVPA). Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/27/2015.(bwn) (Entere 01/28/2015)

01/28/2015 2218 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 1/28/2015. Evidence entered, con to 1/29/15 (Court Reporter Susan Zielie/Mary Thompson.) (cbn) (Entered: 01/30/2015)

01/29/2015 2215 ORDER re Updated Trial Time Limits. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/28/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 01/29/2015)

01/29/2015

2216

TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Status Conference held on May 21, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7781. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. (Reference: 12−557, 13−6218 c/w 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6221, 14−732) Applies to All Cases. Release o Transcript Restriction set for 4/29/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 01/29/2015)

01/29/2015 2217 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 1/29/2015. Counsel shall to the deadlines as stated herein. A follow−up status conference on jury charges is set for 2/2/2015 05:30 PM before Susie Morgan. (tsf) (Entered: 01/29/2015)

01/30/2015 2219 NOTICE: At the request of counsel for Signal, the trial was in recess on 1/29/15 and will resume on 1/30/15 at 8:30 (Entered: 01/30/2015)

01/30/2015 2220 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 2145 MOTION Final Certification of FLSA Collective (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/30/2015)

01/30/2015 2227 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 1/30/2015. Evidence entered, con to 2/2/15. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson/Susan Zielie.) (cbn) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

01/31/2015 2221 Proposed Jury Instructions re Rico Charge for 1962(c) and 1962(d) by Plaintiffs. (Howard, Alan) Modified on 2/2/2 (bwn). (Entered: 01/31/2015)

01/31/2015 2222 Proposed Jury Instructions re 42 U.S.C. 1981 by Plaintiffs. (Howard, Alan) (Entered: 01/31/2015)

01/31/2015 2223 Proposed Jury Instructions by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 01/31/201

02/02/2015 2224 Proposed Jury Instructions re Section 1981 Claims by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Howar Modified on 2/3/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 02/02/2015)

02/02/2015 2225 Proposed Jury Instructions re India Law Fraud, India Negligent Misrepresentation, and Section 1981 Retaliation Cla All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(H Alan) (Entered: 02/02/2015)

02/02/2015 2228 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 2/2/2015. Evidence entered, cont 2/3/15. (Court Reporter Mary thompson/Terri Hourigan.) (cbn) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/03/2015 2226 ORDER re Oral Argument in open court on 2/2/2015 on portions of deposition testimony of Mark Tanner, as stated Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/2/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/03/2015 2229 Proposed Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Form re Cross Claim by Signal International LLC, Signal International GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/03/2015 2230 Third Memorandum Concerning Jury Instructions by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (E 02/03/2015)

02/03/2015 2231 Revised Proposed Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Forms Related to Section 1981 Claims by All Plaintiffs. (Attac # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/03/2015 2232 Proposed Post−Trial Jury Instructions re Claims Under RICO Act by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Jur Instructions)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/03/2015 2233 Proposed Post−Trail Jury Verdict Forms re RICO Claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and 1962(d) by All Plaintif (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Jury Verdict Form (RICO 1962(c)), # 2 Proposed Jury Verdict Form (RICO 1962(d)))( Daniel) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/03/2015 2234 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding In Pari Delicto (RICO) by All Plaintiffs. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 02/03/2015)

02/03/2015 2240 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 2/3/2015. Evidence entered, cont 2/4/15. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson/Terri Hourigan.) (Attachments: # 1 Court exhibit #4) (cbn) (Entered: 02/0

02/04/2015 2235 Proposed Jury Verdict Form for Claims Under TVPA by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Jury Verdict Form)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

02/04/2015 2236 Proposed Post−Trial Jury Instructions re Claims Under the TVPA by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Draft Jury Instruction)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

02/04/2015 2237 ORDER − Plaintiffs have provided the Court with a declaration from their expert on Indian Law, Seema Sharma, E Defendants shall submit any objections to the declaration by February 5, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie M on 2/4/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

02/04/2015 2238 Cross Claim Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Forms by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, (Entered: 02/04/2015)

02/04/2015 2239 Declaration of Seema Sharma by All Plaintiffs (Howard, Alan) (Entered: 02/04/2015)

02/04/2015 2246 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 2/4/2015. Evidence entered, cont 2/5/15. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson/Terri Hourigan.) (cbn) (Main Document 2246 replaced on 2/6/2015) (cbn) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/05/2015 2241 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall be allowed 90 minutes for closing argument and that Signal, Burne Dewan shall each be allowed 60 minutes. The Court will discuss the exchange of demonstrative exhibits intended to used during closing argument at a later date. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 02/05/2015)

02/05/2015 2242 Proposed Jury Instructions re Indian Law and How to Charge on It by Signal International LLC, Signal Internationa GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin (Entered: 02/05/2015)

02/05/2015 2243 Proposed Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Forms re Cross Claim by Signal International LLC, Signal Internationa GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # Exhibit C)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/05/2015)

02/05/2015 2244 Proposed Jury Instructions by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 02/05/2015)

02/05/2015 2245 Proposed Jury Verdict Form by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 02/05/2015)

02/05/2015 2247 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 2/5/2015. Evidence entered, cont 2/6/15. (Court Reporter Susan Zielie/Terri Hourigan.) (cbn) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/06/2015

2248

TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on October 30, 2014 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorde Tusa, Telephone number 504−589−7778. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased throug Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtaine through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. A to all cases. (Reference: 08−1220 12−557, 13−6218 c/w 13−6219, 13−6220, 13−6221, 14−732, 14−1818) Release o Transcript Restriction set for 5/7/2015. (rsg) Modified on 2/6/2015 (rsg). (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/06/2015 2249 Fifth Memorandum Concerning Jury Instructions/Issue of Trafficking and What it Means by Signal International LL Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/06/2015 2250 ORDER that for the reasons stated in open court on February 5, 2015, Burnett and Dewan are each allotted an addit 300 minutes to present evidence. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/5/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/06/2015 2251 Proposed Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Forms Concerning Cross Claims by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/06/2015)

02/06/2015 2256 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 2/6/2015. Evidence entered, cont 2/9/15. (Court Reporter Susan Zielie/Terry Hourigan.) (cbn) (Entered: 02/09/2015)

02/07/2015 2252 Supplemental Expert Declaration by All Plaintiffs (Howard, Alan) (Entered: 02/07/2015)
02/07/2015 2253 Proposed Post−Trial Jury Instructions by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Jury Instructions)(Werner, Dan (Entered: 02/07/2015)
02/08/2015 2254 TRIAL BRIEF on RICO Jury Charge Regarding Third Party Reliance by All Plaintiffs. (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 02/08/2015)
02/08/2015 2255 Proposed Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Forms Concerning Cross Claim by Signal International LLC. (Attachm 1 Exhibit Cross Claim JI, # 2 Exhibit Cross Claim JVF)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/08/2015)
02/09/2015 2257 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that due to an ongoing trial, the status conference scheduled in these matters on Wedne February 11, 2015 is CONTINUED to Monday, March 2, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/9/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
02/09/2015 2258 Memorandum on Cross Claim Damages by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
02/09/2015 2262 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 2/9/2015. Evidence entered, cont 2/10/15. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson/Cathy Pepper.) (cbn) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
02/10/2015 2259 EXPARTE/CONSENT Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum to Plaintiff's Motion for Final Certification o Collective Action filed by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading , # 2 Proposed Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed E B, # 4 Proposed Exhibit C)(Stewart, Meredith) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/11/2015: # 5 Proposed Order) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
02/10/2015 2265 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 2/10/2015. Evidence entered, clo arguments held, Court recessed at 6:20 p.m. until 2/11/15 at 8:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson/Terri Houri (Attachments: # 1 Court exhibit #5) (cbn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
02/10/2015 2309 Court's Jury Instructions. (cml) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
02/11/2015 2260 Requested Special Verdict Questions by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
02/11/2015 2266 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 2/11/2015. Jury charged and retir deliberations. Court recessed at 4:00 p.m. until 2/12/15 at 8:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson.) (Attachment Jury note) (cbn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
02/12/2015 2261 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that a charge conference on the Stage 2 Jury Verdict Form is SET for February 12, 201 12:00 p.m. in the courtroom of Judge Susie Morgan. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Erin Hangartner appear show cause why she should not be sanctioned for statements made during closing argument. The show−cause hearin take place at the conclusion of the charge conference. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
02/12/2015 2268 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 2/12/2015. Jury returned with ver to stage 1. Court recessed until 2/13/15 at 8:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson.) (Attachments: # 1 Jury note, verdict, stage 1) (cbn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
02/13/2015 2263 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Leave From the Restrictions of LR 47.5 by Signal International LLC, Si International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc., and Plaintiffs. (Attachmen Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
02/13/2015 2271 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial held on 2/13/2015. Jury resumed delibera to Stage 2. Court recessed at 3:30 p.m. until 2/18/15 at 8:00 a.m. (Court Reporter Mary Thompson.) (Attachments: # note #1, # 2 Jury note #2) (cbn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
02/18/2015 2272 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Jury Trial completed on 2/18/2015. Jury returned w verdict as to stage 2. Jury thanked for their service and excused. (Court Reporter Terri Hourigan.) (Attachments: # 1 note #1, # 2 Jury note #2, # 3 Jury verdict, stage 2) (cbn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
02/19/2015 2264 ORDER − In anticipation of the status conference on March 2, 2015, at 2:00 p.m.; IT IS ORDERED that the parties a joint proposed agenda by February 25, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/18/2015.(bwn) (Ent 02/19/2015)
02/20/2015 2267 ORDER denying 2263 Motion for Leave to File From the Restrictions of LR 47.5. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Entered: 02/20/2015)
02/20/2015 2269 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that Ms. Erin Casey Hangartner participate in the first available session of the Ethics S sponsored by the Louisiana State Bar Association ("LSBA") at her own personal expense.23 Ms. Hangartner shall c Mr. William King at the LSBA within one week of this Order to make the necessary arrangements. Signed by Judge

Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
02/20/2015 2270 Sealed Version re 2269 Order. (bwn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
02/20/2015 2273 Certification of trial exhibits. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/11/15.(cbn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
02/20/2015 2274 Trial Exhibit List. (cbn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
02/20/2015 2275 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the clerk pay the cost of meals furnished to the jurors who had been ordered to be together and not to separate while serving in the above numbered and entitled case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th clerk pay to Welty's Deli the sum of $125.65 for meals for the jury, in this matter on February 11, 2015. Signed by J Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2015: # 1 Welty's receipt) (cbn). (Entered: 02/20/201
02/20/2015 2276 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the clerk pay the cost of meals furnished to the jurors who had been ordered to be together and not to separate while serving in the above numbered and entitled case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th clerk pay to Welty's Deli the sum of $173.77 for meals for the jury, in this matter on February 13, 2015. Signed by J Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2015: # 1 Welty's receipt) (cbn). (Entered: 02/20/201
02/23/2015 2277 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Chandra Bhatnagar as Attorney by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Ku Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2278 DEPOSITION of Albert Taft read to jury in lieu of his live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2279 DEPOSITION of Albert Waltman read to the jury in lieu of his live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2280 Deposition of Billy Wilks read to the jury in lieu of his live testimony. (cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2281 DEPOSITION of Breland Buford ready to the jury in lieu of his live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2282 DEPOSITION of Colline Stevens read to the jury in lieu of live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2283 DEPOSITION of Diane Sager read to the jury in lieu of her live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2284 DEPOSITION of Frank Tipton read to the jury in lieu of his live testimony(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2285 DEPOSITION of Jeffrey Branson read to the jury in lieu of live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2286 VIDEO DEPOSITION of John Sanders played for the jury in lieu of his live testimony (transcript filed). (Attachme Notice of manual attachment − video deposition of John Sanders)(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2287 DEPOSITION of Mark Tanner read to the jury in lieu of his live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2288 DEPOSITION of Michael Kelleher read to the jury in lieu of his live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2289 DEPOSITION of Michael Pol read to the jury in lieu of his live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2290 DEPOSITION of Michael Sawyer read to the jury in lieu of his live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2291 DEPOSITION of Patricia Stopher read to the jury in lieu of her live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2292 DEPOSITION of Ramesh Dubey read to the jury in lieu of his live testimony. (cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2293 DEPOSITION of Thomas Rigolo read to the jury in lieu of live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2294 DEPOSITION of Tom Caffrey read to the jury in lieu of his live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/23/2015 2295 DEPOSITION of William Tanner read to the jury in lieu of his live testimony.(cbn) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
02/24/2015 2296 ORDER granting 2259 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum to Plaintiff's Motion for Final Certification of Collective Action. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
02/24/2015 2297 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 2145 MOTION Final Certification of FLSA Collective Acti (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(bwn) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
02/24/2015 2298 ORDER granting 2277 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Chandra S. Bhatnagar terminated. Signed by Jud Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
02/24/2015 2299 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) by Plaintiffs. Motion set for 3/11/2015 10:00 AM before Judge S Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Memorandum in Support)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 02/24/20

02/27/2015 2300 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the clerk pay the cost of meals furnished to the jurors who had been ordered to be together and not to separate while serving in the above numbered and entitled case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th clerk pay to Mothers Restaurant the sum of $223.25 for meals for the jury, in this matter on February 12, 2015.. Sig Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Receipt)(bwn) (Entered: 02/27/2015)

02/27/2015 2301 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the clerk pay the cost of meals furnished to the jurors who had been ordered to be together and not to separate while serving in the above numbered and entitled case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th clerk pay to Mothers Restaurant the sum of $206.75 for meals for the jury, in this matter on February 18, 2015.. Sig Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Receipt)(bwn) (Entered: 02/27/2015)

03/02/2015

2305

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 3/2/2015. All motions re entry of final judgment shall be filed by March 16, 2015. If the Court enters final judgment, all motions for summar judgment regarding claim preclusion and/or issue preclusion shall be filed by May 4, 2015. The parties discussed th motions pending in the EEOC Case. For the reasons stated orally and on the record, EEOC's Motion to Provide Not Signal's Countermotion for Sanctions are DENIED. By March 23, 2015, Plaintiffs in each of the consolidated Acha shall provide the Court a summary of their claims in chart format similar to the chart attached to the Sixth Amended Complaint in the David Case. For the reasons stated orally and on the record, Signal's Motions to Continue in the consolidated Achari cases are GRANTED IN PART. The Court will grant Signal additional time to depose Plaintiff status conference currently set for April 1, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. is CONVERTED to a telephone status conference. (bw (Entered: 03/05/2015)

03/03/2015 2302 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 2299 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/03/2015)

03/04/2015 2303 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) On Cross Claims by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigratio Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion set for 3/25/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Cerniglia, Tim (Entered: 03/04/2015)

03/04/2015 2304 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Join in Burnett Defendant's Motion to Certify Judgment Pursuant to Federal R Civil Procedure 54(b) on Signal's Cross Claims by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 P Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 03/04/2015)

03/06/2015

2306

TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on March 2, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder T Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased th the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obta through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. R of Transcript Restriction set for 6/4/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/06/2015)

03/09/2015 2307 ORDER granting 2304 Motion to Join in Burnett Defendant's Motion to Certify Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule Procedure 54(b) on Signal's Cross Claims. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/09/2015)

03/10/2015 2308 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum to Signal's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion Entry of Final Judgment by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 03/10/2015)

03/11/2015 2310 ORDER granting 2308 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum to Signal's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion fo of Final Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/11/2015)

03/11/2015 2311 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 2299 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(bwn) (Entered: 03/11/2015)

03/12/2015 2312 LIMITED REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Achari Plaintiffs re 2299 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under 54(b) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(bwn) (Entered: 03/12/2015)

03/16/2015

2313

MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply Brief Relative to Plaintiffs' Brief (Doc. #2311) Responding to Signal's Oppo Plaintiffs' Motion (Doc. #2299) for Entry Under Rule 54(b) of Partial Final Judgment by Signal International LLC, International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Motion set for 4/8/2015 10 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 03/16/2015)

03/18/2015 2314 ORDER granting 2313 Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply Brief Relative to Plaintiffs' Brief (Doc. #2311) Respond Signal's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion (Doc. #2299) for Entry Under Rule 54(b) of Partial Final Judgment. Signed Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/18/2015 2315 Sur−Reply by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Sign International, Inc. to 2299 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) (bwn) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/18/2015

2316

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial−Day One−Afternoon Session held on January 12, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. C Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/16/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/18/2015

2317

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial, Day 2 Morning Session held on January 13, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/16/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/18/2015

2318

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 2 afternoon session held on January 13, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/16/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/18/2015

2319

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 3 morning session held on January 14, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/16/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/18/2015

2320

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 3 afternoon session held on January 14, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/16/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/18/2015

2321

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 4 morning session held on January 15, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/16/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/18/2015

2322

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 4 afternoon session held on January 15, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/16/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/18/2015

2323

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 5 morning session held on January 16, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/16/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/18/2015

2324

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 5 afternoon session held on January 16, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/16/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

03/19/2015

2325

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 6 morning session held on January 20, 2015 before Judge Sally Shushan. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/19/2015)

03/19/2015

2326

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 6 afternoon session held on January 20, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/19/2015)

03/19/2015 2327 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 7 morning session held on January 21, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public

or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/19/2015)

03/19/2015

2328

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 7 afternoon session held on January 21, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/19/2015)

03/19/2015

2329

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 8 morning session held on January 22, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/19/2015)

03/19/2015

2330

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 8 afternoon session held on January 22, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/19/2015)

03/19/2015

2331

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Charge Conference held on January 22, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/R Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchas through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it ma obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction R Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/19/2015)

03/19/2015

2332

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 9 morning session held on January 23, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/19/2015)

03/19/2015

2333

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 9 afternoon session held on January 23, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/19/2015)

03/19/2015

2334

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 10 morning session held on January 26, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/19/2015)

03/19/2015

2335

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 10 afternoon session held on January 26, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/19/2015)

03/20/2015 2336 ORDER AND REASONS granting 2299 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Signed by Judge Susie M (bwn) (Entered: 03/20/2015)

03/24/2015 2337 ORDER − The Court having granted plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Final Judgment under Rule 54(b) 2336 , IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs submit a proposed form of judgment on or before April 2, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDE that any opposition to the proposed form of judgment shall be filed on or before April 10, 2015. Signed by Judge Su Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2338

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 11 morning session held on January 27, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015 2339 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 11 afternoon session held on January 27, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub

terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2340

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 12 morning session held on January 28, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2341

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 12 afternoon session held on January 28, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2342

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 13 morning session held on January 30, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2343

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 13 afternoon session held on January 30, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2344

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 14 morning session held on February 2, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2345

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 14 afternoon session held on February 2, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2346

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 15 morning session held on February 3, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2347

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 15 afternoon session held on February 3, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2348

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 16 morning session held on February 4, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2349

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 16 afternoon session held on February 4, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015 2350 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 17 morning session held on February 5, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th

it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2351

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 17 afternoon session held on February 5, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2352

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 18 morning session held on February 6, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2353

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 18 afternoon session held on February 6, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2354

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Charge Conference Day 17 held on February 6, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2355

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Charge Conference Day 18 held on February 6, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2356

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 19 morning session held on February 9, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2357

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 19 afternoon session held on February 9, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Cathy Pepper, Telephone number 504−589−7779. Transcript may be viewed at the court public or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2358

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 20 morning session held on February 10, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Mary Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court pub terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2359

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 20 afternoon session held on February 10, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Cour Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2360

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Charge Conference Day 19 held on February 9, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the C Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015 2361 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 21 held on February 11, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Record Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obta through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. R

of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2362

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 22 held on February 12, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Record Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obta through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. R of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2363

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 23 held on February 13, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Record Thompson, Telephone number 504−589−7783. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obta through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. R of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2364

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 24 held on February 18, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Record Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased th the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obta through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. R of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2365

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Charge Conference Day 14 held on February 2, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2366

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Charge Conference Day 15 held on February 3, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/24/2015

2367

TRANSCRIPT of Jury Charge Conference Day 16 held on February 4, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/Recorder Susan Zielie, Telephone number 504−589−7724. Transcript may be viewed at the court public te or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After th it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Re Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/22/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 03/24/2015)

03/26/2015 2368 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 2303 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) On Cross Claims . (Hang Erin) (Entered: 03/26/2015)

03/26/2015 2369 ORDER − In anticipation of the telephone status conference on April 1, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.; IT IS ORDERED that th submit a joint proposed agenda by March 30, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 03/26/2015)

03/30/2015 2370 Jointly Proposed Set of Agenda Items for April 1, 2015, Telephonic Conference by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 03/30/2015)

04/01/2015

2377

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Conference held on 4/1/2015. The Burne Defendants and the Dewan Defendants have filed a 2303 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment on Signal's crossclaim Signal does not oppose the Motion. For the reasons stated orally and on the record, the Motion is GRANTED. The D Plaintiffs and the Burnett Defendants have submitted proposed final judgments. Any objections are due by April 10 Responses to the objections are due by April 17, 2015. The David Plaintiffs requested to unseal an Order and relate briefing with respect to a previously−filed motion to stay. Any objections are due by April 8, 2015. Responses are d April 11, 2015. The Court set an in−person status conference in the EEOC Case for April 24, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. The Plaintiff Intervenors may participate by telephone. The parties discussed the Motion to Compel a Meet−and−Confer by the Achari Plaintiffs. Because the parties met and conferred during the telephone status conference, the Motion i GRANTED. If Signal's responses do not address Plaintiffs' concerns to their satisfaction, Plaintiffs may file a motio compel and set it for submission before the undersigned. (bwn) (Entered: 04/06/2015)

04/02/2015 2371 Notice of Compliance by Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Gulf Coast Immigration Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 2337 Order. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading)(C Timothy) Modified on 4/3/2015 (gec). (Entered: 04/02/2015)

04/02/2015 2372 **DEFICIENT** NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of filing of form of proposed judgment − Signal. (Tsu, Naomi) Modifie 4/3/2015 (gec). (Entered: 04/02/2015)

04/02/2015 2373 **DEFICIENT** NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of filing of form of proposed judgment − Burnett Law Offices. (Tsu, Na Modified on 4/3/2015 (gec). (Entered: 04/02/2015)

04/02/2015 2374 **DEFICIENT** NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of filing form of proposed judgment − Dewan Consultants. (Tsu, Naom Modified on 4/3/2015 (gec). (Entered: 04/02/2015)

04/03/2015 2375 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 2371 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Filing attorney sel incorrect event. Correct event is Notice of Compliance. Clerk took corrective action. (gec) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

04/03/2015 2376 Notice of Proposed Judgments by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Propos Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 04/03/2015)

04/09/2015 2378 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs file a motion by April 20, 2015 clearly setting forth (1) the documents th to unseal, and (2) the legal authority that supports their position. Any response to the motion is due by April 27, 201 Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 04/09/2015)

04/10/2015 2379 Objections and Response to Plaintiffs Proposed Judgment by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Cen L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 04/10

04/10/2015

2380

MOTION for Entry of Partial Final Judgment filed as directed by 2337 Order by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. Motion set for 5/6/2015 10 before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 4/13/2015 to edit docket text and add submission information (bwn). (E 04/10/2015)

04/10/2015 2381 OBJECTIONS to Proposed Judgment by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 04/10/2015)

04/14/2015 2382 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Objections to Proposed Judgments by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 04/14/2015)

04/15/2015 2383 ORDER granting 2382 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants' objections to the Plaintiffs' p judgments; extended from 4/17/2015 to 4/22/2015. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/15/2015. (blg) (Entered: 04/15/2015)

04/20/2015 2384 ORDER − In anticipation of the status conference on 4/24/2015 at 1:30 p.m.; ORDERED that the parties submit a j proposed agenda by 4/21/2015. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/18/2015.(blg) (Entered: 04/20/2015)

04/20/2015

2385

MOTION to Unseal Certain Filings on the David v. Signal Docket by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. Motion set for 5 before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Sandler Declaration, # 3 Exhib Sandler Declaration, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Howard, Alan) Modified on 4/21/2015 (blg). (Entered: 04/20/2015)

04/22/2015 2386 Response/Reply by All Plaintiffs to 2380 MOTION for Entry of Partial Final Judgment filed as directed by 2337 Or 2379 Notice (Other), 2381 Notice (Other) Plaintiffs' Response to Defense Objections to Proposed Judgment (Attach # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 04/22/2015)

04/27/2015 2387 JUDGMENT − IT IS ORDERED that there be judgment in favor of Malvern C. Burnett, the Law Offices of Malver Burnett, APC, Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k/a Medtech Consultants), and against Signal International, and Signal International, Inc., DISMISSING all crossclaims WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Su Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 04/27/2015)

04/27/2015 2390 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/27/2015. Af conferring with opposing counsel and making any changes, Plaintiffs will file the amended judgment by May 1, 201 email a copy to the law clerk in word format. (bwn) (Entered: 04/30/2015)

04/28/2015 2388 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief to Plaintiffs' Brief 2386 in Opposition to 2380 by Si International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Proposed Pleading)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified o 4/29/2015 to remove submission information (bwn). (Entered: 04/28/2015)

04/29/2015 2389 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 2388 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief to Plaintiffs' Brief 2386 in Opp to 2380 − Filing attorney should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?'. Exparte/Consent motions are not set for submission. Clerk has removed submission date. (bwn) (Entered: 04/29/201

04/30/2015 2391 ORDER granting 2388 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief to Plaintiffs' Brief 2386 in Opposition to 2380 . Signed Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 04/30/2015)

04/30/2015 2392 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Inter Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 2380 MOTION for Entry of Partial Final Judgment filed as directed by 233 Order. (bwn) (Entered: 04/30/2015)

05/01/2015 2393 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing of Proposed Judgments. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Judgment: Signal Internati LLC and Signal International, Inc., # 2 Proposed Judgment: Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC, # 3 Proposed Judgment: Dewan Consultants Pvt Ltd)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/01/2015)

05/01/2015 2394 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing of Proposed Judgments Against Malvern C. Burnett and Sachin Dewan. (Attach # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Judgment: Malvern C. Burnett, # 3 Proposed Judgment: Sachin Dewan)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/01/2015)

05/02/2015 2395 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Opposition To Plaintiffs' Proposed Judgment by Malvern C. Bu (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 05/02/2015)

05/04/2015 2396 MOTION for Summary Judgment On Signal's Cross Claims by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law C L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion set for 5/20/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 of Submission)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

05/04/2015 2397 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Join in Burnett Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Signal's Cross by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 05/04/2015)

05/04/2015 2398 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Join in the Burnett Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Objections to Plaintif Proposed Judgment by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, S (Entered: 05/04/2015)

05/05/2015 2399 ORDER granting 2395 Motion for Leave to File Opposition To Plaintiffs' Proposed Judgment. Burnett is given unti 11, 2015 to file his Memorandum In Opposition and a counter proposed judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Entered: 05/05/2015)

05/05/2015 2400 ORDER granting 2397 Motion to Join in Burnett Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Signal's Cross Cla Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/05/2015)

05/05/2015 2401 ORDER granting 2398 Motion to Join in the Burnett Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Objections to Plaintiffs' Proposed Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/05/2015)

05/05/2015 2402 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Ivy Suriyopas as Attorney by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed (Kim, Dahsong) (Entered: 05/05/2015)

05/08/2015 2403 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Burnett's Motion for Summa Judgment on Signal's Cross Claims by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal Intern Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/08/2015)

05/11/2015 2404 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs may not recover pre−judgment interest on their RICO claims. IT IS FUR ORDERED that pre−judgment interest will accrue on all other claims from March 7, 2008 at the Louisiana judicial IS FURTHER ORDERED that post−judgment interest will accrue at the federal rate. Signed by Judge Susie Morga (Entered: 05/11/2015)

05/11/2015 2405 ORDER granting 2403 Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Burnett's Motion for Summary Judgmen Signal's Cross Claims. IT IS ORDERED that the deadline(s) for Signal to file its opposition(s) to Burnetts Motion(s Summary Judgment on Signals Cross Claims, is May 18, 2015. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/11/2015)

05/11/2015

2406

JUDGMENT − In accordance with the verdict the jury rendered on February 18, 2015, and this Courts March 20, 2 Order granting Plaintiffs motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the Court enters judgm favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC and SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, I jointly and severally (Signal) in the amount of $12,258,600, plus pre−judgment interest and post−judgment interest awarded in this Court's May 11, 2015 Order, as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 05/11/2015)

05/11/2015 2407 Opposition to Plaintiffs' Proposed Judgment as to Malvern C. Burnett by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigrati Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 05/11/2015)

05/11/2015 2408 JUDGMENT − In accordance with the verdict the jury rendered on February 18, 2015, and this Courts March 20, 2 Order granting Plaintiffs motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the Court enters judgm favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C. BURNETT, APC in the amount of $9 plus pre−judgment interest and post−judgment interest as awarded in this Court's May 11, 2015 Order, as set forth h

Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 05/11/2015)

05/11/2015

2409

JUDGMENT − In accordance with the verdict the jury rendered on February 18, 2015, and this Courts March 20, 2 Order granting Plaintiffs motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the Court enters judgm favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant DEWAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD in the amount of $915,000, plus pre−judgment interest and post−judgment interest as awarded in this Court's May 11, 2015 Order, as set forth herein Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 05/11/2015)

05/11/2015 2410 ORDER denying 2380 Motion for Entry of Partial Final Judgment filed as directed by 2337 Order. Signed by Judge Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/11/2015)

05/11/2015 2411 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Join in the Burnett Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Proposed Judgment by Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 05/11/2015)

05/12/2015 2412 ORDER granting 2402 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Ivy O. Suriyopas terminated. Signed by Judge S Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

05/12/2015 2413 ORDER granting 2411 Motion to Join in the Burnett Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Proposed Judgment. Sign Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

05/14/2015 2414 ORDER granting 2385 Motion to Unseal Certain Filings on the David v. Signal Docket. IT IS FURTHER ORDERE the Clerk of Court unseal the following documents: 488 , 489 , 490 , 493 , 501 , 502 , 503 , 504 , 506 , 507 , 508 , 50 , 511 , and 2385 . Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/14/2015)

05/14/2015

2415

***VACATED PER 2550 ORDER*** JUDGMENT − In accordance with the verdict the jury rendered on Februar 2015, and this Courts March 20, 2015 Order granting Plaintiffs motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed. P. 54(b), the Court enters judgment in favor of Defendant MALVERN C. BURNETT and against Plaintiffs JACOB JOSEPH KADAKKARAPPALLY, SONY VASUDEVAN SULEKHA, PALANYANDI THANGAMANI, PADAVETTIYIL ISAAC ANDREWS, and HEMANT KHUTTAN. Plaintiffs' claims against MALVERN C. BUR for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2268−2, CLAIM ONE); the RICO (Rec. Doc. 22 CLAIM FOUR); Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2268− 2, CLAIM FIVE); Negligent Misrepresentation (Rec. Doc. 2268−2, CLA SIX); and Breach of Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272−3, CLAIM SEVEN) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. There is no just reason to delay entry of final judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) Modifi 9/9/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 05/14/2015)

05/14/2015

2416

***VACATED PER 2551 ORDER*** JUDGMENT − In accordance with the verdict the jury rendered on Februar 2015,1 and this Courts March 20, 2015 Order granting Plaintiffs motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed P. 54(b),2 the Court enters judgment in favor of Defendant SACHIN DEWAN and against Plaintiffs JACOB JOSEP KADAKKARAPPALLY, SONY VASUDEVAN SULEKHA, PALANYANDI THANGAMANI, PADAVETTIYI ISAAC ANDREWS, and HEMANT KHUTTAN.3 Plaintiffs' claims against SACHIN DEWAN for violations of th Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Rec. Doc. 2268−2, CLAIM ONE); the RICO (Rec. Doc. 2268−2, CLAIM FOU Fraud (Rec. Doc. 2268−2, CLAIM FIVE); Negligent Misrepresentation (Rec. Doc. 2268−2, CLAIM SIX); and Bre Contract or Promissory Estoppel (Rec. Doc. 2272−3, CLAIM SEVEN) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Ther just reason to delay entry of final judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) Modified on 9/9/2015 (bwn). (En 05/14/2015)

05/18/2015 2417 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc. as to 2387 Judgment,. (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−4863203.) (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/18/2015

2418

***FILED IN ERROR − See 2419 for corrected filing*** RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by S International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. MOTION for Summary Judgment On Signal's Cross Claims . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhib 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 5/18/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/18/2015 2419 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 2396 MOTION for Summary Judgment On Signal's C Claims . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/18/2015 2420 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 2418 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion − FILED IN ERROR 2419 for corrected filing. (bwn) (Entered: 05/18/2015)

05/19/2015 2421 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum to Signal's Opposition to Motion for Summ Judgment by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 05/19/2015)

05/19/2015 2422 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Attorneys' Fees Petition by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thang Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/19/2015)
05/21/2015 2423 ORDER granting 2421 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum to Signal's Opposition to Motion for Summar Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/21/2015)
05/21/2015 2424 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offi Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 2396 MOTION for Summary Judgment On Signal's Cross Claims. (bwn) (Entered: 05/21/2015)
05/21/2015 2425 ORDER granting 2422 Motion for Extension of Time to File Attorneys' Fees Petition. It is therefore ORDERED tha deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their attorneys fees petition is extended from May 26, 2015 to June 15, 2015. Plain of costs also shall be due on June 15, 2015. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/21/2015)
05/27/2015 2426 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Lifting of Automatic Stay of Claims Against Defendant Kurella Rao. (Attachments: # 1 A: Judgment Denying Discharge)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
05/29/2015 2427 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Rule 50(b) by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion set for 6/17/2015 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Cerniglia, Tim (Entered: 05/29/2015)
05/29/2015 2428 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum In Excess of Page Limit by Malvern C. Burnett, G Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Or Proposed Motion, # 3 Proposed Memorandum, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Proposed Notice of Submission)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
06/01/2015 2429 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that a telephone status conference is SET in all cases for June 2, 2015, at 11:30 a.m. T Court's judicial assistant will circulate call−in instructions. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/31/2015.(bwn) (Ent 06/01/2015)
06/01/2015 2430 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that Signal identify all actions before this Court in which it has filed crossclaims by Ju 2015. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
06/01/2015 2431 ORDER granting 2428 Motion for Leave to File Memorandum In Excess of Page Limit. Signed by Judge Susie Mo (bwn) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
06/01/2015 2432 MOTION for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 59(A) by Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. Motion set for 6/17/ 10:00 AM before Judge Susie Morgan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(bwn) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
06/01/2015 2433 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Writ of Execution as to Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC by Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Proposed Order Writ of Execution)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 06/01
06/02/2015 2435 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Conference held on 6/2/2015. (bwn) (En 06/05/2015)
06/03/2015 2434 Memorandum by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., S International, Inc. re 2430 Order (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
06/05/2015 2436 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 2432 MOTION for New Tria MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Rule 50(b) by Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Hemant Kh Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/05/2015)
06/05/2015 2437 MOTION to Stay re 2433 MOTION for Writ of Execution as to Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC by Malve Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion(s) will be submitted on 7/1/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 06/05/2015)
06/08/2015 2438 ORDER granting 2436 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as set forth in document. Signed by J Susie Morgan on 6/8/2015. (mmm) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
06/08/2015 2439 ORDER re 2437 MOTION to Stay: Plaintiffs shall respond to Burnett Law Offices's Motion to Stay by June 11, 20 Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/8/2015.(mmm) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
06/08/2015 2440 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Post−Verdict or Alternatively for a New Trial by Signal International L Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. Motion(s) will be su

on 7/1/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 6/9/2015 to edit docket text (bwn). (Entered: 06/08/2015)
06/08/2015 2441 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law by Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. Motion(s) will be submitted on 7/1/20 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Ent 06/08/2015)
06/08/2015 2442 MOTION for New Trial by Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. Motion(s) will be submitted on 7/1/2015. (Attachments: # Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
06/09/2015 2443 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 2440 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law − Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is "Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law." Clerk took corrective action by either re−docketing the event or changing the event. (bwn) (Entered: 06/09/2015)
06/10/2015 2444 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of Deadlines under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(e) to Have Prospec Motion Toll the Appeal Deadline Along With Other Post−Trial Motions by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
06/11/2015 2445 MOTION to Amend or Alter Judgment 2416 Judgment & 2415 Judgment or in the Alternative for a New Trial on Damagers by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) will be submitted on 7/1/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 N of Submission)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 6/11/2015 to edit docket text (bwn). (Entered: 06/11/2015)
06/11/2015 2446 ORDER denying 2444 Motion for Extension of Deadlines under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(e) to Have Prospective Fee Mot the Appeal Deadline Along With Other Post−Trial Motions. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 06/11
06/11/2015 2447 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 2437 MOTION to Stay re 2433 MOTION fo of Execution as to Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APC . (Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
06/15/2015 2448 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to File Bill of Costs by Thanasekar Chellapp Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khut Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, S Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
06/16/2015 2449 ORDER granting 2448 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to File Bill of Costs. It is therefore ORDERED that the d for the Plaintiffs to file their Bill of Costs is extended from June 15, 2015 to July 15, 2015. Signed by Judge Susie M on 6/15/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
06/16/2015 2450 ORDER re 2440 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs oppose Signal's post− motion by June 19, 2015. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
06/19/2015 2451 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 2440 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Post−Verdict or Alternatively for a New Trial. (Howard, Alan) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
06/22/2015 2452 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P 2445 MOTION to Amend or Alter Judgment 2416 Judgment & 2415 Judgment or in the Alternative for a New Tria (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
06/22/2015 2453 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Join in the Burnett Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend or A Judgment, or, Alternatively, for New Trial on Damages by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachme Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
06/22/2015 2454 ***FILED IN ERROR*** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Join in the Burnett Defendant's Opposition to Signa Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaints with Affirmative Defenses and Cross Claims by Sachin Dewan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 6/23/2015 (bwn). Modified on 6/24/2015 (bwn) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
06/23/2015 2455 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 2441 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Trial Transcript Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit Trial Ex. 1, # 3 Exhibit Trial Ex. 576, # 4 Exhib Ex. 606, # 5 Exhibit Trial Ex. 771, # 6 Exhibit Trial Ex. 772, # 7 Exhibit Trial Ex. 779, # 8 Exhibit Trial Ex. 834)(W Daniel) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
06/24/2015 2456 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 2427 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Pursuant to Rule 50(b) . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Trial Testimony Excerpts, # 2 Exhibit Trial Exhibits)(Werner Daniel) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
06/24/2015 2457 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 2432 MOTION for New Trial . (Attachment Exhibit A: Dewan trial testimony (Day 19), # 2 Exhibit B: Dewan trial testimony (Day 20), # 3 Exhibit C: Thangam testimony, # 4 Exhibit D: Khuttan trial testimony, # 5 Exhibit E: Padaveettiyil trial testimony, # 6 Exhibit F: Sulekh testimony, # 7 Exhibit G: Kaddakkarappaly trial testimony, # 8 Exhibit H: Burnett trial testimony, # 9 Exhibit I: Jur

Instructions, # 10 Exhibit Trial Exhibits, Part I, # 11 Exhibit Trial Exhibits, Part II)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 06/24

06/24/2015 2458 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 2442 MOTION for New Trial . (Werner, Da (Entered: 06/24/2015)

06/24/2015 2459 ORDER granting 2453 Motion to Join in the Burnett Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend or Alte Judgment, or, Alternatively, for New Trial on Damages. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 06/24/201

06/29/2015

2460

TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Status Conference held on June 2, 2015 before Judge Susie Morgan. Court Reporter/R Terri Hourigan, Telephone number 504−589−7775. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purcha through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it ma obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction R (Reference: All Cases) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/28/2015. (rsg) (Entered: 06/29/2015)

06/30/2015

2461

MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Iss Padaveettiyl, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani. Motion(s) will be submitted on 7/15/2015. (Attach # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Proposed Pleading, # 5 Exhibit A − Trial Transcript Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit Trial Exhibit 57, # 7 Exhibit Trial Exhibit 559, # 8 Exhibit Trial Exhibit 60 Exhibit Trial Exhibit 766, # 10 Exhibit Trial Exhibit 774, # 11 Exhibit Trial Exhibit 1135, # 12 Exhibit Trial Exhibi 1889)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 06/30/2015)

07/01/2015 2462 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. re 2 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum . (Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified text on 7/1/2015 (sek). (Entered: 07/01/2015)

07/02/2015 2463 ORDER granting 2461 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/2/2015. (Entered: 07/06/2015)

07/02/2015 2464 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 2445 MOTION to Amend or Alter Judgment 2416 Judgme 2415 Judgment or in the Alternative for a New Trial. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit 57, # 3 Exhibit 559, Exhibit 608, # 5 Exhibit 766, # 6 Exhibit 774, # 7 Exhibit 1135, # 8 Exhibit 1889)(bwn) (Entered: 07/06/2015)

07/06/2015 2465 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply Memorandum by Malvern C. Burnett. (Attachments Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 07/06/2015)

07/07/2015 2466 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to File Attorneys' Fees Petition and Bill of Costs by J Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 07/07/2015)

07/09/2015 2467 ORDER granting 2465 Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply Memorandum. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/8/2 (bwn) (Entered: 07/09/2015)

07/09/2015 2468 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. re 2445 MO to Amend or Alter Judgment 2416 Judgment & 2415 Judgment or in the Alternative for a New Trial. (bwn) (Entere 07/09/2015)

07/09/2015 2469 ORDER granting 2466 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to File Attorneys' Fees Petition and Bill of Costs. It is he ORDERED that Plaintiffs petition for attorneys fees and Plaintiffs bill of costs are due August 15, 2015. Signed by Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 07/09/2015)

07/13/2015 2470 NOTICE OF FILING BANKRUPTCY by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1, # 2 Exhibit A−2, # 3 Exhibit A− Exhibit A−4, # 5 Exhibit A−5)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/13/2015)

07/14/2015 2471 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 7/14/2015. (bwn) (Entere 07/17/2015)

07/16/2015 2472 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1848 Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability Related to Signals Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 2145 Motion for Final Certificatio FLSA Collective Action ; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 2440 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Post−Verdict or Alternatively for a New Trial. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/15/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 07/17

08/10/2015 2474 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION to Certify Bill of Costs in Lieu of Filing Receipts and Invoices by Thana Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thang Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/10/2015)

08/10/2015 2475 ***DEFICIENT*** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing on Protective Order, MOTION for Pro Order by Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: #

Proposed Order Proposed Order on Motion for Expedited Hearing, # 2 Proposed Pleading Motion for a Protective O 3 Exhibit Exhibit A to Motion for Protective Order, # 4 Proposed Order Proposed Order on Motion for Protective Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified on 8/11/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 08/10/2015)

08/11/2015 2476 MOTION for Protective Order by Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Know Motion(s) will be submitted on 8/19/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 08/11/2015)

08/11/2015 2477 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite by Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion(s) referred to E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 08/11/2015)

08/11/2015

2478

ORDER GRANTING 2477 MOTION to Expedite re 2476 MOTION for Protective Order . IT IS ORDERED that th Motion for Protective Order 2476 is SET FOR ORAL HEARING BY TELEPHONE before the undersigned Magis Judge on Monday, August 17, 2015 at 11:15 a.m. Counsel for the moving party shall set up a dial−in number and pr to all counsel (who need to be present for the motion) and the Court. Any memorandum in opposition shall be filed than Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. Any reply shall be reserved for oral argument. Signed by Magistrate Daniel E. Knowles, III.(bwn) (Entered: 08/11/2015)

08/12/2015 2479 ORDER granting 2474 Motion to Certify Bill of Costs in Lieu of Filing Receipts and Invoices with respect to Burne Dewan only. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/12/2015)

08/13/2015 2480 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 2476 MOTION for Protective Order . (Attac # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Howard, Alan) (Entered: 08/13/2015)

08/13/2015 2481 MOTION to Correct Omissions from Record by Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc. Motion(s) will submitted on 9/9/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hang Erin) Modified on 8/14/2015 to edit docket text and add submission information. (bwn). (Attachment 2 replaced on 8/18/2015) (bwn). (Entered: 08/13/2015)

08/13/2015 2482 ***FILED IN ERROR − Duplicate Entry*** MOTION to Amend/Correct 2417 Notice of Appeal (Signal's Motion The Court Correct Omissions From Record) by Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc.. Motion(s) will submitted on 9/9/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Hang Erin) Modified on 8/14/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 08/13/2015)

08/13/2015 2483 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Motion That The Court Correct Omissions From Record by Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hang Erin) Modified on 8/14/2015 to edit docket text (bwn). (Entered: 08/13/2015)

08/14/2015 2484 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 2481 MOTION to Correct Omissions from Record − Filing attorney selecte incorrect event. Correct event is "Motion for Miscellaneous Relief." Clerk took corrective action by changing the ev (bwn) (Entered: 08/14/2015)

08/14/2015 2485 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 2482 MOTION to Amend/Correct 2417 Notice of Appeal (Signal's Motion The Court Correct Omissions From Record) − FILED IN ERROR − Duplicate Entry. (bwn) (Entered: 08/14/2015)

08/14/2015 2486 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 2483 Motion That The Court Correct Omissions From Record − Filing attor should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?'. Clerk modified docket text to r 'Exparte'. (bwn) (Entered: 08/14/2015)

08/14/2015 2487 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Leave to File To Substitute Exhibit by Signal International LLC, Sig International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/14/2015)

08/14/2015

2488

**WITHDRAWN PER DOC. #2620**MOTION for Attorney Fees by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) will be submitted on 9/ (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Report, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 3, # 7 Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit 7, # 11 Exhibit 8, # 12 Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit 10, # 14 Ex 11, # 15 Exhibit 12, # 16 Exhibit 13, # 17 Exhibit 14, # 18 Exhibit 15)(Nair, Anjali) Modified on 2/3/2016 (cms). (E 08/14/2015)

08/15/2015 2489 BILL OF COSTS by All Plaintiffs. Matter to be submitted on 9/9/2015 at 10:00 a.m. before Clerk of Court. Any op should be filed within 14 days of the filing of this document. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Submission, # 2 Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5)(Werner, Daniel) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/18/201 Bill of Costs Form) (bwn). (Entered: 08/15/2015)

08/16/2015 2490 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct 2489 Bill of Costs (before Clerk) by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: Proposed Order, # 2 Bill of Costs Form)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/16/2015)

08/17/2015 2491 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III: Motion Hearing held on 8/17/2015 2476 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. ORDERED that the 2476 MOTION for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that the deposition at issue shall be sealed, and

party may use any informationdiscovered at the deposition outside the purview of this lawsuit. In all other respects, motion is DENIED. (plh) (Entered: 08/17/2015)

08/18/2015 2492 ORDER granting 2487 Motion for Leave to Substitute Exhibit. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/18/2015)

08/18/2015 2493 ORDER granting 2483 Motion for Expedited Hearing Concerning Motion that the Court Correct Omission from Re Any opposition to the Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal shall be filed by August 19, 2015. Signed by Ju Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/18/2015)

08/18/2015 2494 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 2488 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) referred to Danie Knowles, III. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (NEF: Judge Knowles' Chambers)(bwn) (Entered: 08/18/2015)

08/18/2015 2495 ORDER granting 2490 Motion to Amend/Correct 2489 Bill of Costs (before Clerk). Signed by Judge Susie Morgan (Entered: 08/18/2015)

08/18/2015 2496 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P 2482 MOTION to Amend/Correct 2417 Notice of Appeal (Signal's Motion That The Court Correct Omissions From Record), 2481 MOTION to Correct Omissions from Record . (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 08/18/2015)

08/19/2015 2497 ORDER that plaintiffs' 2488 MOTION for Attorney Fees is SET FOR SUBMISSION ON THE BRIEFS before Ma Judge Knowles on 9/9/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 8/19/15.(plh) (Entered: 08/19/2

08/19/2015 2498 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief Relative to 2481 Motion That The Court Correct Om From Record by Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Propose Pleading, # 3 Proposed Exhibit)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 08/19/2015)

08/19/2015 2499 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Join in the Burnett Defendants' Opposition to Signal's Motion for the Court to Omissions in the Record by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapi Stephen) (Entered: 08/19/2015)

08/20/2015 2500 ORDER granting 2498 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief Relative to 2481 Motion That The Court Correct Omis From Record. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/20/2015)

08/20/2015 2501 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc. re 2481 MOTION to Co Omissions from Record. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(bwn) (Entered: 08/20/2015)

08/21/2015

2502

EXPARTE/CONSENT Emergency MOTION to Seal Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Relief against the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APLC and Malvern C. Burnett (the TR Motion), and Related Papers. by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Marugan Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Pro Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/21/2015)

08/21/2015 2503 ORDER granting 2502 Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Prelimi Injunction Relief against the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APLC and Malvern C. Burnett (the TRO/PI Motio Related Papers. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/21/2015)

08/21/2015 2504 ORDER granting in part 2481 Motion to Correct Omissions from Record. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmi Fifth Circuit the second page of Exhibit 1 to Signals motion with instructions that it be included as a supplement to appellate record for appeal number 15−30464. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (NEF: Appeals Clerk) (bwn) (Entere 08/21/2015)

08/21/2015 2505 ORDER granting 2499 Motion to Join in the Burnett Defendants' Opposition to Signal's Motion for the Court to Co Omissions in the Record. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/21/2015)

08/21/2015

2506

ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the Sealed Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction GRANTED IN PART. The Court will issue a separate order granting a TRO with respect to the Account effective a until the preliminary injunction hearing on August 28, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. The Motion is DENIED in that the Court w issue a preliminary injunction until after a hearing, which will be held on August 28, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. IT IS FURT ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 65(c), and for the reasons stated at the status conference, Plaintiffs shall post secu the amount of $1,000.00. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 08/21/2015)

08/21/2015 2507 MOTION for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief Against the Law Offices of Malver Burnett, APLC and Malvern C. Burnett filed by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Proposed Order) (bwn) (Entered: 08/21/2015)

08/21/2015 2508 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 8/21/2015. For the reasons orally and on the record, the Court will grant in part Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Prelim

Injunction, with written reasons to follow. Plaintiffs shall provide the Court with an amended proposed order and po security in the amount of $1,000.00. A preliminary injunction hearing is set for August 28, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. The C other pre−hearing deadlines, which will be reflected in a separate order. For the reasons stated orally and on the rec 2433 Motion for Writ of Execution is granted, and the 2437 Motion to Stay the Writ of Execution is denied. (bwn) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

08/24/2015 2509 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/23/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 08/24/201

08/24/2015 2510 ORDER − The parties shall comply with the deadlines herein leading up to the preliminary injunction hearing on A 28, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/23/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

08/24/2015 2511 WRIT of Execution issued. (bwn) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

08/26/2015

2512

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Under Seal Pre−Hearing Submissions in Support of Request for Prelimin Injunctive Relief Against the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APLC and Malvern C. Burnett, and related papers Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Additional attachmen added on 8/26/2015: # 3 Memorandum in Support, # 4 Proposed Findings, # 5 Proposed Exhibit A, # 6 Proposed Ex # 7 Proposed Witness & Exhibit List) (bwn). (Entered: 08/26/2015)

08/26/2015 2513 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to File Under Seal Pre−Hearing Memorandum and Related Documents by Malv Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/26/2015: # 3 Proposed Pleading, # 4 Proposed Fin 5 Proposed Witness and Exhibit List) (bwn). (Entered: 08/26/2015)

08/26/2015 2514 OBJECTIONS by All Plaintiffs to Proposed Exhibits and Proposed Deposition Transcripts (Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 08/26/2015)

08/26/2015 2515 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs Exhibits on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of M C. Burnett, A.P.C. (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 08/26/2015)

08/27/2015 2516 Response to Plaintiffs' Objection to Exhibits by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (Ce Timothy) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015 2517 Responses to Burnett Defendants Objections to Plaintiffs Proposed Exhibits by All Plaintiffs. (Nair, Anjali) (Entere 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015 2518 ORDER granting 2512 Motion File Under Seal Pre−Hearing Submissions in Support of Request for Preliminary Inj Relief Against the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APLC and Malvern C. Burnett, and related papers. Signed b Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015 2519 Pre−Hearing Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiffs. (Attachments Exhibit A) (bwn) Modified on 8/27/2015 (bwn). (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015 2520 ORDER granting 2513 Motion to File Under Seal Pre−Hearing Memorandum and Related Documents. Signed by J Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015 2521 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of M C. Burnett, A.P.L.C. (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015 2522 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (bwn) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015 2523 Exhibit and Witness List in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs. (bwn) (Entered: 08/27/

08/27/2015 2524 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnet A.P.L.C. (bwn) (Entered: 08/27/2015)

08/27/2015 2525 Witness and Exhibit List filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.L.C. (bwn) (Entered 08/27/2015)

08/28/2015 2526 ORDER that the preliminary injunction hearing set for TODAY, August 28, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. WILL BE HELD at a.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/28/2015. (tsf) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

08/28/2015 2527 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 08/28/2015)

08/28/2015 2531 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 8/28/2015. Reporter Mary Thompson.) (bwn) (Entered: 09/01/2015)

08/31/2015 2528 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P 2512 MOTION to File Under Seal Pre−Hearing Submissions in Support of Request for Preliminary Injunctive Reli

Against the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APLC and Malvern C. Burnett, and related papers Response to All Act case citations. (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

08/31/2015 2529 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Plaintiffs' Rule 54 Motion for Attorney Fees by Malvern C. Burnett, Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandu Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 08/31/2015)

08/31/2015

2532

ORDER re 2489 Bill of Costs − IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Costs is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs shall re−urge the motion by September 14, 2015. The new motion shall group costs into the categories enumerated on the standard Bill of Costs form. The new motion shall include a memorandum with supporting argum to why each cost is recoverable as a matter of law, including the "other costs" category in the Bill of Costs. With res each cost requested, the memorandum shall make specific reference to the corresponding exhibit(s) substantiating th IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that oppositions to the re−urged Motion for Costs are due September 28, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that once the motion is filed, Plaintiffs shall deliver a hard copy to chambers in a tabbed, th binder. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/31/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 09/01/2015)

09/01/2015 2530 ORDER granting 2529 MOTION to Continue Plaintiffs' Rule 54 Motion for Attorney Fees. ORDERED that the 248 MOTION for Attorney Fees is RESET FOR SUBMISSION ON THE BRIEFS before Magistrate Judge Knowles on 9/16/2015. There will be no oral argument. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/1/15.(plh) (Ent 09/01/2015)

09/01/2015 2533 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Seal Joint Stipulation of Fact by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern Burnett, A.P.C. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 09/01/2015)

09/02/2015 2534 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Meredith) (Entered: 09/02/2015)

09/04/2015 2535 ORDER granting 2533 Motion to Seal Joint Stipulation of Fact. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/04/2015)

09/04/2015 2536 ORDER granting 2534 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Ente 09/04/2015)

09/04/2015 2537 Reply Memorandum in Support by All Plaintiffs to 2519 Pre−Hearing Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preli Injunctive Relief. (bwn) (Entered: 09/04/2015)

09/04/2015 2538 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply to Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum In Support of Injun Relief by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 P Pleading)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 09/04/2015)

09/04/2015 2539 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Hugh Daniel Sandler as Attorney by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 P Order)(Sandler, Hugh) (Entered: 09/04/2015)

09/08/2015 2540 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Anjali Nair as Attorney by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 09/08/2015)

09/08/2015 2541 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Trial Attorney by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(We Daniel) (Entered: 09/08/2015)

09/08/2015 2542 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P 2488 MOTION for Attorney Fees . (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 09/08/2015)

09/08/2015 2543 ORDER granting 2538 Motion for Leave to File Sur Reply. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cml) (Entered: 09/08/2

09/08/2015 2544 SurReply by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. to 2507 MOTION for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief Against the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, APLC and Ma Burnett filed by Plaintiffs (cml) (Entered: 09/08/2015)

09/08/2015 2545 ORDER granting 2539 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Hugh Daniel Sandler terminated. Signed by Judg Morgan. (cml) (Entered: 09/08/2015)

09/08/2015 2546 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Join in the Burnett Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Rule 54 Motion for At Fees by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entere 09/08/2015)

09/09/2015 2547 Joint Stipulation of Facts Relevant to Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for August 28, 2015 filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (bwn) (Entered: 09/09/2015)

09/09/2015 2548 ORDER granting 2540 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Anjali J. Nair terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/8/2015. (bwn) (Entered: 09/09/2015)

09/09/2015 2549 ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 2445 Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment 2416 Judg 2415 Judgment or in the Alternative for a New Trial. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/09/2015)

09/09/2015

2550

AMENDED JUDGMENT re 2415 Judgment. IT IS ORDERED that the Courts judgment of May 14, 2015, entering judgment in favor of Defendant Malvern C. Burnett is hereby VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with the verdict the jury rendered on February 18, 2015, and this Courts March 20, 2015 Order granting Plaintiffs motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Cou enters judgment as noted herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 09/09/2015)

09/09/2015

2551

AMENDED JUDGMENT re 2416 Judgment − IT IS ORDERED that the Courts judgment of May 14, 2015, enterin judgment in favor of Defendant Sachin Dewan is hereby VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accorda with the verdict the jury rendered on February 18, 2015, and this Courts March 20, 2015 Order granting Plaintiffs m for entry of final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court enters judgmen noted herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 09/09/2015)

09/09/2015 2552 ORDER denying 2427 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; denying 2432 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Ju Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/09/2015)

09/09/2015 2553 ORDER denying 2441 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; denying 2442 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Ju Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/09/2015)

09/09/2015 2557 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 9/9/2015. (bwn) (Entered 09/10/2015)

09/10/2015 2554 ORDER granting 2541 Motion to Substitute Trial Attorney. It is therefore ORDERED that Daniel Werner will repla Howard as Trial Attorney. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

09/10/2015 2555 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Re−Urge Bill of Costs by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

09/10/2015 2556 ORDER granting 2546 Motion to Join in the Burnett Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Rule 54 Motion for Attor Fees. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

09/10/2015 2558 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Rule 54 Motion for Attorneys' Fees against the Dewan and Burnett Defendants by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, (Entered: 09/10/2015)

09/11/2015 2559 ORDER granting 2558 MOTION to Continue Hearing on 2488 MOTION for Attorney Fees. ORDERED that plain 2488 MOTION Rule 54 Motion for Attorneys' Fees against the Dewan and Burnett Defendants is RESET FOR SUBMISSION ON THE BRIEFS before Magistrate Judge Knowles on 9/30/2015. There will be no oral argument. by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 9/11/15.(plh) (Entered: 09/11/2015)

09/11/2015 2560 ORDER granting 2555 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to Re−Urge Bill of Costs. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintif re−urge their Motion for Costs by October 5, 2015, following the directions issued in this Courts August 31, 2015 O 2532 . Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 09/11/2015)

09/22/2015

2561

Electronic Record on Appeal Access Granted to Timothy W. Cerniglia, Erin Casey Hangartner, Alan Dean Weinbe Patricia Anne F. Bollman, Hal D. Ungar, Elham Rabbani, Brian C. Roux, Mitchell P. Hasenkampf re 2417 Notice o Appeal. USCA Case Number 15−30464. Instructions for access are posted on http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default−source/forms/instructions−for−electronic−record−download−feature−of− (adp) (Entered: 09/22/2015)

09/22/2015 2562 Electronic Record on Appeal Access Granted to Stephen H. Shapiro re 2417 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Numbe 15−30464. Instructions for access are posted on http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default−source/forms/instructions−for−electronic−record−download−feature−of− (adp) (Entered: 09/22/2015)

09/23/2015 2563 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. as to 2408 Judgment, 25 Order (Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 053L−5037278.) (Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified to add links 9/24/2015 (cm (Entered: 09/23/2015)

09/23/2015 2564 MOTION for Bond Supersedeas Bond by Malvern C. Burnett. Motion(s) will be submitted on 10/21/2015. (Attachm 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified to correc submission date on 9/24/2015 (cms). (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/25/2015: # 4 Corrected Notice of Submi (bwn). (Entered: 09/23/2015)

09/23/2015 2565 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. 2409 Judgment, 2551 Amended Judgment fee $ 505, receipt number 053L−5037887.) (Shapiro, Stephen) Modified to add links on 9/24/2015 (cms). (Entered: 09/23/2015)

09/23/2015 2566 MOTION for Bond Supersedeas Bond by Sachin Dewan. Motion(s) will be submitted on 10/21/2015. (Attachments Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 09/23/2015)

09/24/2015 2567 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct Notice of Submission by Malvern C. Burnett. (Attachments: # Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 09/24/2015)

09/24/2015

2568

Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 1) 2564 MOTION for Supersedeas Bond; Filing attorney selected incorrect submission date. Correct date is 10/21/2015. Clerk took corrective action. 2) 2563 2565 Notice of Appeal; Docume should have been linked to another document by checking the box 'Should the document you are filing link to anoth document' or by selecting a related document on other appropriate screen. Clerk took corrective action by linking do to documents #2550 & 2408 & 2551 & 2409.' (cms) (Entered: 09/24/2015)

09/24/2015 2569 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Rule 54 Motion for Attorneys' Fees against the Dewan and Burnett Defendants by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, (Entered: 09/24/2015)

09/25/2015 2570 ORDER granting 2567 Motion to Amend/Correct Notice of Submission. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (En 09/25/2015)

09/25/2015 2571 ORDER granting 2569 MOTION to Continue, Resetting 2488 MOTION for Attorney Fees for SUBMISSION ON BRIEFS on 10/7/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.(lag) (Entered: 09/25/2015)

10/02/2015 2572 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines for Plaintiffs to Move for Costs by Plaintiff. (Attachm 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 10/02/2015)

10/02/2015 2573 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Motion for Attorney's Fees by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) referred to Danie Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 10/02/2015)

10/05/2015 2574 ORDER granting 2572 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs are to re−urge their Mo Costs by October 17, 2015, following the directions issued in this Courts August 31, 2015 Order. 2532 . Signed by Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/05/2015)

10/05/2015 2575 USCA Case Number 15−30862 appealed to USCA 5th Circuit for 2565 Notice of Appeal filed by Sachin Dewan, D Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (bwn) (Entered: 10/05/2015)

10/05/2015 2576 USCA Case Number 15−30861 appealed to USCA 5th Circuit for 2563 Notice of Appeal filed by Malvern C. Burn Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (bwn) (Entered: 10/05/2015)

10/06/2015 2577 ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Rule 54 Motion for Attorneys' Fees Against the Dewan and Burnett Defendants [Doc. #2 RESET FOR SUBMISSION ON THE BRIEFS before the undersigned Magistrate Judge on Thursday, October 22, 11:00 a.m. There will be no oral argument. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 10/6/2015.(cms) (Entered: 10/06/2015)

10/07/2015 2578 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Appeal by Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Heman Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani. (Attachments: # 1 Propos Order)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 10/07/2015)

10/08/2015 2579 ORDER granting 2578 Motion for Extension of Deadlines to Appeal. It is therefore ORDERED that the deadline fo Plaintiffs to file notices of appeal is extended from Friday, October 9, 2015 until Monday, November 9, 2015. Signe Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/08/2015)

10/12/2015 2580 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue the Submission Date for the Burnett Defendants and the Dewan Defe Motions to Set Supersedeas Bond Pending Appeal by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel (Entered: 10/12/2015)

10/12/2015 2581 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines for Motion for Costs by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 10/12/2015)

10/13/2015 2582 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 2580 MOTION to Continue the Submission Date for the Burnett Defendants and th Dewan Defendants Motions to Set Supersedeas Bond Pending Appeal. The submission date on the motions is exten from October 21, 2015, until October 23, 2015. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 10/13/2015)

10/13/2015 2583 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 2581 Motion for Extension of Deadlines for Motion for Costs. The submission dat motion is extended from October 17, 2015, until October 23, 2015. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 10/13/2015)

10/14/2015 2584 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that a telephone status conference is hereby set in all cases for Tuesday, October 20, 2 10:00 a.m. The Courts judicial assistant will provide the call−in instructions necessary to participate in the conferen telephone. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/13/2015.(bwn) (Entered: 10/14/2015)

10/15/2015 2585 RESPONSE to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 2566 MOTION for Bond Supersedeas Bond re: Sachin Dewan. (Ts Naomi) (Entered: 10/15/2015)

10/15/2015 2586 RESPONSE to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 2564 MOTION for Bond Supersedeas Bond re: Malvern Burnett. (T Naomi) (Entered: 10/15/2015)

10/20/2015

2587

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 10/20/2015. I ORDERED that the submission date on Plaintiffs re−urged bill of costs is continued to Friday, October 30, 2015, at p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Dewan Defendants may file a reply memorandum in further support of t motion for supersedeas bond by Friday, October 30, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel f Signal notify the Court of the status of Signals appeal by Tuesday, November 3, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. (bwn) (Entered: 10/21/2015)

10/21/2015 2588 EXPARTE/CONSENT Fourth MOTION to Continue Submission Date for Fees Motion by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) ref Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) (Entered: 10/21/2015)

10/22/2015 2589 ORDER granting 2588 Fourth MOTION to Continue Submission Date for Fees Motion. ORDERED that 2488 MO for Attorney Fees Against the Dewan and Burnett Defendants is RESET FOR SUBMISSION ON THE BRIEFS on Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. There will be no oral argument. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E Knowles, III on 10/22/2015.(cms) (Entered: 10/22/2015)

10/30/2015 2590 MEMORANDUM of Law in Support of Bill of Costs by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Bill of Costs and Summary o Itemized Costs, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Notice of Submission)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified on 11/2/201 docket text (bwn). (Entered: 10/30/2015)

10/30/2015 2591 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. re 2566 MOTION for Bond Supersedeas Bond . (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 10/30/2015)

11/04/2015 2592 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Motion for Atto Fees by Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Hemant Khuttan, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Propo Pleading)(Graunke, Kristi) (Entered: 11/04/2015)

11/05/2015 2593 ORDER granting 2592 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Know on 11/5/2015. (cms) (Entered: 11/05/2015)

11/05/2015 2594 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 2488 MOTION for Attorney Fees . (cms) (Entered: 11/05/2

11/06/2015 2595 ORDER − Due to a conflict in the Courts calendar, the status conference in the above matter presently scheduled fo Monday, November 9, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. is CONTINUED to Monday, December 14, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. and hereby CONVERTED to a telephone status conference. The Court will provide the parties with the call−in instructions nec to participate in the conference via telephone. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

11/06/2015 2596 Electronic Record on Appeal Access Granted to Kristi L. Graunke re 2563 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 15−30862. Instructions for access are posted on http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default−source/forms/instructions−for−electronic−record−download−feature−of− (adp) (Entered: 11/06/2015)

11/16/2015 2597 MOTION for a Ruling on the Dewan Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Signal's Cross Claims on the B Res Judicata by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. Motion(s) will be submitted on 12/2/2015. (Attachme Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Notice of Submission)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered 11/16/2015)

11/17/2015 2598 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Continue Submission Date on Plaintiffs' Motion for Bill of Costs by Sachin De Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 11/17/2015)

11/18/2015 2599 Electronic Record on Appeal Access Granted to Daniel Werner, Meredith B. Stewart re 2565 Notice of Appeal. US Case Number 15−30862. Instructions for access are posted on http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default−source/forms/instructions−for−electronic−record−download−feature−of− (adp) (Entered: 11/18/2015)

11/18/2015 2600 USCA JUDGMENT issued as mandate on 11/17/2015 as to 2563 Notice of Appeal filed by Malvern C. Burnett, La Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 42.4 this appeal is hereby dis without prejudice to the right of either party to reinstate the appeal by letter to the Clerk of this Court within 180 da this date. Unless the appeal is reinstated within that time, or the foregoing 180 day time period is extended, the appe

be considered dismissed with prejudice by USCA Clerk. (bwn) (Entered: 11/18/2015)

11/19/2015 2601 ORDER granting 2598 Motion to Continue Submission Date on Plaintiffs' Motion for Bill of Costs. IT IS ORDERE the submission date on plaintiffs Motion for Bill of Costs is hereby continued from November 18, 2015 at 10:00 a.m December 23, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 11/19/2015)

11/24/2015 2602 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LL Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 2597 MOTION for a Ruling on the Dewan Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment on Signal's Cross Claims on the Basis of Res Judicata . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered 11/24/2015)

12/02/2015

2603

ORDER AND REASONS re 2396 Motion for Summary Judgment − IT IS ORDERED that the Dewan Defendants for Summary Judgment are hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Signals non−indemnity crossclai barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Signals crossclaims for indemnity against the Burnett and Dewan Defendants the reasons stated above, not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/1/2015. (b (Entered: 12/02/2015)

12/14/2015

2604

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Telephone Status Conference held on 12/14/2015. I ORDERED that all pre−trial deadlines and trial dates in all actions are hereby VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDE that counsel for the Burnett Defendants and the Dewan Defendants shall file motions for summary judgment on Sig remaining crossclaims no later than Monday, December 28, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Si shall file a response to the Burnett and Dewan Defendants motions for summary judgment no later than Friday, Janu 2016, at 5:00 p.m. (bwn) (Entered: 12/14/2015)

12/23/2015

2605

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum In Excess of 25 pages by Malvern C. Burnett, Gu Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # Proposed Memorandum In Support, # 3 Proposed Motion, # 4 Proposed Statement of Uncontested Facts, # 5 Propos Exhibit 1, # 6 Proposed Exhibit 2, # 7 Proposed Exhibit 3, # 8 Proposed Notice of Submission, # 9 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 12/23/2015)

12/28/2015 2606 ORDER granting 2605 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (cml) (Entered: 12/28/2015)

12/28/2015 2607 MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Cross Claims for Indemnity of Signal International, L.L.C., and Signal International, Inc. by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. Motion(s) will be submitted 1/27/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts, # 3 Exhibit, Proposed Order, # 5 Notice of Submission)(cml) (Entered: 12/28/2015)

12/28/2015 2608 **ERROR: DUPLICATE FILING − SEE REC DOC. 2609** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Join the Burnet Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Signal's Cross Claim for Indemnity and for Reconsideration of Moti Summary Judgment on the Basis of Claim Preclusion by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachment Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) Modified on 12/29/2015 (cml). (Entered: 12/28/2015)

12/28/2015 2609 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Join the Burnett Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Signal's Cross for Indemnity and Motion to Reconsider Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Claim Preclusion by Sachi Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 12/28/2015)

12/29/2015 2610 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 2608 MOTION to Join the Burnett Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgm Signal's Cross Claim for Indemnity and for Reconsideration of Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Claim Preclusion . Document filed in error. Duplicate filing of Rec Doc 2609 and will be noted as such. No further action required. (cml) (Entered: 12/29/2015)

12/29/2015 2611 ORDER granting 2609 Motion to Join the Burnett Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Su Morgan. (cml) (Entered: 12/29/2015)

01/12/2016

2612

USCA JUDGMENT issued as mandate on 1/7/2016 as to 2565 Notice of Appeal filed by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 42.4 this appeal is hereby dismissed without p to the right of either party to reinstate the appeal by letter to the Clerk of this Court within 180 days from this date. U the appeal is reinstated within that time, or the foregoing 180 day time period is extended, the appeal will be consid dismissed with prejudice by USCA Clerk. (bwn) (Entered: 01/12/2016)

01/20/2016 2613 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Party. Party World Marine, LLC to be substituted in place of Signal International, LLC, Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P. by S International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

01/20/2016 2614 ***STRICKEN*** NOTICE of Appearance by Erin Casey Hangartner on behalf of World Marine LLC. Attorney E Casey Hangartner added to party World Marine LLC(pty:selreq).(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 1/21/2016 (bwn). (Entered: 01/20/2016)

01/20/2016 2615 RESPONSE to Motion filed by World Marine LLC re 2607 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 2609 MOTION to J Burnett Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Signal's Cross Claims for Indemnity and Motion to Reconsi Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Claim Preclusion . (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

01/21/2016 2616 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 2614 Notice of Appearance − Document has been stricken. Notice of Appea not the proper form to request representation of a party. All attorneys listed on the Notice have been added as couns record. In the future, appearance should be made in the form of a Motion with a proposed order. No further action is necessary. (bwn) (Entered: 01/21/2016)

01/21/2016 2617 ORDER granting 2613 Motion to Substitute Party. World Marine, LLC added. Signal International LLC, Signal International LLC and Signal International LLC terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 01/21/

01/21/2016 2618 ORDER granting 2607 Motion for Summary Judgment on Cross−Claims. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (E 01/21/2016)

02/02/2016

2619

EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION to Withdraw Document re 2488 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Thanase Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, H Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thang Sabulal Vijayan. Motion(s) referred to Daniel E. Knowles, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 02/02/2016)

02/03/2016

2620

ORDER − Considering the consent 2619 Motion to withdraw Without Prejudice Plaintiffs 2488 MOTION for Attor Fees is granted. ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Rule 54 Motion for Attorney's Fees Against Dewan and Burnett Def Rec. Doc. 2488, is withdrawn w/o prejudice to refile if the Plaintiffs' settlement with the Burnett Defendants or the Defendants are not finalized. If the settlements are not finalized with respect to the Burnett Defendants, the Dewan Defendants or both, the full extent of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees against the non−settling Defendant will remain at iss this case.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 2/3/2016. (cms) (Entered: 02/03/2016)

02/03/2016 2621 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Hal D. Ungar as Attorney by Signal International LLC, Signal Inter Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Han Erin) (Entered: 02/03/2016)

02/04/2016 2622 ORDER granting 2621 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Hal D. Ungar terminated. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 02/04/2016)

03/11/2016 2623 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 2564 Motion for Bond; denying 2566 Motion for Bond. Signed by Judge Susie Mo (bwn) (Entered: 03/11/2016)

03/17/2016 2624 Documents transmitted to US Court of Appeals re 2417 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 15−30464. (bwn) (E 03/30/2016)

05/02/2016 2625 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION Lift Injunction by Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Andrews Issac Padaveettiyl, H Khuttan. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) Modified text on 5/3/2016 (ajn). (Entered: 05/02/2

05/05/2016 2626 ORDER granting 2625 Motion MOTION Lift Injunction. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn) (Entered: 05/05/20

06/24/2016 2628 Appeal Record Returned (1 envelope) from U.S. Court of Appeals: 2417 Notice of Appeal. (bwn) (Entered: 06/27/2

06/27/2016 2627 USCA JUDGMENT issued as mandate on 6/15/2016 as to 2417 Notice of Appeal filed by Signal International LLC International, Inc. It is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court is affirmed by USCA judge Kin Southwick, and Haynes. (bwn) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

07/15/2016 2629 ORDER of USCA − IT IS ORDERED that appellants unopposed motion to file out of time the motion to extend dis of appeal without prejudice for a period of an additional 180 days in order to finalize settlement is GRANTED sign USCA Judge Edith Brown Clement. (bwn) (Entered: 07/18/2016)

08/05/2016

2630

ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs Srinivasa Reddy Dalli and Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla shall communicate with their respective counsel within sixty (60) days of the date this Order is filed into the record to communicate with their counsel and/or or this Court, and advise whether they will participate in the pending settlem The failure of these plaintiffs to communicate with their counsel and/or this Court, as ordered, will result in the imm dismissal with prejudice of all pending claims these plaintiffs have against the Dewan Defendants due to failure to prosecute this case pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment to Order, # 2 Attachment to Order)(cg) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

11/16/2016 2633 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Brian C. Roux as Attorney by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas GP, LLC, Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Propose Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/16/2016)

11/17/2016 2634 ORDER granting 2633 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brian C. Roux terminated. Signed by Judge Susi Morgan on 11/17/2016. (cg) (Entered: 11/17/2016)

12/13/2016 2635 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susie Morgan: Status Conference held on 12/13/2016. Mr. Boudrea informed the Court and the parties that additional counsel may enroll for Defendant Paul D. Connick, Jr. If addition counsel is enrolled, Defendant Connick must designate a lead trial attorney, who must be present at the pre−trial con on April 13, 2017. (cg) (Entered: 12/14/2016)

12/14/2016 2636 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 2635 Minute Entry Status Conference; DISREGARD −− FILE IN ERROR WRONG CASE −− DISREGARD (cg) (Entered: 12/14/2016)

12/29/2016

2637

JUDGMENT as per herein − IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that any and all causes of action an claims plaintiffs Srinivasa Reddy Dalli and Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla had, or may have had, against S Dewan and/or Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in this Court are hereby dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecut claims pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/29/2016.( (Entered: 12/29/2016)

04/06/2017 2644 EXPARTE/CONSENT Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Pro Pleading, # 3 Proposed Pleading, # 4 Proposed Pleading, # 5 Proposed Pleading) (clc) Modified on 4/17/2017 (clc). (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/17/2017

2645

EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Dismiss the Burnett Defendants by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Imm Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., David Kaurian, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanya Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan, Andrew Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sa Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally, Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan (Attachments: # Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified text on 4/18/2017 (clc). (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/17/2017 2646 Order granting 2644 Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/17/2017. (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/17/2017 2647 EXPARTE/CONSENT Motion to File Document. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Pr Pleading) (clc) (Entered: 04/17/2017)

04/18/2017

2648

EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Dismiss the Dewan Defendants by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd David Kaurian, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Hemant Khuttan Andrew Issac Padaveettiyl, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Sabulal Vijayan, Krishan Kumar, Jacob Joseph Kaddakkarappally Kuldeep Singh, Thanasekar Chellappan . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tsu, Naomi) Modified text on 4/19/20 (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017 2649 ORDER granting 2645 Motion to Dismiss Burnett Defendants. FURTHER ORDERED that all claims asserted by th Plaintiffs against the Burnett Defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudice, withthe parties to bear their own resp costs. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/18/2017. (clc) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017 2650 Order granting 2647 Motion for Leave to File Document. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan 4/18/2017. (clc) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/18/2017 2651 Stipulated Judgment as to the Dewan Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (clc) (Entered: 04/18/2017)

04/26/2017 2652 ORDER granting 2648 Partial Motion to Dismiss as to the Dewan Defendants. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/26/2017. (clc) (Entered: 04/26/2017)

08/01/2017 2657 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Disbursement of Funds by Thanasekar Chellappan, Kurian David, Jacob Jose Kaddakkarappally, Maruganantham Kandhasamy, Dhananjaya Kechuru, Hemant Khuttan, Krishan Kumar, Andrew Padaveettiyl, Kuldeep Singh, Sony Vasudevan Sulekha, Palanyandi Thangamani, Sabulal Vijayan. (Attachments: # Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/02/2017 2658 ORDER granting 2657 Motion for Disbursement of Funds to Southern Poverty Law Center in the amount of $ 1,00 Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 8/2/2017. (cc: Financial Unit)(clc) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

09/14/2017 2661 Notice of disposal of exhibits. Signed by clerk. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit list)(cbn) (Entered: 09/14/2017)

10/12/2017 2662 RECORD OF DISPOSAL OF EXHIBITS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List) (bwn) (Entered: 10/12/2017)

08/02/2018 2665 EXPARTE/CONSENT Consent MOTION for Extension of the Period to Reopen Proceedings by Plaintiffs, Sachin and Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Werner, Daniel) Modified on 8/2/2018 to edit (bwn). (Entered: 08/02/2018)

08/02/2018 2666 ORDER granting 2665 Motion for Extension of the Period to Reopen Proceedings. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Entered: 08/02/2018)