Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 76 PageID #: 1

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

SATHEESH KANNAN MARIMUTHU, BALAMURUGAN MARIMUTHU, MURUGANANDAM ARUMUGAM, MURALIDHARAN ARUMUGAM, SATYANARAYANA ELLAPU, MOORTHY NADHAMUNI, RAJENDRAN SAPPANI, RAJENDRAN SUBRAMANI, VENKATA SATYA SIVAGI RAO TALABATHULLA, and SAMMANASUNATHAN SILUVAIMUTHU,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, G.P., 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., GLOBAL RESOURCES, INC., SACHIN DEWAN, and DEWAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. (a/k/a MEDTECH CONSULTANTS).
Defendants.

) ) ) ) Civ. No. 1:13-cv-499 ) ) COMPLAINT AND JURY ) DEMAND ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a hum an trafficking case brought by Indian workers who were trafficked

into the United States through the governm ent’s H-2B guest worker program . Plaintiffs were

trafficked to the state of Texas in order to provide labor and services to Signal International, Inc.,

Signal International, LLC, Signal In ternational Texas, G.P., and Si gnal International Texas, L.P.

(collectively, “Signal”). Def endants recruited Plaintiffs for positions as pipefitters and welders

with Signal using false promises of assistance in applying for and obtaining permanent residence

in the United States. Defendants then bilked Plai ntiffs out of tens of thousands of dollars in

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 2 of 76 PageID #: 2

“recruitment fees” (for which Plai ntiffs assumed massive debt), traf ficked them into the United

States, f orced them to live in squalid condition s in a gated, guarded, is olated labor cam p, and

required them to pay exorbitant sums for the “pri vilege” of living in these repulsive conditions.

If Plaintiffs complained, they were threatened with adverse immigrati on and employment action

and the resulting prospect of financial ruin.

2. Plaintiffs are all form er employees of Si gnal’s Orange, Texas f acility. Plaintiffs

bring this action to recover for the unlawful and fraudulent conduct of Signal and its agents:

Malvern C. Burnett; the Law Off ices of Malver n C. Burnett, A.P.C.; Gulf Coast I mmigration

Law Center, LLC; Sachin Dewan; Dewan Consu Resources, Inc. (the “Agents”).1

ltant Pvt. Ltd.; Michael Pol; and Global

3. Signal is a Gulf Coast-based marine and fabrication company. Faced with a labor

shortage and significant volum e of work in the wake of Hurrican e Katrina, S ignal sought to

recruit s everal hund red Indian wo rkers for p ositions as welders and pipefitters in Signal’s

facilities in Orange, Texas and Pascagoula, Mississippi.

4. Signal re tained the Agents to as sist in the re cruitment process. Sp ecifically,

Signal retained Michael Pol and his com pany Global Resources, Inc. ( collectively referred to as

“Pol” unless a distinction is drawn), a labor r ecruitment firm based in Mississ ippi; attorne y

Malvern C. Burnett and his law firm s, the Law Offices o f Malvern C. Burnett an d Gulf Coast

Immigration Law Center, LLC (collectively ref erred to as “Burnett” unl ess a dis tinction is

1

On June 13, 2013, Michael Po l filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Case No. 13- 51168-KMG).

Due to the automatic ba nkruptcy stay, Michael Pol has not been included as a defenda nt

in this action.

- 2 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 3 of 76 PageID #: 3

drawn); and Sachin Dewan and his com pany, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (c ollectively referred

to as “Dewan” unless a distin ction is drawn), a labor rec ruitment f irm in India. Signal also

executed a power of attorney authorizing Dewan Consultants to recruit for Signal abroad.

5. To minimize cost to Signal, Defendants and Pol designed a schem e in which the

workers would pay for their own recruitm ent, immigration processing, and travel, which was

memorialized in the April 18, 2006 Skilled Wo rker Agreem ent between Signal and Global.

Under this schem e, any expenses and fees not paid up front by the workers would be paid by

Global. Global, in turn, would deduct amounts from the workers’ wages in order to recoup those

expenses and fees directly from the workers. Signal, however, would pay nothing.

6. By at least m id-2006, the Agents and, upon inform

ation and belief,

representatives of Signal began tr aveling to In dia to rec ruit work ers, including Plaintiffs. In

newspaper advertisem ents and in-person m eetings, Defendants and Pol prom ised to provide

stable employment and assist Pl aintiffs and other workers in applying for and obtaining a green

card for perm anent residence in th e United S tates. In ex change, Plaintiffs and other workers

were required to pay for “recruitm ent fees” to the Agents—ranging anywhere from $10,000 to

$25,000. Defendants an d Pol further rep resented that Plaintiffs’ families would be able to jo in

them in the United States.

7. To alleviate any concerns about the pot ential living conditions in the United

States, Defendants and Pol repres ented during in-person m eetings that the liv ing conditions

would be com parable to those some of the Plai ntiffs described experiencing in Singapore and

Dubai—which included, for example, a shar

ed two-bedroom a partment, quality food,

transportation to and from the job site, and one trip back to India per year.

- 3 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 4 of 76 PageID #: 4

8. Because Signal’s need for workers was immediate, Defendants and Pol told

Plaintiffs they would first ac quire tem porary work visas (H-2 B) because the visas could be

obtained faster than green cards, but that De fendants would also apply for green cards on

Plaintiffs’ behalf.

9. Lured by D efendants’ f raudulent prom ises of legal and perm anent work-based

immigration to the United States f or themselves and their f amilies, Plaintiffs paid the exorbitant

recruiting fees to take advantage of the seem ingly promising opportunities, causing them selves

and their f amilies to in cur m assive debt. Inde ed, to cove r the re cruiting and immigra tion f ees

Plaintiffs often had to sell fam ily assets, take out loans secured by real property and jewelry,

borrow m oney with high interest rates, and otherwise incur life -altering debt. Plaintiffs

undertook such debt and paid th e recruiting and imm igration f ees in reasonable reliance on

Defendants’ promises. In further reliance on Defe ndants’ promises, some Plaintiffs relinquished

stable employment opportunities in Singapore and elsewhere.

10. Defendants, however, had no intention of making good on their promises to assist

Plaintiffs in applying for and obtaining perm anent residency. To be sure, Defendants did not

take—indeed, had no intention of taking—steps to assist Plainti ffs in applying for or obtaining

permanent residency. In fact, at the suggestion of its Agents, Signal repr esented to the United

States governm ent that it was employing the

Indian workers (incl uding Plaintiffs) only

temporarily and that they would be returned to I ndia “within the . . . year.” Moreover, internal

correspondence among Signal m anagement from Ma y 2006 reflects that “[a] ll [Signal is] doing

now is bringing the workers in under the H2B program.”

11. Defendants never inform ed Plaintiffs th at they had no intention of assisting

Plaintiffs in applying for or obtaining green cards. Nor did Defendants ever disclose to Plaintiffs

- 4 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 5 of 76 PageID #: 5
the representations they made to the United States government regarding the temporary nature of their em ployment and residence. Plaintiffs were sim ply unawa re that Defendants’ prom ises regarding employment and perm anent residency were false and re lied on the f alse promises to their detriment.
12. Upon arrival in the United States, Signal requ ired Plaintiffs to live in an isolated, Indian-only labor cam p located outside of Orange , Texas (the “Texas Labor Cam p”). Contrary to Defendants’ representations regarding living conditions, the conditions at the T exas Labor Camp were horrid. Plaintiffs were forced to live in cramped trailers—containing up to 24 men— with little to no priva cy. The tr ailers we re so crowded som e Plaintiffs had to sleep on their luggage. T he trailers had insufficient bathroom f acilities (one or two toile ts) that were rarely cleaned, which created n ot only an awful sm ell but also unsanitary liv ing conditions. Food was available only at certain hours an d was often rotten. As a res ult of the conditions, several of the residents became sick. The cam p was also fenced, gated, and guarded, such that Plaintif fs felt they were being imprisoned.
13. As with the “recru itment fees,” th e cost to live at the T exas Labor Cam p was borne by Plaintiffs. Indeed, Signal charged P laintiffs m ightily for the “right” to endure the horrible conditions at the cam p—deducting $35 pe r day seven days a week ($1,050 per m onth) out of the Plaintiffs’ pre-tax earnings. If work ers asked to live of f-site, Signal inf ormed them that it would still deduct $1,050 per m onth from their inco me, effectively prohibiting workers from seeking more humane and sanitary conditions.
14. Significantly, non-Indian workers w ere not placed in guarded labor camps, were not subjected to squalid living conditions, and di d not have exorbitant room and board fees deducted from their pre-tax earnings.
- 5 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 6 of 76 PageID #: 6
15. The Indian workers at the Texas Labor Camp, including Plaintiffs, were also subjected to different, less favorable em ployment conditions than non-Indians. Upon information and belief, Indian workers were assi gned projects that were more difficult and m ore dangerous than those assigned to non-Indian workers, received te rms and conditions of employment that were different from and less favorable than non-Indian em ployees, and were subjected to offensive anti-Indian diatribe and repeated threats of deportation.
16. To ensure an addition al elem ent of c ontrol over Plaintiffs and other Indian workers, Signal required Plaintiffs and othe r Indian workers to set up direct deposit bank accounts to which Sig nal m aintained access. These acco unts effectively perm itted Signal to control workers’ ab ility to leav e th e facility by threatening to cut off access to th e accounts. Upon inform ation and belief, Signal did exactly that to an Indian worker who had fled the Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.
17. Faced with crushing debt and fearful of the possibility of deportation by Signal should they com plain, Plaintiffs fe lt com pelled to continue working for Signal despite the dreadful conditions at the Texas L abor Cam p, th e extortionate room a nd board f ees, and the discriminatory employment conditions. Simply put, Plaintiffs felt that they had no other option.
18. The compulsion Plaintiffs felt to continue working at Signal only increased when they learned about the events that transpired at the Pascagoula, Mississippi facility on March 9, 2007. Upset that workers were com plaining about conditions at th e facility, S ignal decided to terminate and forcibly send five of t he more vocal Indian w orkers back to India. Signal locked the gate at the Pascagoula facility, preventing workers from leaving, rounded up and detained the vocal workers, and inform ed them that they we re being deported. One of these workers was so distraught over the threat of returning to I ndia without paying the debt he incurred over the
- 6 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 7 of 76 PageID #: 7
recruitment f ees that he attem pted to comm it suicide. W hen news of the events and the attempted s uicide trave led to th e Texas Labo r Ca mp, Plaintiffs becam e even more afra id to complain about the con ditions they had been subj ect to. Understandably, Plaintiffs feared that they would be returned to India and/or physically harmed if they did so.
19. Ultimately, less th an a year- and-a-half after co ming to the Texas Lab or Camp, Plaintiffs were either term inated or told they were being sent to work at the Pascagoula, Mississippi facility for lower wages. Faced with the latter prospect, some Plaintiffs escaped and fled the Texas Labor Camp.
20. At no point did Defendants apply for or assist Plaintiffs in obtaining perm anent residency for them selves or their fa milies. At no point did Defendant s refund the tens of thousands of dollars in recrui tment and imm igration fees Plai ntiffs paid in reliance on Defendants’ false promises. And at no point did Defenda nts compensate or offer to com pensate Plaintiffs for the conditions they were forced to endure at the Texas Labor Cam p. Indeed, at no point did they even offer an apology. Instead , Defendants m aintain that how they treated Plaintiffs and the other Indian workers was both lawful and moral. This mistaken viewpoint was most recen tly espoused by Signal’s CEO in a pre ss release, brazenly declaring that Signal “treated [th e Indian wo rkers] with dignity a nd respect jus t as we treat each and ev ery Signal employee.”
21. Signal’s self-delusion aside, Plaintiffs were victim s of reprehensible conduct. Plaintiffs assert claim s arising from violations of their rights under the Victim s of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (“TVPA”), the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981), the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1985), and claims for damages arising from fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.
- 7 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 8 of 76 PageID #: 8
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 22. This Court has jurisdic tion over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) (civil trafficking), and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights). 23. 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 claim s arise out of the sam e nucl eus of facts that support the federal claims. 24. Additionally, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Si gnal entities pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k) an d Texas Code § 17.042, becau se th ey are registered to do business in Texas, maintain a continuing business presence in the state, operated the Orange, Texas facility and Texas Labor Camp where the Plaintiffs worked and resided and where Signal engaged in wrongful conduct, and a substantial portion of the communications, transactions, events, or omissions underlying Plaintiffs’ claim s occurred ei ther in Texas o r to secure labor for Signal’s Orange, Texas facility. 25. This Court also has personal jurisdicti on over the other Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) and Texas Code § 17.042, because th ey recruited Plaintiffs for e mployment at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility, had substantial business c ontacts with Texas, and a substantia l portion of the comm unications, transactions, even ts, or om issions underlying Plaintiffs’ claims either occurred in Texas or occurred to secure labor for Signal’s Orange, Texas facility. 26. Venue is appropriate in th e Eastern District of Te xas under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as Defendants engaged in hum an tra fficking, violations of Plai ntiffs’ ci vil ri ghts, fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract in this judicial district.
PARTIES
- 8 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 9 of 76 PageID #: 9
Plaintiffs 27. Plaintiffs are from India and are o f I ndian alienage, race and ethn icity. The Plaintiffs were all recruited by Defendants in or about 2006 to work at Signal’s T exas Labor Camp. Each of the Plaintiffs paid between $15,000 - $25,000 in “recruitment fees” to the Agents in the belief that Defendants w ould assist them in obtaining green cards for Pl aintiffs and t heir families. 28. Plaintiff Satheesh Kannan Marim uthu wa s recruited by Defendants beginning in or around December 2006 as a fitter. He arrived in the United States o n or around February 15, 2007. 29. Plaintiff Balam urugan Marim uthu was recr uited by Defendants beginning in or around August 2006 as a fitter. He arrived in the United States on or around December 13, 2006. 30. Plaintiff Muruganandam Arumugam was recruited by Defendants beginning in or around May 2006 as a welder. He arrived in the United States on or around February 1, 2007. 31. Plaintiff Muralidharan Arum ugam was recruited by Defe ndants beginning in or around March 2006 as a fitter an d welder. He arrived in the United States o n or aroun d December 11, 2006. 32. Plaintiff Satyanarayan a Ellapu was r ecruited by Defenda nts beginning in or around June 2006 as a welder. He arrived in the United States on or around December 13, 2006. 33. Plaintiff Moorthy Nadhamuni was recruited by Defendants beginning in or around November 2006 as a fitter. He arrived in the United States on or around February 15, 2007. 34. Plaintiff Rajendran Sappani was recru ited by Defendants beginning in or around November 2006 as a fitter. He arrived in the United States on or around December 18, 2006.
- 9 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 10 of 76 PageID #: 10
35. Plaintiff Rajendran Sub ramani was r ecruited by Defenda nts beginning in or around late 2006 as a welder and f itter. He arrived in the Unite d States on or around February 15, 2007.
36. Plaintiff Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Ta labathulla was recruited by D efendants beginning in or around May 2006 as a welder. He arrived in the United States in or around December 2006.
37. Plaintiff Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu was recruited by Signal beginning in or around November 2006 as a welder. He arrived in the United Stat es in or around Decem ber 14, 2006.
Defendants 38. Signal operates a m arine and fabrication business in the G ulf Coast re gion that includes offshore drilling rig overhaul, repair, upgrade, and conversion. 39. Upon inform ation and belief, Defendants Signal Internationa l, LLC and Signal International, Inc. are corporat ions organized under the laws of Delaware and have facilities located in Orange, Texas, in addition to other locations in the Gulf Coast region. 40. Upon inform ation and belief, Defendant S ignal Internat ional Texas, G.P. is a general partnership organized under the laws of Texas and employed the labor for Signal International, LLC and Signal International, Inc. at the Texas Labor Camp. 41. Upon inform ation and belief, Defendant Si gnal Interna tional Texas, L.P. is a limited partnership of S ignal International, LLC and Signal Intern ational Texas, G.P. organize d under the laws of Texas.
- 10 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 11 of 76 PageID #: 11
42. Upon inform ation and belief, all polic ies, money for payroll, corporate governance, and legal advice for Defendant Signal International Texas, G.P. was provided by Signal International, LLC.
43. Upon inform ation and belief, all polic ies, money for payroll, corporate governance, and legal advice for Defendant Signa l International Texas, L.P. was provided by Signal International, LLC.
44. Upon information and belief, Defendant Si gnal does not distinguish the roles of the Signal entities, including but not limited to, which entity paid Plaintiffs.
45. Upon inform ation and belief, Defendant Signal International, LLC executed contracts relevant to this Complaint in the name of Signal International, Inc.
46. Upon and information and belief, Signal did not document which entity employed Plaintiffs.
47. Upon inform ation and belief, Defendant S ignal International, Inc. is the sole member of Defendant Signal International, LLC.
48. Upon inform ation and belief, Defendant Signal Internationa l, LLC and Signal International, Inc. acted as agents and/or alter egos of Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal International Texas, L.P. at all times relevant to the claims set forth herein. At all relevant times, Defendant Signal International, Inc. had knowledge of and consented to the actions of De fendant Signal International, LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal International Texas, L.P.
49. Defendant Global Resources, Inc. (“Global”) is a Mississippi corporation engaged in the busin ess of rec ruiting skilled f oreign wo rkers to wo rk in the U nited S tates, includ ing Texas. Upon inform ation and belief, Michael Pol was the sole corporate officer of Gl obal at all relevant times and en tered into contracts for Global with the other Defenda nts and Plaintiffs in
- 11 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 12 of 76 PageID #: 12
connection with providing labor for the Texas Labor Camp. Through Michael Pol, Global worked to recruit workers for Signal’s Orange, Texas facility.
50. Defendant Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k /a Medtech Consultants) is a priv ate limited liability company organized under th e laws of India. Dewan Consultan ts has substantial business contacts with Orange, Te xas and recruited Indian worker s, including Plaintiffs, for employment in Texas. Defendant Sachin Dewan is the Director of Dewan Consultants and has had substantial business contacts with Orange, Texas, including recruiting Indian w orkers for employment in Orange, Texas. At all relevant times, Sachin Dewan acte d as the agent or a lter ego of Dewan Consultants.
51. Defendant Malvern C. Burnett is an atto rney who practices in the Gulf Coast region and resides in N ew Orlean s, Louisiana. He perform ed le gal work assoc iated with th e Plaintiffs’ employment in Orange, Texas.
52. Defendant Law Offices of Malvern C. Burn ett, A.P.C. (“Burnett Law Of fices”) is a professional law corporati on organized under Louisiana law. Upon infor mation and belief, Malvern C. Burnett is the registered agent, sole member and/or corporate officer of Burnett Law Offices.
53. Defendant Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC (“Gulf Coast Immigration”) is a Louisiana lim ited liability corporation. Upon inform ation and belief, Malvern C. Burnett is the registered agent, sole member and/or corporate officer of Gulf Coast Immigration.
54. Upon information and belief, Defendants Bu rnett, Burnett Law Offices, and Gulf Coast Imm igration cons tituted a joint venture a nd/or were alte r egos of each other in that all entities have the sam e corporate m ailing address, intermingle business assets, do n ot operate at
- 12 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 13 of 76 PageID #: 13
arms’ length, and Burnett is the registered agent and sole m ember and/or corpo rate officer for Burnett Law Offices and Gulf Coast Immigration.
55. At all relevant tim es, Burnett, Dewan, and Pol acted as agents and/or representatives of Signal. Burn ett, Dewan, and Pol were acting wi thin the course and scope of their agency at all relevant tim es and Signal had full knowledge of their acts and consented, permitted, a uthorized a nd ratif ied, express ly a nd/or im pliedly, the a cts perf ormed by Burnett, Dewan and Pol as alleged in this complaint.
56. At all relevant tim es, the Defendants were engaged in a joint venture with each other to recruit Plaintiffs, along with other Indi an workers, to work for Signal at the Orange, Texas facility. The Defendants entered into various written and oral agreements evidencing their agreement to accomplish such recruitment and each Defendant acted within the course and scope of the ventu re and those agreem ents. Defendant s each had full knowled ge of the actions of the other Def endants se t f orth in th is C omplaint an d consented, perm itted, author ized a nd ratif ied, either expressly or impliedly the actions of the other Defendants.
SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS Signal Arranged for Dewan, Burnett, and Pol to Bring Temporary Workers
to the United States 57. The destruction caused by Hurrican e Katrina presented Signal with the potential to take on lucrative new work fixing dam aged oil rigs, ships, and other machine platform s. As a result of the hurricane, however, som e of Signal’ s workforce had left the Gulf Coast area, and Signal was in need of additional laborers—particularly skilled fitters and welders. 58. In early 2006, Pol approached Signal about providing additional workers for their operations. He inf ormed them that he could p rovide sk illed f itters and welders f rom India to work for Signal at no cost to Signal.
- 13 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 14 of 76 PageID #: 14
59. Pol explained to Signal that he would work with Burnett and Dewan to recruit the workers and obtain the appropriate immigration status for such workers , but that th e workers, including Plaintiffs, would pay fo r all costs an d fees asso ciated with the rec ruitment pro cess, immigration processing, and travel to the Un ited S tates. Signal w ould pay the workers, including Plaintiffs, between $14 - $18/hour, depending on each worker’s skill level.
60. Signal and Global ex ecuted a S killed W orker Recruitm ent Agreem ent (the “Recruitment Agreement”) on or about April 18, 2006, which set forth certain terms for Michael Pol and Global to recruit foreign skilled worker s for e mployment at Signal “under the ‘H-2B’ temporary program and/or the ‘perm anent resi dence’ p rocess.” The Recruitm ent Agreem ent required Global to be responsible f or delivering the workers “at no cost to Si gnal”, including paying for all costs associated w ith recruitment, transportation, and entry into the United States by the foreign workers. The co sts incurred by Po l and Global were to be paid by the foreign workers, including Plaintiffs.
61. Dewan and Signal entered into a power of attorney on or about June 19, 2006, which permitted Dewan to act as Sig nal’s “representative in India to facilitate the recruitment of skilled workers to the U nited States of America” for e mployment with Signal. This power of attorney authorized Dewan to advertise, conduct seminars, conduct skills tests and sign necessary legal documentation related to the recruitment of skilled workers to work in the United States for Signal.
62. In approxim ately m id- to late-2006, Si gnal entered into an attorney-client relationship with Burnett with respect to legal issues related to Signal’s need for foreign workers. Upon infor mation and belief, Signal and Burnett en tered into a written retainer agreem ent. Under the retainer agreement, however, Signal would not be respons ible for any legal fees owed
- 14 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 15 of 76 PageID #: 15
to Burnett, but instead Burnett would receive compensation out of the “recruitment fees” paid by the foreign workers, including Plaintiffs.
The Agents Recruited Plaintiffs and Other Indian Workers for Signal 63. Acting as Signal’s recruiting agents for the purposes of facilitating the recruitment of Indian workers for em ployment at Signal, Pol and Dewan pl aced advertisem ents in newspapers throughout India and the United Arab Emirates in the spring, summ er, and fall of 2006 offering opportunities for welders and fitters to immigrate permanently to the United States under the auspices of Signal, a pur ported leading marine and fabrication company in Mississippi and Texas. 64. Upon inform ation and belief, Plaintiffs we re targeted for recruitm ent based on their race and/or national origin. 65. Among other things, the advertisem ents and recru iting efforts prom ised “permanent lif etime settlem ent in USA f or self and f amilies,” “perm anent res idency” in the United States, and/or “green cards.” Upon in formation and belief, Pol and Dewan undertook these advertisem ents and other recruiting efforts on behalf of, at the direction of, and/or in coordination with Signal and Burnett. 66. Signal authorized Pol, D ewan, and B urnett to act as their agents for the p urposes of recruiting and providing Indian w elders and f itters to f ill anticipated H-2B guest worker job s at Signal’s Orange, Texas operations. 67. Upon inform ation and belief, Signal fu rther authorized Pol and Dewan to represent that Signal woul d agree to sponsor bona fide green ca rd applications fo r the Plaintiffs and obtain at least two H-2B visa extensions on behalf of Plaintiffs to allow them to rem ain in the United States working for Signal while their green card applications were being processed.
- 15 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 16 of 76 PageID #: 16
68. Upon information and belief, Signal author ized these representations even though it knew or had reason to know that such visa extensions and green card applications would not be bona fide, valid, or lawful unde r 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 workers, including the Plaintiffs.
69. At the latest, Signal learned from the firs t Indian workers to arrive at Signal’s facilities in Texas and Mississipp i—workers who arrived well in advance of Plaintiffs—that those workers had paid exorbitant recruitm ent fees to the Agents, and had m ade those payments on the basis of prom ises of assistance in a pplying for and obtaining green cards which Signal knew was false. Signal nonetheless continued to facilitate the transpo rtation of hundreds m ore Indian workers to Signal worksites in Texas a nd Mississippi, including Plaintiffs, because it was in Signal’s financial interest to do so.
Plaintiffs Incurred Substantial Debt to Pay the Agents’ “Recruitment Fees” 70. In response to the advertisem ents posted by Pol and Dewan, Plaintiffs communicated with Pol and Dewan in the spri ng, summer, and fall of 2006 via telephone, and attended in-person meetings with P ol, Dewan, and Burnett. During tho se meetings, the Agents informed Pl aintiffs that the job opportunities that had been advertised were with Signal. In addition, the Agents, acting on Signal’s behalf, informed Plaintiffs of the opportunity to work for Signal on H-2B visas which would lead to permanent resident (green card) status. 71. Specifically, the Agents prom ised recruits, including Plaintiffs, that Signal would sponsor Plaintiffs’ green card applications and extend their H-2B visas multiple times to enable Plaintiffs to work in the United States while their green card applications were pending. In
- 16 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 17 of 76 PageID #: 17
exchange, each Plaintiff would have to pay fees totaling as much as 8 lakh rupees (approximately $18,000) in a series of approximately three installments.
72. At the tim e Plaintif fs made their paym ents, one rupee was worth approxim ately $0.0225, and one lakh (100,000 rupees) was worth approximately $2,250.
73. The Agents further informed recruits, including Plaintiffs, that they would be able to obtain legal permanent residence for their spouses and children.
74. In addition, during the telephone comm unications, at recruitm ent m eetings, and through written documents, the Agents (includi ng through their employees) represented to Plaintiffs that Defendant Si gnal would provide lawful, st able, and am ple em ployment opportunities, that working under an H-2B visa fo r Signal was not inconsistent with applying for permanent immigration status sponsored by Signal , and that Signal would obtain for Plaintiffs work-authorized green cards enabling the Plainti ffs to perm anently and legally reside in the United States with their families.
75. In such co mmunications with Pla intiffs, the Agents f urther prom ised to ac t diligently and do everything neces sary to en sure that Plaintiffs obtain g reen cards within 18-2 4 months of initiating the green card process.
76. Upon information and belief, em ployees of Signal attended som e of the meetings and testing sessions with potential w orkers in India. Further, upon inform ation and belief, prior to the meetings and testing sessions Signal and th e Agents conferred regarding the logistics and substantive content of the meetings and testing sessions.
77. In reasonab le reliance on the Agent’s prom ises regard ing green cards and employment opportunities in the U nited States, Plaintiffs undertook cons iderable personal and familial sa crifices, including the mortgaging and/or s ale of personal prope rty and othe r
- 17 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 18 of 76 PageID #: 18
incurrence of debt, in order to am ass the funds n ecessary to initiate the green card p rocess with Defendant Signal. F or exam ple, Plaint iff Satheesh K annan Marimuthu, Balam urugan Marimuthu, and Rajendran Sappani sold their wive s’ jewelry and/or mortgaged their fam ilies’ homes to cover the recruitm ent fees. In a ddition, several Plaintiffs relinquished stable employment in reliance on the Agent’s representations.
78. Reasonably relying on these and other prom ises m ade to them regarding green cards and work opportunities in the United States, Plaintiffs signe d green card contracts with the Agents at v arious points from m id-2006 to earl y 2007 and paid the ex orbitant recruiting fees required by the contracts.
79. These contracts and other docum ents provi ded by the Agents prom ised that (1) Plaintiffs would work under a “p ermanent resident (green card) program ,” and (2) Plaintiffs would promptly receive a refund of all or nearly all of their paym ents if Defendants did not succeed in securing green cards for Plaintiffs.
80. The Agents knew or should have known, however, that they would not refund Plaintiffs’ money as promised in the contracts and other documents.
81. The Agents induced Plaintiffs to enter into the green card contracts without intent to diligently pursue Plaintiffs’ applications a nd without any basis whatso ever for representing that Signal had lawful long-te rm employm ent opportunities to pr ovide Plaintiffs; that Signal could legally apply for num erous H-2B visa extensions to m aintain Plaintif fs’ presence in th e 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 the 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.
- 18 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 19 of 76 PageID #: 19
82. Plaintiffs would not have signed the green card contracts or paid the extraordinary recruitment fees charg ed by the Agents had they kno wn that Defendants’ p romises an d representations were false and th at Defendants had faile d to di sclose ma terial fa cts c oncerning the nature and terms and conditions of the immigration and work opportunities offered.
Defendants Arranged for H-2B Visas 83. On or about July 20, 2006, and August 17, 2006, the United States Department of Labor approved Signal’s labor cer tification applications for 590 H-2B workers for the period of October 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007. 84. In approving these applications, the United States Department of Labor relied on the accuracy of the applications’ stated 10-month period of need. 85. Upon inform ation and belief, the Departm ent of Labor’s internal guidelines prohibit it from granting labor certification ap plications w ithout rely ing on the applications’ statement of need. 86. In late August and early Septem ber 2006, the United S tates Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) approved Signal’s H-2B visa petitions for 590 H-2B workers for the period of October 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007. 87. In approv ing these v isa petition s, the USCIS relied on the accuracy of the petitions’ stated 10-m onth period of labor need and the represen tation that Signa l’s ne ed wa s based on a one-time, peak-load, temporary demand. Indeed, according to regulation, the USCI S must rely o n the stated period of the petitioner’s labor need. See 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(6)(ii)(B) (2006). 88. Defendants knew that the stated period of need in Signal’s applications f or labor certifications and for H-2B visas were incons istent with Signal’s prom ises of perm anent
- 19 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 20 of 76 PageID #: 20
residency to Plaintiffs and its actual projecte d labor need and, therefor e, Defendants knew these statements to the government were false.
89. The Agents used the H-2B visas, obtained from the federal governm ent on the basis of false statements by Signal and Burnett, to elicit payments from Plaintiffs.
Defendants Prepared to Bring Plaintiffs and Other Indian Workers to the United States
90. At various tim es during the spring, su mmer, and fall of 2006, Signal employees and certain of the Agents traveled to various locations in India and the United Arab Emirates to test Plaintiffs’ welding and pipefitting skills in anticipation of employing Plaintiffs in the United States.
91. Plaintiffs paid to travel to the cities where these tests were held. 92. Plaintiffs also paid admission fees in order to take these tests. 93. Plaintiffs attended and passe d thes e tests, which were overseen and graded by Signal and/or Dewan’s agents, employees, and/or representatives. 94. Upon information and belief, prior to atte nding these testing sessions the Agents and Signal conferred regarding the logistics and substantive content of the testing sessions. 95. After USCIS visa approval, Plaintiffs made necessary preparations 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 and the Agents for m andatory H-2B visa and consular processi ng fees; attending H-2B visa in terviews; and, paying the Agents for travel arrangements. 96. In orde r to secure H-2 B visas to work for Signal, Pla intiffs attended inte rviews with United States consular offices in Indian cities.
- 20 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 21 of 76 PageID #: 21
97. To attend these consular interviews, Plainti ffs had to 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).
98. The Agents required that Plai ntiffs meet with Global, Pol, and/or Burnett in these cities before attending their consular interviews.
99. Upon information and belief, prior to these meetings, the Agents conferred among themselves and with Signal reg arding the top ics to be discussed and instru ctions to be given to Plaintiffs at these meetings.
100. At the pre -interview meetings, the Agents ensu red that Plaintiffs were up-to-da te on paying the recruitment fee installments required by their green card contracts.
101. Defendants further required that Plaint iffs pay an additional fee of 35,000 to 45,000 rupees ($787 to $1,012) for H-2B visa processing.
102. The Agents required Plaintif fs to sign docum ents perm itting Dewan to receive their visa-stamped passports from the consular offices on Plaintiffs’ behalf.
103. The Agents also coached Plaintiffs on what to say during consular interviews. 104. The Agents told P laintiffs that if they did no t f ollow thes e ins tructions at the ir interviews, Plaintiffs would not receive their visas and would forfeit all of the m oney they had already paid to Defendants, in addition to losi ng the opportunity to permanently immigrate to the United States. 105. During Plaintiffs’ consular interviews, th e consular official s took Plaintiffs’ passports from them. 106. Once Plaintiffs’ visas w ere approved, consul ar officials s ent th e passpo rts, with H-2B visas affixed, directly to Dewan.
- 21 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 22 of 76 PageID #: 22
107. After Plaintiffs’ visas w ere approved, the Agents m ade travel arrang ements for Plaintiffs’ departures to the United States.
108. Before Plaintiffs could leav e for the Un ited States, however, Plain tiffs were required to attend final m eetings in Dewan’s office. Such m eetings typically took place m ere hours before Plaintiffs’ scheduled departures to the United States, when Dewan’s office was full of other Indian workers anxiously awaiting their departure to the United States.
109. At these meetings, Pol a nd Dewan c ollected final installment payments required by Plaintiffs’ green card contracts.
110. Pol and Dewan also required Plaintiffs—m ost of whom do not or did not at the time proficiently read or speak English—to sign English-language docum ents with little or no time for review. They did not allow Plaintiffs to keep a copy of the docum ents. Pol and Dewan or their staff de manded that P laintiffs quickly sign the m andatory docum ents to avoid m issing the flights to the United States and forfeiting the fees Plaintiffs had paid.
111. Plaintiffs had no reasonable opportunity to review, negotiate, or m ake any changes to the docum ents presented to them . Even when Plaintiffs asked Defendants what the documents said, Defendants refused to interpret or tell Plaintiffs what the documents said.
112. Dewan also refused to provide receipts to Plaintiffs who requested evidence of the amounts paid prior to Plaintiffs’ travel to the United States.
113. Pol and Dewan refused to return Plai ntiffs’ passports—which had been in Defendant Dewan’s possession since after Plain tiffs’ H-2B vi sas were approved by consular officials—until Plaintiffs had paid the final installments and signed the mandatory paperwork.
- 22 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 23 of 76 PageID #: 23
114. Without possession of their passports, and within this anxious and rushed atmosphere, Plaintiffs had no reasonable opport unity to review, negotiate, and/or m ake any changes to the documents presented to them.
115. On occasio ns when workers failed to presen t sufficient funds to pay the final installment required by the green ca rd contracts, Dewan and his asso ciates threatened to destroy and/or deface the workers’ passports. Such thr eats were made in the pres ence of other workers, causing the other work ers to reas onably be lieve that they h ad no choice but to pay the final installments in full.
116. Because of the Dewan and Pol’s coerciv e beh avior du ring these p re-departure meetings, and Plaintiffs’ extraordinary and incr easing levels of debt, Plaintiffs reasonably believed that they had no choice but to m ake the payments required by the Agents and to travel to the United States to work for Signal.
117. Plaintiffs did not rece ive their pas sports f rom the Agents until Plain tiffs had fulfilled all of Defendants’ requirements.
118. At various times from late October 2006 to April 2007, Plaintiffs and other Indian workers traveled from Mumbai to the United States on tickets arranged by Pol and Dewan.
119. Signal collected Plaintiffs at the Houston airport upon their arrival and transported them immediately to the Texas Labor Camp.
120. Signal sent approximately 300 workers to its Pascagoula, Mississippi facility (the “Mississippi Labor Camp”), and approximately 290 workers were sent to the Texas Labor Camp upon arrival in the United States.
121. Plaintiffs had no choice but to use th e Agents to secure em ployment wit h Defendant Signal. Managem ent personnel at Si gnal prohibited Indian workers from securing
- 23 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 24 of 76 PageID #: 24
employment at Signal’s operations either through another recru iter or by bypassing recruiters altogether and applying directly with Signal.
Malvern Burnett Purported to be Plaintiffs’ Attorney 122. At all re levant tim es, Burnett ha d an attorn ey-client re lationship with each Plaintiff for purposes of immigration issues and Plaintiffs’ work for Signal. 123. Burnett prepared the im migration forms required for Plaintiffs to apply for H-2B status. In those forms, Burnett represented to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, under penalty of perjury, that the Plai ntiffs would stay in the Unite d States only temporarily, returning to India within the yea r. At the sa me time Burnett was su bmitting those forms, he was telling workers, including Plaintiffs, that they would be elig ible f or perm anent residency, and that he would assist them in applying for green cards. Fu rther, Burnett was aware of the representations Pol and Dewan had made to Indian workers, including Plaintiffs, regarding receiving green cards in connection with employment at Signal. 124. Burnett con cealed h is true loyalties fr om Plaintiffs. By m id-2006, Burnett had entered into an attorney-client relationship with Signal for the broad purp ose of applying for and obtaining lawful status for Indi an workers to com e to the Un ited States. In 2007, Signal and Burnett en tered in to a Retaine r Agreem ent m emorializing the a rrangement—namely, that Burnett would represent Signal at zero cost becau se the fees for his work were to be p aid by the Indian workers, including Plaintiffs. 125. Burnett di d not di sclose hi s a ttorney-client relationship or the paym ent arrangement with Signal to the Indian workers, including Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not waive any conflict of interest caused by Burnett’s relationship with Signal.
- 24 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 25 of 76 PageID #: 25
126. Burnett a lso entered into an attorn ey-client relationsh ip with Dewan and Pol, starting no later than m id-2006. Bu rnett did not disclose these relationships to the Indian workers, including Plaintiffs. Plai ntiffs did not waive any conflicts of interest relating to this relationship.
127. Burnett also had a “Multilateral Business Agreement” with Dewan and Pol for the broad purpose of recruiting Indian workers to come to the United States. Burn ett d id not disclose th is agreem ent to the Ind ian workers, including Plaintiffs, nor did he receive their approval for it.
128. Burnett’s attitude toward his Ind ian clients was poignantly displayed in an em ail Burnett sent to Dewan a nd Pol on Decem ber 16, 2006, regarding a Signal worker and client of Burnett. The worker/client had stopped payment on a check to Burnett, and Burnett told Dewan and Pol to ensure that “the idiot” restores the payment and threatened to have the worker/client’s visa “m ysteriously” revoked if he did not pay. Later in the em ail, Burnett ref erred to all th e Indian workers, who were his clients, as “the idiots” and speculated about whether he should threaten them with “imm ediate deportation” in order to prevent them from stopping payment on future checks.
129. Despite repeated representations that Burnet t was Pl aintiff’s l awyer for immigration purposes, Plaintiffs were not generally allowed to speak or m eet with Burnett. For example, on occasion, Signal representatives in formed Plaintiff Satheesh Kannan Marim uthu that he could not m eet with Burnett because it would “violate company policy.” When Plaintiff Muruganandam Arumugam attempted to speak with Burnett, his calls went unreturned.
130. In a clear violation of his professional obligations, Burnett also forwarded e-mails he received from his Indian clients to Dewan without permission from his clients.
- 25 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 26 of 76 PageID #: 26
Signal Subjected Plaintiffs to Degrading and Discriminatory Conditions at the Texas Labor Camp
131. Signal assigned Plaintiffs to work at its facility in Orange, Texas, and reside at the Texas Labor Ca mp, a crowded “m an camp” consisting of trailer-like bunkhouses surrounded by barbed-wire fences and accessible only by a guarded entrance. When Plaintiffs Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Muruganandam Arumugam, and Muralidharan Arumugam first saw the Texas Labor Camp, they thought it was a prison.
Isolated Living Conditions 132. The Texas Labor Camp was located m iles away from shopping, p laces of worship, pu blic transpo rtation, or residen tial co mmunities. This re mote location was chosen purposefully by Signal to keep the P laintiffs and other foreign workers segregated from the rest of Orange, Texas. In fact, Signa l’s workers and management went so far as to refer to the Texas Labor Camp as a “reservation.” 133. The Texas Labor Camp gates were m onitored by security guards retained by Signal. Sig nal’s security guards required Plaintiffs to show em ployee identification badges and recorded the tim e when Plaintiffs entered and exited the Tex as Labor Ca mp. Signal’s security guards also searched Plaintiffs’ packages and bags when they entered the Texas Labor Camp. 134. The Indian workers were not perm itted to receive visitors in the Texas Labor Camp. 135. Signal did not require any of its non-Indian employees to live in the s egregated “man camps.”
Overcrowded and Unsanitary Bunkhouses
- 26 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 27 of 76 PageID #: 27
136. Signal packed up to 24 m en into each bunkhouse, in two-tiered bunk b eds. The bunkhouse was so congested that it wa s difficult for workers to m ove about or even to sit up in bed, and any semblance of privacy was impossible.
137. Each of the bunkhouses contained workers who worked both day and night shifts, so Plain tiffs had dif ficulty s leeping due to th e constant noise and the com ings and goings of workers from different shifts.
138. The bunkhouses contained insufficient toil ets and bathing facilities. Each bunkhouse contained only one or two toilets, so Plai ntiffs had to endure long lines, unsanitary conditions, and plumbing problems.
139. These conditions failed to m eet basic requirements of habitability and, not surprisingly, illness and disease were common.
Rotten Food 140. Food at the Texas Labor Ca mp was not readily available. Plaintiffs had to eat at Signal’s m ess halls, which were only open during limited hours. If the Indian workers arrived late for a meal, they were often denied food. 141. What food the Indian w orkers received wa s often rotten and cam e from kitchens that were n ot hygien ic. As a resu lt, the Indi an workers frequently becam e ill and som etimes required hospita lization. Plaintif f Rajendran Sappani, for exam ple, suffered fr om regular stomach ailments as a result of the poor food that required medicine to treat. 142. Further, Sig nal refused to accommodate re ligiously-based dietary restrictions. For example, Plaintiff Moorthy Madhamuni is a vegetarian by religion. He explained to Signal’s representatives the f act that his re ligion r equired him to eat vegetarian, but they refused to provide vegetarian food. Like wise, Plaintiff Murganandam Ar umugam was forced to choose
- 27 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 28 of 76 PageID #: 28
between eating food he was allerg ic to (lamb and goat), eating f ood which violated his religious beliefs (beef and pork), or going hungry.
Signal Charged Plaintiffs $1,050 per Month For These “Accommodations” 143. For the “privilege ” of living in thes e deplorable conditions, Signal charged the Indian workers, including Plaintiffs, $35 pe r day (approxim ately $1,050 per m onth). Signal failed to inform most or all of the Plaintiffs of these fees during the recruitment process. 144. From this amount, $21 was allocated towards rent, and $14 towards food. The fee was deducted from Plaintiffs’ paychecks automatically with no ability to opt out. 145. Some of the Indian workers com plained of the disgusting living conditions and requested to m ove out of the Texas Labor Cam p. Initially, Signal sim ply refused. Eventually, Signal told workers that if they tried to live outside the Texas Labor Camp, Signal would still deduct the $35 per-day labor cam p fees from their wages. Given their already substantial debts, Plaintiffs had no reasonable choice but to con tinue living in the Texas Labor Camp. Whil e Plaintiffs were forced to pay these exorbitant fees becaus e they had no reasonab le financial alternative, Signal m ade over $730,000 in profit from the Missi ssippi and Texas m an camps in just one year. 146. Upon information and belief, Signal charge d Plaintiffs’ room and board in order to recoup the cost of building the man camps. So anxious w as Signal to recoup those expenses, that it even charged Plaintiff Muruganandam Arumugam for room and board while he was in the hospital recovering from an e mergency surgery. Signal did not require non-Indian workers to live at the Texas Labor Camp or to pay similar room and board expenses.
Continuous, Abusive, and Discriminatory Supervision
- 28 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 29 of 76 PageID #: 29
147. Plaintiffs f elt com pelled to rem ain at the Tex as Labor Cam p, in part, because Signal created an environment of fear through constant, abusive, and discriminatory supervision.
148. Signal’s personnel and/or security guards deprived Plaintiffs of any sense of privacy by conducting surprise searches of the bunkhouse, searching worker’s personal belongings, and even occasionally requiring that the Indian workers turn out their pockets. Upon information and belief, non-Indian workers were not subject to similar treatment.
149. As stated ab ove, Signal’s security g uards monitored Plaintiffs and required them to show id entification whenever th ey ente red and exited the Texas L abor Cam p and tracked Plaintiff’s movements in and out of the cam p. Upon information and belief, non-Indian workers were not subject to similar treatment.
150. Plaintiffs were subjected to “no visito rs” and “no alcohol” policies at the Texas Labor Camp. Violation subjected the worker s to fines and suspension of work. Upon information and belief, non-Indian workers were not subject to similar policies.
151. As stated above, Signal requ ired P laintiffs and other Indian workers to set up direct deposit bank acco unts upon arrival to the Te xas Labor Camp, to which Signal m aintained access. Plaintiffs reaso nably believed Signal c ould ex ert influence over Plaintiff’s financial arrangements. Upon infor mation and belief, non -Indian w orkers were not subject to sim ilar requirements.
152. The Indian workers, in cluding P laintiffs, were often given m ore difficult and dangerous jobs than the other non-Indian Signal workers. They wer e required to clean their equipment after work ho urs, while n on-Indian workers were permitted to clean their equipment during the last 30 m inutes of their shift. Indian workers were forced to take rep eated “sk ills
- 29 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 30 of 76 PageID #: 30
tests” that non-Indian workers were not required to take. And non-Indian w orkers were permitted to work more overtime hours than the Indian workers.
153. Signal’s personnel and superv isors frequently used offensive language while speaking with or referring to Plaintiffs and ot her Indian wo rkers, including making anti-Indian comments.
154. Signal threatened Plain tiffs and other I ndian workers with deportation or adverse employment actions if they di d not continue w orking for Signa l, did not work according to Signal’s sp ecifications, or com plained about the working and living conditio ns. Upon information and belief, workers of non-Indian race, ethnicity, and alien age were no t treated th is way.
Defendants’ Continued Misrepresentations, Omissions, and Coercive Conduct 155. At m eetings with Signal personnel, Indi an workers voiced com plaints regarding the discriminatory treatment to which they we re being subjected. W hen Signal did not respond to the work ers com plaints, Ind ian workers a t the Mississippi Labor Ca mp began m eeting to discuss how to persuade Signal to improve cond itions at the camp, and began meeting with third parties to discuss how to address their concerns. 156. Upon inform ation and belief, Sig nal becam e aware of these m eetings and contacted the Agents to express concern about worker organizing efforts. Upon information and belief, Defendants reached an agreem ent regardi ng steps to be taken to quell further worker organization efforts. 157. On March 8, 2007, Signal m anagement me t with Indian workers at the Mississippi Labor Camp and inform ed the m that it would fight back ag ainst any “organizing ”
- 30 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 31 of 76 PageID #: 31
efforts, and that Signal would not extend any of th e workers’ H-2B visas if a single worker took legal action against Signal.
158. On March 9, 2007, Signal took five of th e more vocal Indian workers at the Mississippi Labor Camp into “cu stody,” fired them , and infor med them that they would be deported. Distraught at what that meant for him and his fa mily, one of the workers attem pted to commit suicide.
159. Later that sam e day, Pl aintiffs learned a bout the events at the Mississippi Labor Camp. Plaintiffs and other Indi an workers becam e frightened by these activities, particula rly when word spread th at Sign al h ad im prisoned Ind ian workers in Miss issippi who had complained about th e working conditions and that one worker attem pted suicide rather th an be deported and face the debts that he had incurred in India in order to come to Signal.
160. Plaintiffs reasonably feared that if they tried to leave Signal’s employ or oppose the conditions at the Texas Labor Cam p, including by consulting with counsel, Plaintiffs would face forced deportation, physical restrain t and detention, or other serious harms and/or abuses of the legal process at the hands of Signal.
161. In addition, throughout the spring and summer of 2007, S ignal representatives held meetings with Plaintiffs and other workers to discuss the status of Plaintiffs and other Indian workers’ visas. Through its ag ents, Signal continued to represent that it would arrange for H-2B visa extensions. At no point during these m eetings—indeed, at no point prior to term ination— were Plaintiffs informed that they would not be receiving green cards.
162. Signal was, in fact, evaluating the work ers, including Plaintiffs, and had no intention of applying for visa extensions for all of the workers or applying for green cards for the workers.
- 31 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 32 of 76 PageID #: 32

163. At various tim es, Signal refused to c onfirm whether it ha d obtained visa

extensions f or Plain tiffs. As a result, Pla intiffs f elt f urther com pelled to continu e to work f or

Signal and live at the T exas Labor Ca mp. U pon inform ation and belief, Signal prevented or

attempted to prevent Indian wo rkers, including Plaintiffs, from consulting with lawyers about

their situations.

164. Despite m any prom ises to do so, Defenda nts never provided the green cards or

permanent residency. In fact, no Defendant ever ev en applied for a green card for any Plaintiff.

And, despite contractual pr ovisions that clearly require them to do so, Defendants have failed to

refund any of the money Plaintiffs paid to them for green card and visa processing.

Plaintiffs Relied on Defendants’ Representations

Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu

165.

In or around Septem ber 2006, while worki ng as a fitter in Singapore, Satheesh

Kannan Marim uthu (“Satheesh”) le arned of an opportunity to work in the United States.

Specifically, Satheesh s aw advertis ements in three n ewspapers, Dinamalar, Dhinathanthi an d

The Hindu, stating that fitters and welders were needed in the United States. The advertisements

further stated that applicants would be eligib le for a visa and a green card and instru cted

interested parties to contact Dewan.

166. In or around December 2006, Satheesh called Dewan, who confirmed that he was

assisting in the hiring of fitters and welders f or positions in the United States. Dur ing this call

Dewan explained that S atheesh would need to take a tes t at De Silva Engineering and that if he

passed, he would get in an interview and that Dewan would begin processing hi s H-2B visa and

green card. Dewan also said there would be a service charge of eight lakhs (approxim ately

$18,000).

- 32 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 33 of 76 PageID #: 33
167. Satheesh called Dewan twice in January 2007 to confirm that there w as a job vacancy for him and that he would get a g reen card. Sath eesh explain ed that he h ad a stab le well-paying job in Singapore that he was unwilling to relinquish unless he had a job and a green card lined up. Dewan told Satheesh that it was one hundred percent certai n that Satheesh would receive a green card and that Sa theesh should not pass up the rare opportunity to move to the United States with his family. Dewan stated that Pol and Burnett would work to ensure Satheesh received a green card.
168. Only after Dewan promised a green card and the fitter job in the United States did Satheesh resign his fitter job in Singapore.
169. In January 2007, Satheesh returned to I ndia to take the test at De Silva Engineering. At this tim e, Dewan stated tha t Satheesh n eeded to p ay the eight-lakh servic e charge and m ake two dem and drafts of $5,000 eac h—one payable to Michael Pol and the o ther payable to Malvern Burnett. Dewan stated that th e demand drafts were to cov er attorneys’ fees and that this payment would ensure Satheesh received a green card.
170. After Satheesh passed the test at De Silva Engineering, Dewan and his employee, Salimon, informed Satheesh that he also needed to pay $1,000 for visa stam ping at the em bassy and an additional $400 for “m edical fees” before he could begin working in the U nited States. Satheesh was instructed to contact Salimon only after he had compiled the necessary funds.
171. To compile the funds dem anded by Dewan, Satheesh was f orced to pawn fa mily jewelry, borrow $10,000 at a high interest rate from private lenders, and withdraw his lif e savings of $4,000.
172. After Satheesh notified Salim on that he ha d funds sufficient to pay the recruiting fees, Salimon instru cted Satheesh to com e to hi s office in Chennai, India to m ake the first
- 33 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 34 of 76 PageID #: 34
payment of $1,000, which Satheesh did. Salimon accepted the m oney on behalf of Dewan and again confirm ed that Satheesh would receive a green card in exchange for the paym ent. Satheesh requested a receipt for his payment, which Salimon refused to provide.
173. After rece iving the pay ment f rom Satheesh, S alimon f illed out th e p aperwork Salimon stated was necessary for visa processing and notified Satheesh that he was scheduled for an interview at the United States Consulate in Chennai about three days later. Salim on called Satheesh two days af ter the interview to inform him that Satheesh’s visa had been approved and that Salimon was holding Satheesh’s passport.
174. Salimon eventually notif ied Sathe esh that his f light to the United States would leave from Mum bai on February 15, 2007. Sath eesh was instructed to bring funds for the remaining recruitm ent fees to Dewan’s office. W hen he arrived, Dewan took Satheesh’s payment, but again refused to provide receipts. Only after taking the paym ent did Dewan return Satheesh’s passport.
175. Satheesh departed India for the United States on February 15, 2007. A Signal employee picked Satheesh and others up from the airport in Houston, Texas and brought them directly to the Texas Labor Ca mp. Satheesh th ought the labor cam p was a prison the first tim e he saw it.
176. Prior to re ceiving Sath eesh’s pay ments, De wan and Salimon represented that Satheesh would be living in an apartment with two to three other workers when he arrived in the United States. Dewan and Salim on represented th at Satheesh’s living conditions in the United States would be as good as, or better than, hi s living conditions in Singapore. A s discussed above, the living conditions were far from what was promised.
- 34 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 35 of 76 PageID #: 35
177. In addition, Signal supervisors regularl y m ade racial and ridiculing comm ents about the Indian workers, incl uding Satheesh, and gave the most difficult and dangerous jobs to Indian workers.
178. Signal employees further threatened that if Satheesh left the labor cam p he would be fired and that Signal would stop processi ng his immigration status. Because of these statements, and his debt in India, Satheesh felt trapped, that could leave the Texas L abor Camp, and that he could not leave Signal’s employ.
179. In March 2007, Signal held a m eeting at which Satheesh and other workers were told that they had to stay in the labor cam p and that they c ould only eat the food cooked at the camp. Signal representatives stated that anyone who did not com ply with these rules would lose their job and be deported.
180. In April 2007, Signal held another m eeting, during which they notified Satheesh and others that only som e of the workers would have their visa s renewed. Signal stated that those workers whose visas had not been renewed would be deported.
181. Because Signal and Dewan frequen tly represented that M ichael Pol and Malvern Burnett wer e Sathe esh’s lawyer s f or imm igration m atters, Satheesh r equested to speak with and/or m eet with Mich ael Pol and Malvern Burn ett. Sig nal em ployees refused, stating th at Satheesh’s request would violate company policy.
182. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by Satheesh and never provided a green card for Satheesh or his family.
183. Satheesh relied upon D efendants’ prom ises of perm anent residency, long-term employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false
- 35 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 36 of 76 PageID #: 36
promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Satheesh felt in timidated into acqu iescence and co mpelled to continue working for Signal.
Balamurugan Marimuthu 184. Balagmurgan Marim uthu (“Marim uthu”) is from Trichy, India. In or around August 2006, he saw an advertisem ent for a job opportunity for welders and fitters in the newspaper Dinamalar. 185. Interested in the possibility of additional income, Marimuthu traveled to Chennai, India to interview for the position. At the interview, Pol and Dewan told Marimuthu he must pay 20,000 rupees (approxim ately $450) as an interv iew fee and for a m edical exam ination. Marimuthu declined to pay the fee. 186. Shortly after the interview, howeve r, Ma rimuthu saw a second advertisem ent in Dinamalar. The advertisem ent promised employment in the United S tates and green cards for the workers and their families. Marimuthu was extremely interested in the possibility of working in the United States and receiving green cards for himself and his family. 187. The advertisem ent indicated that inte rested applicants should appear on November 8, 9, or 10 at De Silva Engineering in Chennai, India for an inte rview. Marim uthu again travelled to Chennai and interviewed on November 8, 2006. 188. At the interview, Marimuthu learned th at the job opportunity was with Signal International. Pol, Dewan, Burnett, and repr esentatives f rom Signal attend ed this inte rview session, along with 40 to 50 potential workers.
- 36 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 37 of 76 PageID #: 37

189. During the interview, Pol and Burnett asked Marim uthu about his previous work

experience. Marim uthu explaine d his prior work experience in Singapore, and described the

accommodations, food, and benefits that were provided by the em ployer. Pol and Burnett

promised that Signal would provide the sam e type of accommodations, food, and benefits.

Consistent with the ad vertisement, Pol and Bu rnett a lso prom ised th at Signal w ould provide

green cards for Marimuthu, his wife, and his daughter.

190. Subsequently, one of Signal’s representatives administered a test to Marimuthu to

determine his capabilities as a fitter, which Marimuthu passed.

191. After he passed the test, Dewan and his em ployee, Salimon, informed Marimuthu

and the other workers who passed the test that they would enter the United S tates on an H-2B

visa and would be processed for a green card once they arrived in the United States.

192. Dewan then told the workers that th

is opportunity w ould cost 8 lakhs

(approximately $18,000) and represented that this fee would be used for processing of the

workers’ green cards.

193. Dewan told Marimuthu he would have to make an initial deposit of 35,000 rupees

(approximately $787), and then pay Pol and Burn ett $5,373 each by dem and draft. Marim uthu

understood that Burnett was an Am erican lawyer that was assistin g him with obtaining his green

card, among other things.

194. Based on the rep resentations from Dewan, Pol, and B urnett, including the

representations about receiving a green card for himself and his fam ily, Marimuthu was willing

to pay the required recruitm ent fees. To that end, on Novem ber 14, 2006, Marim uthu paid

approximately 35,000 rupees he had saved from his work in Singapore.

- 37 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 38 of 76 PageID #: 38
195. Marimuthu knew he would need to interv iew at the United States Cons ulate to work for Signal. He asked Dewan when his inte rview with the Consulate would be, but he was told he first had to pay an additional two lakhs (approximately $4,500).
196. Marimuthu did not have enough m oney to pay the additional fee and believed it would take him about three years to earn one la kh in India. As a result, he borrowed m oney from his father and a Tam il Nadu society. As collateral for the latter loan, Marimuthu provided his wife’s jewelry (despite deep sentimental and cultural value).
197. Marimuthu also borrow ed four lakhs (approxim ately $9,000) from his uncle at a significant monthly interest rate. As collateral, Marimuthu offered title to his house. Marimuthu only agreed to thes e terms because he believed he would be able to pay his uncle b ack quickly once Marimuthu arrived in the United States.
198. Pol and Burnett sch eduled Marimuthu’s interview at the Consulate for Decem ber 4, 2006 in Chennai.
199. Prior to the interview, on Dece mber 3, 2006, Salim on meet with Marim uthu and coached him on what to say during the interview.
200. Marimuthu attend ed th e Consulate interv iew on Decem ber 4 and was approved for a visa. The Consulate inform ed Marimuthu that his passport would be sent to his hom e by courier and gave Marimuthu a courier receipt.
201. After the interview, Marimuthu met Salimon at a hotel in Ch ennai. Salimon took Marimuthu’s paperwork, including the courier re ceipt for the passport. S alimon told Marimuthu he would keep Marim uthu’s passport, and that he would call when the visa in the passport was stamped. Salimon did not return Marimuthu’s passport after it was stamped with the visa.
- 38 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 39 of 76 PageID #: 39
202. On December 8, 2006, Salim on instructed Ma rimuthu to take out dem and drafts for Pol and Burnett. Salim on also inf ormed Marim uthu his f light to the United States was booked for December 13, 2006.
203. Believing that he would receive a green card for him self and his fa mily, Marimuthu obtained tw o de mand drafts payable to Pol and Burnett, each in the a mount of $5,373.00 (upon information and belief, these dem and drafts were required to be paid in Unite d States dollars). Marim uthu wrote in the memo line of the drafts “green card fees.” He paid an additional six lakhs (approximately $13,500) to Dewan in cash.
204. Two days before leaving for Chennai, Salimon contacted Marimuthu and told him he would need to arrange and pa y for his travel from Trichy to Chennai, as well as pay for medical testing. Marim uthu had not been previous ly informed that he w ould be responsible for these travel and m edical fees, which totale d about 15,000 rupees (a pproximately $337). Marimuthu told Salim on he did not believe he should have to pay these fees. S alimon told Marimuthu that if he did not, Si gnal would cancel his flight to the United States and Marim uthu would forfeit the payments he had already made. Marimuthu felt threatened, and he worried that he might lose his m oney and the opportunity to work in the Unite d States on a gree n card. As a result, he received a last-minute loan from a distant relative for the additional 15,000 rupees.
205. On Dece mber 12, 2006, Marim uthu travelle d to Chennai. From there, Salim on gave Marimuthu a plane ticket to Mumbai.
206. When he arrived at Dewan’s office in Mu mbai, Marimuthu attempted to negotiate with Dewan about reducing his recruitment fees, instead of charging the full eight lakhs. Dewan threatened to cancel Marimuthu’s plane ticket if he did not pay the full amount.
- 39 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 40 of 76 PageID #: 40
207. Fearful that he would forfeit the money he had already paid and the opportunity to receive a green card, M arimuthu made the final pa yments. He also paid an additional fee of 2,500 rupees (approximately $56) f or a m edical cer tificate that S ignal said he would need to enter the U nited Sta tes. Af ter these paym ents, Marim uthu was f orced to sign several f orms, which were in English, without adequate time to read and understand the forms.
208. On Dece mber 13, 2006, Marim uthu traveled from Mum bai to Houston, Texas. Upon arriving in Houston, a Signal representative drove Marimuthu to the Texas L abor Camp. As described above, the conditions at the la bor cam p were horrid. Marim uthu was shocked because he had been prom ised that the liv ing conditions while working for Signal would be the same as those he described in Singapore.
209. Marimuthu f elt com pelled to rem ain at the Texas Labor Ca mp and work for Signal be cause of the d ebt he h ad incurred to p ay the rec ruiting fees a nd because he believed that, if he did so, Signal would obtain a green card for him and his family.
210. Marimuthu also f elt compelled to r emain at the Texas Labor Cam p and work for Signal, because Signal’s em ployees and representati ves threatened to de port workers if they d id not do their jobs properly or if they tried to leave Signal.
211. In Septem ber 2007, Signal held a m eeting for the workers. Signal told the workers that they were going to apply for one more H-2B visa extension, but that they would not be rece iving the prom ised green c ards. This was the f irst tim e that Signal ev er inf ormed Marimuthu that it was not providing the promised green cards.
212. True to form, neither Signal nor any of the other Defendants ever provided or applied for a green card for Marimuthu or his fa mily. Nor did they ev er return any of the recruitment fees incurred by Marimuthu.
- 40 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 41 of 76 PageID #: 41
213. Marimuthu relied upon Defendants’ prom ises of perm anent residency, long-term employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Marim uthu felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Muruganandam Arumugam 214. In or around May 2006, Muruganandam Arumugam (“Muruganandam”) learned of advertisem ents in two newspapers, Dinathandhi and The Hindu , stating that fitters and welders were being recruited to w ork in the United Sta tes. The a dvertisements instructed interested parties to contact Sachin Dewan and his company Dewan Consultants. 215. Muruganandam was wor king as a w elder in Singapore, but he was excited about the opportunity to live and work in the United St ates. He contacted Dewan. De wan informed him that welding jobs were ava ilable in the United States and that Dewan could help him secure such a position. Dewan told Muruganandam that he would need to pass a welding test at De Silva Institute before he would be considered for any positions. 216. Muruganandam traveled over 800 kilom eters on four separate occasions to participate in the we lder re cruitment proc ess. During one of these trips, Muruganandam met with Pol, Burnett and Dewan. At this m eeting, Muruganandam was inform ed that, if he was selected, he would definitely receive a green car d after he was hired for the welding job in the United States. He was al so repeatedly assured that his family would eventu ally be able to join
- 41 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 42 of 76 PageID #: 42
him in the United Sta tes and tha t his liv ing conditions in th e United Sta tes would be better than in Singapore, where Muruganandam lived in a private apartment with his wife and kids.
217. Dewan also told Muruganandam that he w ould have to pay a service charge of eight lakhs (approxim ately $18,000) to Dewan Consultants to secure a green card and the welding job in the United States. Of this amount, 35,000 rupees was due as a deposit before Dewan would arrange the necessary interview with the United States Consulate in Chennai.
218. After Muruganandam passed his welding test s, he was instructed to wait two to three months for a phone call from Dewan, which would inform him that it was time to interview at th e U.S. Consulate. During this tim e Muruganandam returned to his stab le weld ing job in Singapore which paid 750 Singapore dollars per week (approximately $540).
219. Eventually, Muruganandam was inform ed th at it was tim e to return to India to participate in the Consulate interview. Muruganandam was instructed to bring the initial deposit of 35,000 rupees—nearly his entire life savings —to Chennai. As instructed, Muruganandam paid the money to Dewan, Burnett, and Pol.
220. After that m eeting, Dewan’s em ployee, Salimon, provided Muruganandam with paperwork to bring to the Cons ulate f or the interv iew he ar ranged. During the interview, Muruganandam was informed that he could not get a visa through the Consulate in India because he was a perm anent resident of Singapore. Mu ruganandam relayed this inform ation to Dewan, who informed him that he would need to m ake an additional deposit of 165,000 rupees ($3,712) in order to continue the process.
221. To com pile the funds dem anded by Dewan, Muruganandam had to borrow 165,000 rupees from his m other-in-law. In late Novem ber 2006, Muruganandam paid this money to Salim on in Chennai. Salim on provided addition al documentation to Mur uganandam
- 42 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 43 of 76 PageID #: 43
and instructed him to attend an inte rview at th e U.S. Consulate in Singapore, which eventuall y granted Muruganandam a visa.
222. Because Muruganandam could not com plete the welding tests, m eet with Dewan and Signal’s agents, and attend interviews at consulates in India and Singapore while also working a full tim e job, he was forced to relin quish a stable, well-paying job in S ingapore to pursue the position with Signal.
223. Salimon instructed Muruganandam to ga ther the rem aining 600,000 rupees. To do so, Muruganandam was forced to borrow the additional funds from his mother-in-law.
224. When Muruganandam notified Salimon th at he had the 600,000 rupees, Salim on instructed him to get on a plane from Chennai to Mum bai, which was leaving in a m atter of hours, and to report to Dewan’s office.
225. Once in Mumbai, Muruganandam went to Dewan’s office as instructed. While in a sm all room , surrounded by several intim idating people who worked for Dewan, Muruganandam paid the additional rupees to De wan. He also signed va rious documents written in English that he did not understand.
226. Only after Muruganandam paid the 600,000 rupees did Dewan give Muruganandam’s passport back to him . De wan then provided Muruganandam with a plane ticket to the United States which was scheduled to leave in a matter of hours.
227. Murganandam departed India for the United States on February 1, 2007. A Signal employee drove Murganandam and others from th e airport in Houston, Texas directly to the Texas Labor Camp. The first time he saw it, Murganandam thought the labor camp was a prison.
228. Dewan had represented that Murgana ndam’s liv ing con ditions in the United States would be as good as, or better than, hi s living conditions in Singapore. A s described
- 43 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 44 of 76 PageID #: 44
above, however, the living condition s were reprehensible, and Murganandam was forced to live in one of the labor camp’s crowded trailers.
229. As Signal was using two or three traile rs in the Labor Ca mp for storage, Murganandam and other workers asked if the equi pment could be moved to allow the workers to spread out and have m ore sanitary living conditions. Signal refu sed to move the equipm ent and locked the trailer doors to prevent the workers fr om using the addition al bathrooms and beds in the storage trailers.
230. Because Sig nal often served spoiled food, or ran out of fish or chicken options, Murganandam was forc ed to choose between eating food he was allergic to (lamb and goat), eating food which violated his religious beliefs (beef and pork), or going hungry.
231. Signal supervisors also tr eated Indian workers, including Murganandam , far worse than the non-Ind ian workers. For instan ce, the forem an regularly allowed the non-Indian workers to clean their eq uipment during the fin al thirty minutes the workers were scheduled to work each day. Conversely, the Indian workers were required to clean their tools every day after their shift had ended, which am ounted to approximately thirty minutes of unpaid work each day. Similarly, the fore man allowed the non-Indian wo rkers to work overtim e far m ore frequently than the Indian workers.
232. Signal employees threatened that if Murganandam left the labor cam p on his own he would be fired and that Signal would stop pr ocessing his immigration st atus. Based on these statements and his deb t in Ind ia, M urganandam felt trappe d. He f elt that h e cou ld leave the Texas Labor Camp or Signal’s employ.
233. Signal informed Murganandam that he c ould live outside of the Labor C amp, but that he would still be responsible for paying for the housing and food provided at the Labor
- 44 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 45 of 76 PageID #: 45
Camp. Murganandam was never infor med that Signal would charge him for food or housing before he left India.
234. Signal only provided infrequent m eetings for em ployees to express their grievances. Nevertheless, Murganandam could not attend these m eetings because they were always conducted at 5:00 p.m., during Murganandam’s work shift. Moreover, the meetings were ineffectual for workers like Murganandam , be cause they were conducted in English and no translator was provided.
235. When Murganandam and a friend inquired about the status of their visas and green cards, a Signal representative declined to discuss their status. When Muruganandam called Burnett to discuss the status of his visa and green card, Burnett refused to return his calls.
236. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by Murganandam and have never provided a green card for Murganandam or his family.
237. Murganandam relied upon Defendants’ pr omises of perm anent residency, longterm employment, and good working condition s. He would not have incurred sub stantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Murganandam felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Muralidharan Arumugam 238. In or around March 2006, Muralidhara n Arum ugam (“Muralidharan”) saw advertisements in two local newspapers for weld ing and fitting jobs in the United States. The advertisements indicated that interested parties should contact Dewan Consultants.
- 45 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 46 of 76 PageID #: 46

239. Around July 2006, Muralidharan attended a meeting at Dewan Consultants.

Sachin Dewan ran the m eeting with the assistan ce of Salimon, Pol and Burnett. During this

meeting Muralidharan a nd the othe r attendees were advised that Sign al had f itting and welding

jobs ava ilable in the United States. The atte ndees were advised that whoever secured a job

would earn $18 per hour for 50 hours of work per week, that food and lodging would be

provided, an d that e ach worker would get a g reen card. To be conside red f or these position s,

Muralidharan and the other attendees would

need to pass perform ance tests and pay

approximately six lakhs (approximately $13,500).

240. Encouraged by the prospect of working in the United States, Muralidharan took

and passed the requisite tests right after the initial meeting at Dewan Consultants.

241. Sachin Dewan said he would schedule a visa inte rview for Muralidha ran at th e

U.S. Consulate as soon as Muralidharan paid 1.5 lakhs (approximately $3,375).

242. In order to m eet Dewan’s demand, Mu ralidharan m ortgaged his fa mily’s

agricultural land ag ainst his fath er’s wishes. M uralidharan used the m oney he raised to pay 1.5

lakhs to Dewan for his Consulate interview.

243. Muralidharan successfully com pleted hi s Consulate interview around Novem ber

2006. Muralidharan prom ptly notified Dewan that he had passed and that he was ready to

continue with the process.

244. In or aroun d Decem ber 2006, Mu ralidharan attended a second m eeting with

Dewan Consultan ts. D uring th is m eeting Murali dharan learned that the cost to work in the

United States had increased to eight lakhs (app roximately $18,000), rather than the six lakhs he

was originally quoted.

- 46 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 47 of 76 PageID #: 47
245. At the sam e m eeting, Dewan told Muralidharan that he needed to pay a second deposit of $10,746 towards this am ount in the form of two $5,373 dem and drafts—one payable to Pol and the other payable to Burnett. Dewa n represented that these paym ents would ensure that Muralidharan received a green card, which would enable him to perm anently live and work in the United States. After receiv ing a letter that confirm ed he would receiv e a green card, Muralidharan paid the second deposit of $10,476 on December 9, 2006.
246. To compile the funds dem anded by Dewa n, including the second deposit and the remaining amounts owed on the eight lakhs, Muralidharan mortgaged his father’s house, pawned his wife’s jewelry and took out private loans.
247. As soon as Muralidharan com piled the neces sary funds, he traveled to Mum bai and paid the rem aining portion of the eight la khs charged by Dewan. After Muralidharan paid, Dewan returned his passport and provided him with plane tickets for a flight to the United States that departed the next day.
248. Muralidharan departed India for the Un ited States on or about December 11, 2006. A Signal em ployee drove Mura lidharan and others from th e airport in Houston, Texas directly to the Texas Labor Cam p. The first time he saw it, Muralidharan thought the cam p was a prison.
249. Prior to rec eiving his f irst paych eck, Mura lidharan was n ot awar e th at Sign al would deduct money for room and board.
250. As described above, the liv ing conditions at the cam p were rep rehensible. As a result of over-crowding, unsanitary conditions, and spoiled food, nume rous workers, including Muralidharan, became ill seriously while living in Signal’s Texas Labor Camp.
- 47 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 48 of 76 PageID #: 48

251. Muralidharan contracted an intestinal vi rus or in fection while liv ing a t Signal’s

Texas Labor Ca mp and had to have e mergency surgery. Muralidharan rem ained bedridden in

the hospital for four days following the surgery. Muralidharan departed from the hospital early

because he could not afford to stay as long as he was advised to stay. Mulihandharan ’s

hospitalization resulted in charges exceeding $30,000.

252. Nonetheless, Signal continued to

charge Muralidharan for food and

accommodations while he was in the hospital, unable to work.

253. As a result of the debt he had incurred to pay the recruitin g fees and the fees for

his hospitalization, as well as the promise of a green card, Muralidharan felt compelled to remain

at Signal.

254. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by

Muralidharan and have never provided a green card for Muralidharan or his family.

255. Muralidharan relied upon Defenda nts’ pr omises of per manent residency, long-

term employment, and good working condition s. He would not have incurred sub stantial debt,

mortgaged his family’s land, or agreed to work f or Signal in the absence of such false prom ises.

Because of his fear that Signal would attempt to deport him, his fear of m istreatment and abuse

by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his fa mily had incurred to pay

Defendants’ recruiting fees, Muralidharan felt in timidated into acquies cence and compelled to

continue working for Signal.

Satyanarayana Ellapu

256. In or around June 2006, while working as a structural welder in Andhra Pradesh,

India, Satyanarayana Ellapu (“Satya”) saw an advertisem ent in the local newspaper, Eenadu, for

potential employment in the United States. The a dvertisement stated that a “leading m arine and

- 48 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 49 of 76 PageID #: 49
fabrication company in Mississippi and Texas” was hiring welders and pipefitters for its facilities in the United States and was conducting tests on June 25, 26, and 28, 2006, for the positions.
257. The advertisem ent also stated th at the positions m ay include “perm anent employment visas” and a “2 years [sic] contract.”
258. Satya was hopeful that the job opportunity would better enable him to provide for his family, for whom he was the sole breadwinner.
259. On June 26, 2006, Satya traveled an hour from his village to a training center to take a te st to determ ine his eligib ility f or h ire at Signal. Sachin Dewan and other S ignal representatives were present at this meeting, along with 20 to 30 other welders an d pipefitters. Satya passed the test and was instructed to return in three days.
260. Three days later, Satya return ed to the training cen ter an atte nded an informational m eeting with approxim ately 50 other workers. Dewan and Burnett led the meeting. Dewan inform ed the workers that th e opportun ities were for position s in Signal’s facilities in Mississipp i or Texas. Dewan furthe r informed the workers that they would receive an H-2B visa for the first 9 m onths of their employment with Signal, but that they would then be provided a green card. Dewan indicated that the process would take four to six months and would cost six lakhs (approxim ately $13,500), of which one lakh (approx imately $2,250) had to be paid up front.
261. Satya complained about the cost to Dewan and Burnett. They informed Satya that he had no choice—“If you want the job, you have to pa y.” However, they also promised that the money would be “easily recovered” once Satya began working in the United States.
262. In response to the workers’ concern a bout the size of th e up-front paym ent, Dewan and Burnett stated that the workers could pay 20,000 rupees (approximately $450) within
- 49 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 50 of 76 PageID #: 50
20 days and pay the balance later. If the m en paid the 20,000 rupees, they would be guaranteed the job.
263. Dewan and Burnett then distributed applications explaining that the worker had to pay the recruiting fees in installments by demand drafts and cash.
264. After the meeting, Satya returned to his village to discuss the opportunity with his family. His fa mily did not have enough m oney cover the recruiting fees , but they nonetheless encouraged him to apply—believing that a green card would assist Satya in providing for them.
265. Because Satya’s life s avings totaled one lakh, he borrowe d four and a h alf lakhs (approximately $10,125) from a lender with interest. As collateral, Satya pledged his father’s ancestral land and his hom e, which the lender threatened to repossess if Satya m issed any payments.
266. On July 20, 2006, Sat ya m et with an e mployee of Dewan to m ake his first payment of 20,000 rupees. The employee gave Satya four forms to sign. The first form was for Global and explained the paym ent schedule and amounts. The second f orm was for Burnett and explained the attorneys’ fees for legal services, employment agreements, and labor certifications. The third form explained Dewan’s services. Th e fourth form was an em ployment agreem ent with Signal. Satya signed the four forms, trusting that Dewan had accurately translated them.
267. Subsequently, Satya had several m eetings with Dewan’s empl oyees in which he was asked to m ake addition al pay ments, includi ng fees for visa pro cessing, bank drafts, and travel and accommodation in Chennai, where he interviewed with the United States Consulate.
268. Prior to Satya’s interview with th e Consulate on Nove mber 3, 2006, Dewan contacted him and requested that he bring docum ents evidencing his land or inheritance, which Dewan claimed was ne cessary for the visa applicat ion. Satya traveled to Chennai and m et with
- 50 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 51 of 76 PageID #: 51
Dewan two days before his interv iew with the Consulate. During this meeting, Dewan instructed Satya regarding what to say during the Consulate interview.
269. After the Consulate granted Satya’s visa , Dewan contacted Satya and infor med him that he could leave for the United States as soon as he m ade a final paym ent of six lakhs (approximately $13,500). Satya also had to borrow the funds necessary to make that payment.
270. On Decem ber 12, 2006, Satya trav eled to Mumbai to pick up his passport and plane ticket from Dewan’s office. After colle cting Satya’s fee paym ents, Dewan gave Satya a series of for ms in English to sign. Satya aske d for a translation, but Dewan refused, citing th e workers’ imminent plane departure. Satya beli eved he had no choice but to sign the for ms even though he could not read them.
271. After he signed the form s, Satya was given his plane ticket and passport. Satya’s plane left Mum bai shortly ther eafter and arrived in Houston, Texas on or about Decem ber 13, 2006. A Signal representative m et Satya and other workers at the airport and drove them to the Texas Labor Camp.
272. The m orning following his arrival, Si gnal hosted an orientation for the new workers. D uring that m eeting, Satya learned for the first tim e that he would need to pay an additional $170 for his tools. Sa tya was also forced to sign se veral more form s in English. When Satya asked Signal’s representatives to explain what the forms said, they refused.
273. As a result of the conditions at the Texa s Labor Camp, Satya felt isolated, lonely, and anxious. At one point, he was hospitalized w ith an eye injury result ing from the conditions in which he was forced to weld. Satya did not complain, however, because he was fearful Signal would terminate his employment if he did. His fear was based in part upon news that (1) S ignal had threatened to deport a work er who refused to do a particular job; and (2) another worker
- 51 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 52 of 76 PageID #: 52
missed two days of wor k and was forcibly depor ted by Signal. Satya f elt further compelled to stay at Signal, because he could not repay the debts he incurred for the recruitment fees if he left and believed he would receive a green card if he stayed.
274. Defendants have never returned any of the “recruitment fees” incu rred by Saty a and never received provided a green card for Satya or his family.
275. Satya relied upon Defendants’ prom ises of perm anent residency, long-term employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Satya felt intim idated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Moorthy Nadhamuni 276. In Novem ber 2006, while Moorthy Nadham uni (“Moorthy”) was working as a fitter in Dubai, he learned of a job opportunity in the United States through an adv ertisement in the Indian newspaper, Dinathandy. The advertisement was placed by Dewan Consultants, stated Dewan was seeking to f ill perm anent job vaca ncies, and p romised employm ent in the United States along with permanent residency through a green card. 277. As a result of the advertisem ent, M oorthy took an e mergency leave from his position in Dubai and travelled to Chennai, India to attend an infor mational meeting about the opportunity. 278. Pol, Dewan, his em ployee Salim on, and othe rs were present at the m eeting. During the m eeting, Dewan told Moorthy that he had to pass a test, which cost 500 rupees
- 52 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 53 of 76 PageID #: 53
(approximately $11), to be eligible for potential employment. Moorthy paid the 500 rupees and passed the test. Salim on contacte d Moorthy three days later and instructed him to attend an upcoming meeting.
279. Approximately one week later, Moor thy attended a general m eeting led by Dewan. Several other workers were present. Dewan inform ed the workers that th ey had b een selected to work f or Signal Interna tional in th e United States at either a Texas or Mississipp i facility, that workers w ould be paid $14-18/ho ur, and that the workers would receive green cards.
280. Dewan inform ed the workers that they w ould first have to attend an interview with the United Sta tes Consulate in Chennai. If the interview went well, the work ers would be given H-2B visa and would recei ve a green card approxim ately 18 months after working in the United States. Dewan also prom ised the workers that, after they received their green cards, their families could join them in the United States.
281. Dewan stated the green card processing would cost the workers eight lakhs (approximately $18,000) in three installm ents. First the workers had to pay Dewan 35,000 rupees (approximately $787). Second, the wo rkers would have to pay $3,871 to Pol and $3,871 to Burnett in cashier’s check by late January. Finally, the workers would have to pay the remainder o f the eigh t lakhs to Dewan. Dewan further stated that th e workers ’ green cards would be p rocessed an d their f amilies could join them in the United State s, but only if the workers paid these fees.
282. Moorthy made the initia l payment to De wan with m oney he had saved from his previous employment. To accumulate the remainder of the eight lakhs, Moorthy borrowed funds from a local lender, pledging his wife’s land as collateral, and pawned his wife’s jewelry.
- 53 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 54 of 76 PageID #: 54
283. After rec eiving Moor thy’s in itial p ayment, Dewan inf ormed Moor thy tha t his interview w ith the Con sulate was scheduled for Decem ber 2, 2006. Dewan also inform ed Moorthy that he must bring an additional 4,600 rupees (approximately $103) for visa processing.
284. On December 2, 2006, Moorthy arrived in Ch ennai. He met with Dew an prior to his interview, during w hich Dewan coached Moorthy regarding the interview and provided him with documents for the Consulate.
285. Moorthy was subsequently approved fo r a visa. After the approval, Dewan instructed Moorthy to make the final payment of $3,871 to both Pol and Burnett.
286. On approxim ately February 13, 2007, Moorthy m et Dewan in Chennai and received a ticket from Chenna i to Mum bai. Dewan said that Moorthy would receive the remainder of his ticket to the United States in Mumbai.
287. On February 14, 2007, Moorthy travelled from Chennai to Dewan’s office in Mumbai. There, he and several other worker s were called one by one to m ake their final payments to Pol, Burnett, and Dewan. Som e workers were unable to m ake the paym ents and were informed by Dewan’s representatives that they would not receive plane tickets and would forfeit all pr ior payments if they did not m ake the final payment in f ull. Having witnessed this , Moorthy felt com pelled to m ake his paym ents. After m aking that paym ent, Moorthy was required to sign several forms in English, which Dewan’s representatives refused to translate.
288. On February 15, 2007, Moorthy departed Mu mbai for Houston, Texas. When he arrived in Houston, a Signal representative pi cked him up a t the airport and brought Moorthy along with the other workers to the Texas Labor Camp.
289. Moorthy w as appalled by the living c onditions, which—as described above— were horrid. They were m uch worse than the living conditions he had experienced previously
- 54 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 55 of 76 PageID #: 55
when working in Dubai and Singapore. Signal refused to serve vegetarian food, even though Moorthy is a vegetarian for reli gious reasons. Meanwhile, Signal continued deducting fees from Moorthy’s paychecks for food and accommodations.
290. Moorthy felt trapped and believed that, because of the debt he had incurred, he had to continue working f or Signal despite the repreh ensible conditions. In additio n, based on the promises made to him previously, Moorthy al so believed that he wo uld receive a green card if he continued to work for Signa l and tha t his f amily could eventua lly join him in the United States. Accordingly, Moorthy continued to work for Signal without complaint.
291. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by Moorthy and never provided a green card for Moorthy or his family.
292. Moorthy relied upon Defendants’ prom ises of perm anent residency, long-term employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Moorthy felt intim idated into acqu iescence and co mpelled to continue working for Signal.
Rajendran Sappani 293. In 2006, R ajendran Sappani (“Sappani”) was working in Singapore when he learned about a newspaper advertisem ent pl aced by Dewan offering welders and fitters employment and permanent residency in the United States. 294. Sappani learned that Dewan Consultants was holding inte rviews for the positions in Chennai, India, and that the last date to interview was November 11, 2006.
- 55 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 56 of 76 PageID #: 56
295. On or around November 8, 2006, Sappani left his job in Singapore and returned to his hom etown of Trichy, India, be fore trave lling to Chenna i f or an in terview and testing with Dewan.
296. Sappani interviewed with Dewan and passed a written pipe fitting test. After the test, Sappani he was required to pay eight la kh (approxim ately $18,000) for the employm ent opportunity, visa processing, and green card. He was also required to make an initial payment of 45,000 rupees to Dewan. Dewan also informed Sappani he would need to pass an interview with the Consulate and that, if the Consulate did not stam p his pass port with a visa, Sappani would forfeit the 45,000 rupees payment.
297. To raise the funds necessary to pay the recruitm ent fees, Sappani borrowed money from lenders. T o obtain one of the loan s, the lende r required Sappani to prove that the funds were for a green card. Sappani contacte d Dewan who faxed a letter to Sappani confirm ing that Sappani would be receivi ng a green card. Sappani presen ted the letter to the bank and received the funds. Sappani also sold his wi fe’s jewelry—with the exception of her wedding band, which he used as collateral for a loan—and mortgaged his fam ily’s house and land. As a result, his family now pays 1,000 rupees per month to live in the house.
298. Subsequently, Sappani attended an inte rview with the United Sta tes Consulate and was processed for a visa. In Decem ber 2006, prior to leaving for the United States, Sappani was instructed to trave l to Dewan’s of fice in Mumbai, wher e he pa id th e f inal recru iting f ees, including an additional 1,500-rupee fee for a m edical certificate. Dewan withheld Sappani’s passport until the final paym ents were made. Sa ppani was then required to sign several papers quickly, without an opportunity to read them, before he received his ticket to travel to the United States.
- 56 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 57 of 76 PageID #: 57
299. On or abou t Decem ber 18, 2006, Sappani ar rived at Sign al’s Orange, Texas facility. Sappani was shocked by the condition s at the Texas Labor Camp, which were m uch worse than he had experienced in Singapore. But Sappani felt that he could not turn back because have no way of repaying the money he had borrowed. As a result, Sappani was afraid to do anything that might create problems for him at Signal.
300. Defendants have never returned any of the “recruitment fees” incurred by Sappani and never provided a green card for Sappani.
301. Sappani relied upon Defendants’ prom ises of perm anent residency, long-term employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Sappani f elt intim idated into acqu iescence and com pelled to continue working for Signal.
Rajendran Subramani 302. Rajendran Subram ani (“Rajendran”) is a welder and structural fitter from Tiruchirappali, India. Rajendran supports his mother and family financially. 303. In or about 2006, Rajendran was working as welder in Malaysia. His friend informed him about an advertisem ent in a Hind u newspaper offering the opportunity to live and work in th e United Sta tes as weld er or f itter and obtain a green ca rd. R ajendran reviewed the advertisement and confirm ed that it prom ised the opportunity to get a green card in the United States. To take advantage of this opportunity, Rajendran travelled to I ndia to interview for a position.
- 57 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 58 of 76 PageID #: 58
304. On or about January 7, 2007, Rajendran interviewed with Salim on, an e mployee of De wan. Rajendran understood that Dewan wa s recruiting workers on behalf of Signal. During this interview, S alimon represented to R ajendran that he would make $18.00 per hour in the United States, that there w ould be opportunities to receive overtime pay, and the job with Signal would las t for at least two y ears. Salim on further represented R ajendran would initially receive a visa every six m onths, but that af ter two years Signal would get a green card for Rajendran and help him bring his family to the United Sates.
305. Despite the fact that Rajendran had a two-year contract for his job in Malaysia, he was very interested in obtaining a green card and earning an income that was higher than what he was making in Malaysia. Raje ndran felt that this em ployment opportunity would perm it him to make a better life for his family and to support his aging mother.
306. During the interview, Rajendran spoke with Salim on about his work arrangem ent in Malaysia and described the accommodations, food, and benefits that were provided by the employer. Salim on prom ised Rajendran that Signal would provide sim ilar type of accommodations, food, and benefits, including that he would only have to share an apartm ent with a few men.
307. Salimon told Rajendran that it would cost him eight lahks f or the opportunity to work for Si gnal and receive a green card. Base d on the representations that Salim on made on behalf of Si gnal, including the representations a bout receiving a green card for him self and his family, Rajendran agreed to pay the money.
308. Rajendran had saved about 100,000 rupees during his tim e working in Malaysia, but still needed to borrow an additional 700,000 rup ees to pay the recruitm ent fee. Rajendran’s mother use d to work f or a wealth y f amily, th e Muthus, who agreed to loan Ra jendran the
- 58 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 59 of 76 PageID #: 59
700,000 rupees at an interest rate of three percent (3%) per m onth, a total of thirty-six percent (36%) interest per year.
309. In or about January 2007, Rajendran paid 40,000 rupees ($900) to Salim on as an initial depos it in orde r to obtain an inte rview w ith the U.S. Consulate. Approxim ately four weeks la ter, Salim on called Rajen dran and to ld him that his interview was sc heduled f or February 7, 2007. Rajendran met with Salimon in Madras in order to coach him for interview.
310. Rajendran m et with the em bassy on or about February 7, 2007, and after the meeting they told him that his passport would be sent to S alimon once it was stam ped. Several days after the interview with the embassy Rajendran received a phone call from Dewan saying that they had his p assport, but that he needed to come to Dewan’s of fice in Bom bay to pay the remaining 760,000 rupees, which he did prior to departing for the United States.
311. On February 15, 2007, Rajendran traveled to the United States. A Signal employee picked up Rajendran and other Indian workers at the airport in Houston, Texas and drove them to the Texas Labor Camp.
312. Rajendran thought that the Texas L abor Camp resem bled a prison—it was very isolated, it was surrounded by a fence, and guarded by security guards.
313. A Signal e mployee had Rajendran and othe r Indian workers complete paperwork when they arrived at the Texas Labor Cam p. Si gnal did not, however, tr anslate or explain the paperwork for the Indian workers.
314. At the Texas Labor Cam p, Rajendran wa s required to shar e an overcrowded bunkhouse with more than twenty (20) men. The bunk beds were so tightly packed together that Rajendran and others were forced to sleep with their suitcases in their beds with them. The toilet and showering facilities were in sufficient and unsanitary. Ind eed, there was only bathroom and
- 59 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 60 of 76 PageID #: 60
one shower between the twenty men. There was no privacy at the bunkhouse and sleep was very difficult due to the close quarters, oppressive smells, and constant noise from the workers coming and going to their different shifts.
315. As described above, the food that Signal provided was deplorable. Rajendran often became ill from the food, which was freq uently rotten and/o r left out for lon g periods of time.
316. Signal deducted approximately $1,050 per month from Rajendran’s paychecks for room and board. Prior to arriving at the Texa s Labor Ca mp, Rajendran had not been infor med this amount would be withheld from his paychecks.
317. As a result of the conditions at the Texas Labor Ca mp, Rajendran asked Signal if he could live som ewhere else, but he was told Signal would still deduct $1,050 per month from his paychecks if he m oved. Becau se of the su bstantial debt Rajend ran had incurred to pay th e recruitment fees, he could not afford to pay for accommodations outside the Texas L abor Camp and still pay Signal $1,050 per m onth. Rajendran was, in effect, com pelled to stay in the Texas Labor Camp.
318. Rajendran and other workers com plained to Signal about the awful con ditions at the Texas Labor Cam p. In response, Signal th reatened to send Rajendran and other workers back to India if they continued to complain or spoke to others about Signal’s actions. Faced with threats of deportation, and crushing debt in Indian, Rajendran fe lt compelled to continue his employment at Signal.
319. Notwithstanding the prior promises of employment for two years and a green card for Rajendran and his family, during a meeting in June 2007, Signal informed Rajendran and the others who voiced concern about the conditions at the Texas Labor Camp that they could not
- 60 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 61 of 76 PageID #: 61
work for Signal after July 30, 2007 and that Signal would not renew their visas. At that point, Rajendran realized that the prom ises about the length of his e mployment and Signal obtaining a green card for Rajendran and his family were lies.
320. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by Rajendran and never provided a green card for Rajendran or his family.
321. Rajendran relied upon Defendants’ prom ises of perm anent residency, long-term employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Rajendran felt intimidated into acquies cence and c ompelled to continue working for Signal.
Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla 322. In or about May 2006, while working as a structural welder in Andhra Pradesh, India, Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathu lla (“Talabathulla”) saw an advertisement in the local newspaper, Eenadu, f or potentia l employm ent in the Unite d States. The advertise ment stated that an Americ an com pany was hiring welders a nd pipef itters f or its f acilities in the United States. The advertisem ent gave certain dates fo r tests and interviews in Chennai, and provided the contact information for Dewan. 323. Talabathulla and three of his friends traveled to Chennai 16 hours by train to discuss the opportunity with Dewan. Dewan expl ained the job opportunity, represented that it was for long-term employment, that there was ample work, and that workers would be processed for green cards. Specifically, Dewan infor med Talabathulla that he would work under an H-2B
- 61 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 62 of 76 PageID #: 62
visa for the initial nine m onths and then woul d be processed for and receive a green card. Dewan also explained that that Talabathulla w ould need to undergo a testing process that was being conducted over the next couple of days.
324. Dewan required that Talabathulla pay two lakhs (approxim ately $4,500), within 10 days to p roceed. Talabathulla n eeded to go back home to Andhra Pradesh in order to obtain the m oney. Before leav ing to obtain the m oney, Talabathulla took and passed the fitting test. During the test, Talabathulla met Pol, who informed him that the job opportunity was for Signal. Pol reiterated the promise of permanent residency in the United States.
325. Talabathulla paid two lakhs to Dewan in November 2006. In order to pay those funds, Talabathulla had to borrow money from his father, who in turn borrowed from lenders at an interest rate of 3% per month (43% per year).
326. After receiv ing Talabathulla’s paym ent, Dewan infor med Talabathulla that h e needed to pay an additional $5,373 to Malvern Burnett, $5,373 to Michael Pol, and another $3,680 to D ewan. Talabathulla ultim ately paid these am ounts. To do so, Talaba thulla had to borrow more money from his father, who in turn borrowed the money from lenders, pledging his house as collateral for the loan.
327. In December 2006, Talabathulla traveled to Dewan’s office in Mumbai in order to receive his passport an d airline ticket to the United S tates. Talab athulla arrived shortly before his plane w as scheduled to depart for the Unit ed States. During this m eeting, Dewan required that Talabathulla pay the rem aining recruitm ent f ees in order to re ceive his passport. Talabathulla f elt tha t h e had no choice but to follow Dewan’s directions. After receiving Talabathulla’s paym ent, Dewan gave Talabath ulla h is pa ssport a s well as an Off er of Employment letter from Signal that was in English and had not b een translated. Dewan refused
- 62 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 63 of 76 PageID #: 63

to provide a receip t for the paym ent. Before leaving for the United States, Dewan continued to

assure Talabathulla that he would receive a green card.

328. When Talabathulla arrived in the United States, Signal informed him that it going

to deduct approxim ately $1,050 pe r m onth from his salary for room a nd board. He was also

informed that he would be charged these am ounts reg ardless of whether he lived at th e Texas

Labor Camp. This was the f irst time Talabathulla had heard that he would be charged for room

and board. As described above, the conditio ns at the Texas Labor Ca mp were deplorable.

Because Talabathulla co uld not afford to pay fo r living expenses twice and repay h is loans, he

felt compelled to remain at the Texas Labor Camp.

329. While he was at the Texas Labor Ca

mp, Defendants continued to assure

Talabathulla that he would receive a green card.

330. During the spring of 2007, Talabathulla he that Signal had threatened to deport

other Indian workers back to India. Signal ultim ately transferred Talabathulla to its f acility in

Pascagoula, Mississippi and reduced his wages. In doing so, however, Signal again reiterated its

promise that there would be am ple work at the Mississippi facility, which ultim ately turned out

not to be true. As a res ult of the threats of deportation and the debt he had incurred to pay the

recruitment fees, Talabathulla felt compelled to remain at Signal, work at its Mississ ippi facility,

and accept the lower wages.

331. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by

Talabathulla and never provided a green card for Talabathulla.

332. Talabathulla relied upon Defendants’ promises of permanent residency, long-term

employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt,

relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false

- 63 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 64 of 76 PageID #: 64

promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment

and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to

pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Talabathulla felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to

continue working for Signal.

Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu

333. In or around 2005, while working as a we lder in Abu Dhabi, Samm anasunathan

Siluvaimuthu (“Siluvaimuthu”) saw a newspaper a dvertisement placed by Dewan seeking fitters

and welders. The advertisem ent offered the opport unity to work in the United States and obtain

a green card.

334. Siluvaimuthu spoke with Dewan and

was told to attend an upcom

ing

informational m eeting if he was interes ted in the job opportunity. During the call, Dewan

promised Siluvaimuthu that he would receive a green card as part of the job opportunity.

335. Siluvaimuthu subsequently attended the inform

ational m eeting, along

approximately 100 other Indian workers. Pol and Dewan were present at the m eeting and

explained the job opportunity. Am ong other things , they represented that the job opportunity

was with Signal and that Signal would obtain perm anent residency for the workers in the Unite d

States.

336. Pol and De wan told Siluvaim uthu and the other workers that they had to pay

recruitment fees for the job opportunity totaling the equivalent of six or seven lakhs. They

explained that the work ers could pay the recru itment f ees in three installments, if they did not

have enough money up front.

337. Siluvaimuthu did not believe he had enough money to pay the recruitment fees.

- 64 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 65 of 76 PageID #: 65
338. In or around Nove mber 2006, however, Sil uvaimuthu learned th at som e of hi s friends were going to work for Signal through Dewan Consultants. Siluvaim uthu had dream ed of living in the United States, a nd decided to pursue the job opport unity with Signal. To that end, he m et with Sachin Dewan in Chennai for te sting. After passing the test, Dewan inform ed Siluvaimuthu that the recruitment fees had risen to 8.5 lakhs (approximately $19,125).
339. Siluvaimuthu was inform ed that he woul d have to pay 3.5 lakhs (approxim ately $7,875) up front. Siluvaim uthu paid the initial 3.5 lakhs by dem and draft. To do s o, Siluvaimuthu borrowed m oney from friends at an interest rate of 5 percent per m onth. Siluvaimuthu received a loan for the rem ainder of the 8.5 lakhs. As collatera l for th e lo an, Siluvaimuthu pledged his house and his wife’s jewelry.
340. Subsequently, Siluvaimuthu met with Dewan to pay the remaining recruiting fees. During that m eeting, Dewan represented to Siluva imuthu that he would r eceive a green card in approximately 6 months and then could bring his family to join him in the United States. Dewan further represented that the em ployment with Signal would be long-term and the living conditions would be comfortable, safe, and sanitary.
341. On or around Nove mber 24, 2006, Siluvaim uthu received a visa from the United States Consulate in Chennai. Following Siluvaim uthu’s interview at the Consulate, Dewan kept Siluvaimuthu’s passport.
342. Shortly b efore he was to le ave f or th e United States, Siluvaim uthu attended a meeting at Dewan’s office, durin g which he was forced to sign form s in English without a translation. Siluvaimuthu felt compelled to sign the forms because his plane to the United States was leaving shortly, he had paid the recruitment fees to Dewan, and Dewan still had his passport.
- 65 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 66 of 76 PageID #: 66
Dewan only returned Siluvaimuthu’ s passport immediately before he boarded the f light to the United States.
343. When Siluvaim uthu arrived at the Texas Labor Ca mp, he was horrified by the conditions. Signal subsequently inform ed hi m, for the first tim e, that it would deduct approximately $1,050 per m onth from his wages for room and board, regardless of whether he lived at the Texas Labor Camp. Despite the conditions, Siluvaimuthu felt compelled to remain at the Texas Labor Cam p and continue working because he could not afford to pay twice for room and board and also repay the debt he had incurred in India.
344. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by Siluvaimuthu and never provided a green card for Siluvaimuthu.
345. Siluvaimuthu relied upon Defendants’ pr omises of perm anent residency, longterm employment, and good working condition s. He would not have incurred sub stantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recru iting fees, Siluvaim uthu felt in timidated into acqu iescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2003 Forced Labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589) (Trafficking with Respect to Peonage, Slavery, Involuntary
Servitude, or Forced Labor) (18 U.S.C. § 1590) All Defendants
346. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
- 66 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 67 of 76 PageID #: 67
347. Plaintiffs are authorized to bring these civil claims against Defendants pursuant to the civil rem edies provision of the Trafficking Victim s Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. § 1595.
348. Defendants attempted to and did subject P laintiffs to forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589.
349. Defendants controlled Plaintiffs’ ability to meet their bas ic needs, including their housing, food, and access to m edical care and legal counsel and threat ened to withhold access to these necessities if Plaintiffs refused to continue working for Signal.
350. Defendants forced Plaintiffs to live in guarded and gated camps. 351. Defendants coerced Pla intiffs into paying subs tantial rec ruitment f ees prior to hiring Plaintiffs and subsequently forced Plaintiffs to work at Signal to s atisfy their outstand ing debts. 352. Defendants’ schem e to isolate Pla intiffs, to co erce them to liv e in c onditions causing psychological harm , and to lim it th eir outside contacts, including unlawful discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, wa s designed to convince Plaintiffs that they would suffer serious harm, including financial ruin, if they left the employ of Signal. 353. Defendants reta liated a gainst Plain tiffs f or attem pting to exercise their legal rights, th reatened Plain tiffs with de portation, a nd deceived Plaintiffs about the term s of their immigration status in a manner that constitutes an abuse of the legal process. 354. Defendants knowingly attem pted to and did provide or obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs by means of force, threats of force, and threats of physical restraint made to the Plaintiffs in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(1).
- 67 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 68 of 76 PageID #: 68
355. Defendants knowingly attem pted to and di d obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs by m eans of s erious harm or threats of serious harm to Plaintiffs in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(2). F urther, Defendants knowi ngly attempted to and di d obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs using a scheme, plan, or patter that, 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 Signal's employ, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(2).
356. Defendants knowingly attem pted to and did provide or obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs by m eans of the abuse or threaten ed abuse of la w or legal process in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(3).
357. Defendants knowingly attem pted to and did provide or obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs by using a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause Plaintiffs to believe that, if they did not pe rform such labor or services, P laintiffs would suffer serious harm or physical restraint, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(4).
358. Defendants knowingly recruited, transporte d, harbored, provided, and/or obtained the Plaintiffs for labor and services in violation of laws prohibiting peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, and forced labor within the m eaning of the provisions of the Trafficking Victim s Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1590.
359. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590, and in ad dition to the violat ions of 18 U.S.C. § 1589 set forth above, the Defendants know ingly recruited, transported, harbored and/or obtained the Plaintiffs for labor or serv ices in furt herance of Defendants’ violations of the following provisions of Title 18, Chapter 77 of the U.S. Code:
a. enticing, persuading, or i nducing the Plaintiffs to go onboard an airliner,
train and passenger van, and to go to va rious locations throughout the United Arab
- 68 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 69 of 76 PageID #: 69
Emirates, India, and the United State s, with th e intent that they m ay be held in m odernday slavery, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1583;
b. knowingly and willfully holding Plain tiffs to involuntary servitude, as
defined by 22 U.S.C. § 7102(5)(a) and (b), violating 18 U.S.C. § 1584;
c. removing, confiscating, or possessi ng Plaintiffs’ passports and other
immigration documents in the course of, or w ith the intent to viol ate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1583, 1584, 1589, and 1590, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1592(a); and
d. attempting to violate 18 U.S. C. §§ 1583, 1584, 1589, and 1590, violating
18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). 360. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries to their persons, businesses, and property, and other damages. 361. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including attorneys’ fees.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Defendant Signal (Signal International, LLC, Signal International, Inc., Signal International
Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P.) 362. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 363. Plaintiffs assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for declaratory relief, and damages against Defendant Signal. 364. The actions of Signal, as set forth herein, violated Plaintiffs’ rights to rec eive 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 Signal.
- 69 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 70 of 76 PageID #: 70
365. Specifically, Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs to discriminatory and offensive mandatory room and board arrangem ents at the Te xas Labor Ca mp on the basis of Plaintiffs’ race and/or national origin.
366. Defendant Signal did not subject its non-Indi an employees to the sam e or similar room and board arrangements.
367. As set forth in th e p receding paragraphs, Defendant Signal also imposed discriminatory job-related requ irements and ad verse term s and conditions of em ployment to which non-Indian employees were not similarly subjected.
368. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, th rough the actions and statements of its personnel referring to and/or direct ed at Plaintiffs and other Indian workers, Signal m aintained an objectively hostile and abusive work envir onment on account of Plaintiffs’ race and/or national origin.
369. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs , Signal’s discrim inatory and offensive treatment of Plaintiffs was sufficiently severe that it created an o bjectively h ostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
370. Plaintiffs reasonably perceived their work environment to be hostile, abusive, and discriminatory on the basis of their race and/or national origin.
371. Signal’s hostile, abusive, and discrim inatory treatm ent of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated was unwelcome.
372. Signal knowingly, willfully, m aliciously, in tentionally, and without justification acted to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights on the basis of Plaintiffs’ race and/or national origin.
373. As a result of Signal’s unlawful acts, Pl aintiffs have suf fered inju ry to th eir property and/or persons.
- 70 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 71 of 76 PageID #: 71
374. Plaintiffs seek all app ropriate relief, including declaratory relief, attorn eys’ fees, costs of this action, and dam ages, including compensatory and punitive dam ages, in an am ount to be determined at trial.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT OF 1871
42 U.S.C. § 1985 and the Thirteenth Amendment All Defendants
375. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
376. Plaintiffs assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for declaratory relief, and damages against the Defendants.
377. As set f orth in the pr eceding paragraphs, Defendants conspi red, agreed, planned and coordinated for, and acted in furtherance of, the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of equal protection of their rights under the T hirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its im plementing and enforcing st atutes (inter alia , 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1590) to be free from forced labor, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons.
378. Defendants were m otivated by racial, anti -Indian, and/or anti- immigrant anim us when they conspired to deprive P laintiffs of their rights and acted in furt herance of a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.
379. Defendants knowingly, willfully , m aliciously, inten tionally, and without justification planned and acted to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.
380. As a result of the unlawful acts of the Defe ndants, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.
- 71 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 72 of 76 PageID #: 72
381. Plaintiffs seek all app ropriate relief, including declaratory relief, attorn eys’ fees, costs of this action, and dam ages, including compensatory and punitive dam ages, in an am ount to be determined at trial.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
All Defendants 382. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs. 383. As set forth in the preceding paragra phs, Defendants, individually and through their agents, e mployees, and/or representatives, knowingly and/or negligen tly m ade m aterially false and untrue statem ents and representations to Plaintiffs regarding the nature and term s and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and em ployment in the United States. Among other things, Defendants and/ or their respective agents represented to the Plaintiffs that: (1) they would be eligible for permanent residency through their employment with Signal; (2) Defendants would apply for per manent residency in the United States on behalf of Plaintiffs; (3) Defendants would extend Plaintiffs’ H-2B visas wh ile they were being processed for permanent residency; and (4) Plaintiffs would have steady and ongoing work opportunities in the United States with Signal. Def endants a nd/or their respec tive a gents a lso m ade f alse representations regarding the living conditions at the Texas Labor Camp. 384. As set forth in the preced ing para graphs, Defendants knowingly and/or negligently f ailed to disclose m aterial f acts to Plain tiffs r egarding th e natu re an d term s and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and em ployment in the United States.
- 72 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 73 of 76 PageID #: 73
385. Defendants intended, or should have known, that the false statem ents m ade by Defendants and/or their agents, em ployees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to pay the exorbitant fees demanded by the Pol, Dewan, and/or Burnett.
386. Defendants intended, or should have known, that the false statem ents m ade by Defendants and/or their agents, employees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to leave their homes and jobs in I ndia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates and trave l to th e United States to work for Defendant Signal.
387. Plaintiffs were entitled to rely on Defendants’ representations. 388. In reliance on Defenda nts’ false and/or ne gligent representations regarding green cards and employm ent opportunities, Plaintiffs paid large sum s of money to Pol, Dewan and/or Burnett, which dire ctly benef itted D efendant Signal in the f orm of cheap labor an d increas ed profits. 389. In reliance on Defenda nts’ false and/or ne gligent representations regarding green cards and employm ent opportunities, Plaintiffs incurred substant ial interest-bearing debts in order to pay recruitment, immigration-related, and travel fees charged by Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives. 390. In reliance on Defenda nts’ false and/or ne gligent representations regarding green cards and employm ent opportunities, Plaintiffs sold personal a nd real property and surrendered employment opportunities in India, Singapore, and/or the United Arab Emirates. 391. In reliance on Defenda nts’ false and/or ne gligent representations regarding green cards and employm ent opportunities, Plaintiffs left their hom es and jobs and India and other countries and traveled to the United States to work for Defendant Signal. 392. At all times, Plaintiffs’ reliance was reasonable.
- 73 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 74 of 76 PageID #: 74
393. As a direct and proxim ate result of De fendants’ knowin g, willing, intentional, and/or negligent actions, Plaintiffs have been injured.
394. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF BREACH OF CONTRACT All Defendants
395. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
396. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants, individually and/or through their agen ts, em ployees and/or rep resentatives, offered to obtain perm anent residence and immigration status f or Plaintiffs in the United States within 18 to 24 mo nths of the tim e when Plaintiffs entered into the Unite d States, as well as to provide steady work opportunities in the United States with Defendant Signal in exchange for Plaintiffs’ paym ent of exorbitant fees to Defendants and their employees, agents and/or representatives.
397. Defendants also prom ised to return Plai ntiffs’ money if Defendants were unable to secure permanent residency on Plaintiffs’ behalf.
398. Plaintiffs accepted Defendants’ offers and the parties entered into valid contracts. 399. Plaintiffs paid the agreed-upon fees, and perform ed the agreed-upon work, as required by the contracts. 400. Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with their binding promises regarding permanent residence and immigration status.
- 74 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 75 of 76 PageID #: 75
401. Defendants also breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with their binding promises to return Plaintiffs’ money if Defendants were unable to secure permanent residence for Plaintiffs.
402. In reliance on these agreem ents, Plaintiffs paid large sum s of m oney and entered into substantial debts, surrendered other em ployment opportunities, and in curred other financial losses.
403. As a direct result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages. 404. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief:
a. Declaratory relief; b. Compensatory damages; c. Punitive damages; d. An award of prevailing party costs, including attorney fees; e. A finding of alter ego between Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal
International Texas, L.P., thus piercing the corporate veil; f. A finding of alter ego between Signal International Texas, L.P. and Signal
International, LLC, thus piercing the corporate veil; g. A finding that Signal International, Inc. is the successor in interest to
Signal International LLC, or in the alternative, a finding of alter ego between Signal International LLC and Signal International, Inc., thus piercing the corporate veil; h. A finding of alter ego among Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., thus piercing the corporate veil; i. A finding of alter ego between Global Resources, Inc. and Michael Pol, thus piercing the corporate veil;
- 75 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 1 Filed 08/07/13 Page 76 of 76 PageID #: 76

j. A finding of alter ego between Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants Pvt., thus piercing the corporate veil; and
k. Such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38 of t he Federal Rules of Ci vil Procedure, Plaintiffs dem and trial by jury in this action of all issues so triable.

Date: August 7, 2013

By: /s/ Eric H. Findlay Eric H. Findlay State Bar No. 00789886 efindlay@findlaycraft.com Michael Findlay State Bar No. 24077855 mfindlay@findlaycraft.com FINDLAY CRAFT, LLP 6760 Old Jacksonville Highway, Suite 101 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903) 534-1100 (Office) Fax: (903) 534-1137

Pro hac vice applications to be submitted for the following counsel:
Thomas S. Fraser (MN #31641) James E. Dorsey (MN#137893) Sten-Erik Hoidal (MN #35241X) Timothy M. O’Shea (MN #386437) Lousene Hoppe (MN #387171) FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A. 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 492-7000 Fax: (612) 492-7077
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

- 76 -

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 58 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 715

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

SRINIVASA RAO KAMBALA et al.

§

§

v.

§

§

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C. et al. §

NO. 1:13-CV-498

SATHEESH MARIMUTHU et al.

§

§

v.

§

§

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C. et al. §

NO. 1:13-CV-499

RAJU MEGANATHAN et al.

§

§

v.

§

§

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C. et al §

No. 1:13-CV-497

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER Pending before the court is a “Motion for Stay Pendente Lite and for Transfer Pursuant to First Filed Rule” (Doc. No. 14) filed by Signal International, L.L.C., Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P. (“the Signal Defendants”), and a “Motion to Transfer Venue and Memorandum in Support” (Doc. No. 31) filed by Malvern C. Burnett, the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C (“the Burnett Defendants”). These two motions are also pending before the court in related cases. See Marimuthu et. al v. Signal International L.L.C. et al., 1:13-cv-499 (Doc. Nos. 23, 36); Meganathan et al. v. Signal International L.L.C. et al., 1:13-cv-497 (Doc. Nos. 17, 12). Because

Page 1 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 58 Filed 07/16/14 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 716
these motions and corresponding responses are for all intents and purposes the same, the undersigned’s decision and reasoning on the motions pending in the instant suit will apply to the corresponding motions filed in Marimuthu and Meganathan as well. Id.
Having considered the pending motions and the corresponding responses, the court denies the Signal and Burnett Defendants’ motions to transfer pursuant to the first-to-file rule because there is not a substantial overlap between the instant suit and Kurian David et al. v. Signal, Int’l, L.L.C. et al., the first filed suit. See Civ. A. No. 08-1220 (E.D. La.).
I. Background A. Procedural Background
On March 7, 2008, twelve individuals who were allegedly trafficked into the United States filed a putative class action against the Defendants in the Eastern District of Louisiana asserting trafficking, RICO, civil rights, and state law contract and fraud claims.1 See David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, Civ. A. No. 08-1220 (E.D. La.). That Court denied class certification;2 and, as a result of this ruling, the Plaintiffs in the instant action filed suit in this District, where they were allegedly subjected to deplorable working conditions at a Signal facility in Orange, Texas.3 (Doc. No. 39.) On August 7, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this court against the Burnett Defendants, the Signal Defendants, Michael Pol, Global Resources, Inc., Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants
1. The Plaintiffs presumably still have FLSA claims pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana. (Doc. No. 21, p. 10.)
2. David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, Civ. A. No. 08-1220, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247, at *129 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2012).
3. Srinivasa Rao Gonna is the only Plaintiff in this lawsuit who worked in Signal’s Pascagoula, Mississippi facility as opposed to their Orange, Texas facility.
Page 2 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 58 Filed 07/16/14 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 717
Pvt. Ltd., Indo-Ameri Soft L.L.C., Kurella Rao, J&M Associates of Mississippi, Inc., J&M Marine & Industrial, L.L.C., and Billy R. Wilks. The Plaintiffs allege that some or all of the Defendants violated the following federal statutes: 1) The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003; 2) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; 3) The Civil Rights act of 1866; and 4) The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. (Id.) In addition, the Plaintiffs bring state law fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract claims against all of the Defendants. (Id.) B. Factual Background
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, approximately 590 men, including the Plaintiffs, were allegedly trafficked into the United States through the federal government’s H-2B guest worker program to provide labor and services to the Signal Defendants. (Doc. No. 39, p. 2.) The Plaintiffs claim they were lured to work for Signal through the fraudulent promise of legal and permanent work-based immigration to the United States for themselves and their families. (Id., p. 4.) Subsequently, after coming to the United States, the Plaintiffs were allegedly denied employment or were subjected to forced labor and other serious abuses at Signal operations in Orange, Texas and Pascagoula, Mississippi. (Id., p. 5.)
II. Jurisdiction The Plaintiffs seek recovery pursuant to several federal statutes. For actions brought under these statutory provisions, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction predicated upon federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). For the state law causes of action, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction predicated upon supplemental jurisdiction. See
Page 3 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 58 Filed 07/16/14 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 718
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the above claims occurred within the confines of this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
III. First to File Rule The Signal and Burnett Defendants move to transfer the instant case to the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to the First-Filed Doctrine. (Doc. Nos. 14, 31.) “Under the first-to-file rule, when related cases are pending before two federal courts, the court in which the case was last filed may refuse to hear it if the issues raised by the cases substantially overlap.” Int’l Fid. Ins. Co. v. Sweet Little Mexico Corp., 665 F.3d 671, 677 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999)). “The first-to-file rule is a discretionary doctrine.” Jones v. Xerox Commercial Solutions, LLC, CIV. A. No. H-13-0650, 2013 WL 3245957, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June 26, 2013) (quoting Cadle Co., 174 F.3d at 603). The rule is utilized “to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid rulings which may trench upon the authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.” Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997). The party wishing to transfer the case has the burden to prove that transfer is warranted. Jones, 2013 WL 3245957, at *2 (citing Sanofi–Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 2d 772, 777 n. 5 (E.D. Tex. 2009); VCode Holdings, Inc. v. Cognex Corp., No. 2:07–cv–138, 2007 WL 2238054, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2007); Buckalew v. Celanese, LTD., No. G–05–315, 2005 WL 2266619, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2005)). “In deciding whether to apply the first-to-file rule, the Court must resolve two questions: (1) are the two pending actions so duplicative or do they involve such substantially similar issues
Page 4 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 58 Filed 07/16/14 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 719
that one court should decide the subject matter of both actions, and if so, (2) which of the two courts should take the case.” Datamize, Inc. v. Fid. Brokerage Servs., LLC, 2:03-CV-321-DF, 2004 WL 1683171, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2004) (citing Texas Instruments v. Micron Semiconductor, 815 F. Supp. 994, 997 (E.D. Tex. 1993)). “The first-to-file rule does not require that cases be identical, but merely that there is a substantial overlap in issues and parties.” White v. Peco Foods, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 2d 339, 342 (S.D. Miss. 2008).
IV. Analysis The Defendants argue there is substantial overlap between the instant case and the first filed case, David. (Doc. Nos. 14, 31.) While there are similarities in the two cases, the undersigned finds that the two cases do not involve such substantially similar parties and issues that one court should decide the subject matter of both actions. A. Parties There is some overlap between the parties in David and the instant case, but it is not substantial. While all of the Plaintiffs in the instant suit are also plaintiffs in David, as explained below, they are only asserting FLSA claims in David, which they do not assert here.4 (Doc. No. 21, p. 10.) Conversely, none of the David plaintiffs asserting non-FLSA claims are parties in the instant case. (Id., p. 8) The David defendants and the Defendants in this suit are not completely identical, but for purposes of this analysis, the court finds that the difference is insignificant. While the first-to-file rule does not require identical parties, see Save Power Ltd., 121 F.3d at 950,
4. Even if the Plaintiffs in this case were at one point putative class members in the David class action litigation, they were never parties since the class was never certified. See Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368, 2379 (2011) (holding that it is erroneous to believe a nonnamed class member is a party to class action litigation before the class is certified, or if certification is ultimately denied).
Page 5 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 58 Filed 07/16/14 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 720
“the fact that the parties are different cuts against an argument for substantial overlap.” Jones, 2013 WL 3245957, at *4. B. Claims
Although the first-to-file rule also does not require the issues to completely overlap, “the cases should be more than merely related to support a motion to transfer when venue is otherwise appropriate.” Buckalew v. Celanese, Ltd., CIV. A. No. G-05-315, 2005 WL 2266619, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2005). The instant suit and David are related to the extent that all of the claims asserted in this suit are also asserted by the different David Plaintiffs. However, there is not substantial overlap among the claims in both suits. As the District Court established in its opinion denying the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification in David, each of the Plaintiffs’ claims require individualized proof as it pertains to that particular Plaintiff. David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, Civ. A. No. 08-1220, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247, at *129 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2012). Thus, not only are each of the individual plaintiffs’ forced labor, trafficking, RICO and civil rights claims different from one another in this suit, as explained below, they are entirely different from their pending FLSA claims in David. Therefore, the issues presented by the Plaintiffs here cannot be resolved in the David suit. W. Gulf Mar. Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, S. Atl. & Gulf Coast Dist. of ILA, AFL-CIO, 751 F.2d 721, 729 (5th Cir. 1985) (“. . . a district court may dismiss an action where the issues presented can be resolved in an earlier-filed action pending in another district court.”).
Page 6 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 58 Filed 07/16/14 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 721
1. Forced Labor and Trafficking The success of each Plaintiff’s forced labor and trafficking claims is dependent on individualized factors. The question in a forced labor case is “whether Defendants’ coercive conduct was such that it could overcome the will of the victim so as to make him render his labor involuntary.” David, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247 at 77. “This question cannot be answered via generalized class-wide proof but rather must be answered individually based upon individualized proof.” Id. Similarly, with trafficking, “individual issues will play a significant part” because involuntary servitude is an essential element of the claim. Id. at 80-81. 2. RICO Claims The success of each Plaintiff’s RICO claim is also based on each individual’s experience because the Plaintiff will be “required to prove that the [Defendants] committed the predicate acts upon which they rely for the pattern of racketeering activity.” Id. at 92. As stated above, proof of the predicate acts of trafficking and forced labor are “all premised on coercion” and “cannot be made without resort to individualized proof.” Id. Additionally, in order to prove the fraud-based predicate acts, each Plaintiff will “have to prove first-party reliance on the alleged fraud that was directed at them,” because “the question of individual reliance [is] paramount to resolving whether Plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by a RICO violation.” Id. at 105-06. 3. Civil Rights Claims The Plaintiffs are suing the Signal Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for violating their rights to “enjoy and benefit from non-discriminatory employment relationships” with the Signal Defendants. (Doc. No. 39, p. 62.) In order to obtain compensatory damages under this claim, as
Page 7 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 58 Filed 07/16/14 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 722
sought by the Plaintiffs, each “Plaintiff must prove actual injury to himself and that injury must be attributable to (caused by) the Defendant’s disparate treatment.” David, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247, at *119. For this reason, the outcome of each Plaintiff’s case will vary based on their individualized experience.
4. Violations of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 The Plaintiffs allege that the Burnett Defendants violated the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1971 by violating their right to be free from “forced labor, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons.” (Doc. No. 39, p. 64.) Forced labor, involuntary servitude, and trafficking all include an element of coercion, which requires an individualized analysis of each Plaintiff’s situation, as stated above. David, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247, at *128. As one can easily discern, none of the above causes of action involve substantially similar issues to the Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims pending in David, which include claims of violating the federally mandated minimum wage laws. The proof required for the FLSA claims and the remedies sought are distinct from the proof and remedies at issue in the instant matter. Given that there is not a substantial overlap of the claims between the David litigation and this case, and with the exception of the Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims in David, none of the Plaintiffs in the instant suit and David overlap, the court’s denial of the Burnett Defendants’ motion to transfer will not result in “piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.” Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997).
Page 8 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 58 Filed 07/16/14 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 723 V. Conclusion
The court finds that the instant suit does not substantially overlap with the first-filed suit, David. Accordingly, the Signal Defendants’ “Motion for Stay Pendente Lite and for Transfer Pursuant to First Filed Rule” (Doc. No. 14), and the Burnett Defendants’ “Motion to Transfer Venue and Memorandum in Support” (Doc. No. 31) are DENIED. As discussed previously, these same motions filed in related cases—Marimuthu et. al v. Signal International L.L.C. et al., 1:13-cv-499 (Doc. Nos. 23, 36); Meganathan et al. v. Signal International L.L.C. et al., 1:13-cv-497 (Doc. Nos. 17, 12)—are also DENIED for the same reasons.
SIGNED this 16th day of July, 2014.
_________________________ Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge
Page 9 of 9

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 60 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 735

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

SATHEESH MARIMUTHU et al.

'

'

v.

'

'

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C. et al '

1:13-CV-499

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING DEFENDANT SIGNAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 24)

This case is assigned to the Honorable Marcia Crone, United States District Judge, and is

referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings.

(Doc. No. 4.) Before the undersigned magistrate judge is the “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)”1 (Doc. No. 24) filed by Defendants Signal International, L.L.C., Signal

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

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Signal”). Because the Plaintiffs have pleaded enough

factual content to draw the reasonable inference that the alleged pendent state law claims

occurred in Texas, Signal’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24) should be denied.

I. Background

A. Procedural Background

On March 7, 2008, twelve individuals who were allegedly trafficked into the United

States filed a putative class action against the Defendants in the Eastern District of Louisiana

asserting trafficking, RICO, civil rights, and state law contract and fraud claims. See David v.

1. As the Plaintiffs correctly point out, Signal’s motion exceeds the page limitations set forth in the Local Rules. See Local Rule CR-47(1). The undersigned has already admonished the litigants to strictly adhere to the page limitations as it concerns appeals and objections to magistrate judge orders. That same warning now applies to all briefs and pleadings filed by the parties and will be strictly enforced going forward.
1

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 60 Filed 07/30/14 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 736
Signal Int’l, LLC, Civ. A. No. 08-1220 (E.D. La.). That Court denied class certification;2 and, as a result of this ruling, the Plaintiffs in the instant action filed suit in this District, where they were allegedly subjected to deplorable working conditions at a Signal facility in Orange, Texas. (Doc. No. 1.) On August 7, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this court against the Signal Defendants, Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Global Resources, Inc., Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (Id.) B. Factual Background
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, approximately 590 men, including the Plaintiffs, were allegedly trafficked into the United States through the federal government’s H-2B guest worker program to provide labor and services to the Signal Defendants. (Doc. No. 1, p. 1.) The Plaintiffs claim they were lured to work for Signal through the fraudulent promise of legal and permanent work-based immigration to the United States for themselves and their families. (Id., p. 4.) Subsequently, after coming to the United States, the Plaintiffs were allegedly subjected to forced labor and other serious abuses at Signal operations in Orange, Texas. (Id, p. 5.)
II. Jurisdiction The Plaintiffs seek recovery pursuant to several federal statutes. For actions brought under these statutory provisions, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction predicated upon federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). For the state law causes of action, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction predicated upon supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the above claims occurred within the confines of this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
2. David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, Civ. A. No. 08-1220, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247, at *129 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2012).
2

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 60 Filed 07/30/14 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 737
III. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted.” Harrington v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 563 F.3d 141, 147 (5th Cir. 2009). When a court analyzes a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it “accepts ‘all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’” In re Katrina Beaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004)). A court should grant such a motion only when the complaint fails to contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
IV. Analysis Signal moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985 claims and pendent state law claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. (Doc. No. 24.) Signal first contends that the complaint should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs failed to meaningfully engage in a choice-of-law analysis in the complaint in order to determine which state or country’s law applies. (Id., p. 9.) Furthermore, Signal argues that the court should find that the state law claims are implausible “because it is not likely the Texas Supreme Court would apply state law to transactions that occurred abroad.” (Id., p. 3) Finally, Signal argues “to the degree that the Complaint refers to facts that occurred abroad” as to the Plaintiffs’ § 1981 and §
3

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 60 Filed 07/30/14 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 738
1985 claims, that portion of the complaint should be dismissed. (Id., p. 1.) The Plaintiffs respond that a choice of law analysis is not required in their complaint,
they have provided adequate facts that their state law claims occurred in Texas, and Texas law applies to their claims. (Doc. No. 28.) Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue the complaint makes clear that the tortious actions originated, were performed, and continued to occur in Texas, specifically at the Texas Labor Camp located in Orange, Texas. (Id.) The Plaintiffs allege that while recruiters working on Signal’s behalf initially lured and defrauded the Plaintiffs abroad, Signal ratified the recruiters’ actions by continuing to defraud the Plaintiffs upon their arrival in Texas. (Id., p. 6.) Finally, they argue that their § 1981 and § 1985 claims should not be dismissed because they have alleged their rights under these statutes were violated in Texas. (Id., p. 7.)
1. Choice of Law Analysis First, Signal argues the complaint is defective because it does not adequately address any choice of law analysis that would convince the court that Texas state law applies to the pendent state law claims. (Doc. No. 14.) A court has discretion to exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal question jurisdiction is proper and the state-law claims derive from a common nucleus of operative facts. Arena v. Graybar Elec. Co., Inc., 669 F.3d 214, 221 (5th Cir. 2012); 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Federal courts apply the forum state’s conflict-of-law rules to determine what law governs the state-law claims. Bailey v. Shell Western E&P, Inc., 609 F.3d 710, 722 (5th Cir. 2010), citing Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941). Texas courts first determine whether there is a conflict between Texas law and another potentially applicable law. Id. (citation omitted.) If there is no such conflict, a choice-of-law analysis is unnecessary. Id. (citing SAVA gumarska in kemijska industria d.d. v. Advanced
4

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 60 Filed 07/30/14 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 739
Polymer Sciences, Inc., 128 S.W.3d 304, 314 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.)). But, where there is a conflict of laws, Texas follows the “most significant relationship” test of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. Id. (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Nishika Ltd., 953 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1997)).
Signal does not dispute the court has proper federal question jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims. Signal argues the Plaintiffs “bear the risk of punishment for not” engaging in a choice of law analysis in their Complaint. (Doc. No. 24, p. 14.) Signal does not cite, and the undersigned cannot find, any binding Fifth Circuit authority for a 12(b)(6) dismissal because the complaint fails to plead the particular state’s law at issue for the pendent state law claims. Although Signal argues, in passing and without citation, that the Indian Contracts Act disallows the enforcement of a contract if it violates the public policy of India, Signal has not sufficiently demonstrated how this conflicts with Texas law. Even if a choice-of-law analysis were required, there is no authority for dismissing a complaint under 12(b)(6) for failing to analyze in the complaint which state law controls under the “most significant relationship” test promulgated in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. Signal also fails to persuasively argue under the “most significant relationship test” that Indian law would apply. In any event, Signal’s choiceof-law argument is meaningless. As discussed below, the Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to draw the reasonable inference that Signal’s alleged misconduct occurred in Texas, thereby invoking Texas law to govern the state causes of action.
2. State Law Claims that are “Extraterritorial in Nature” Signal also argues that because each pendent state law claim is predicated on a recruitment process that occurred on the Arabian peninsula or India, the Texas Supreme Court
5

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 60 Filed 07/30/14 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 740
would hold the indigenous laws of these countries would apply to the state law claims.3 (Doc.
No. 24, pp. 10-11.) The complaint is replete with allegations that Signal’s tortious actions
occurred in Texas. The following is a summary of the Plaintiffs’ complaint (Doc. No. 1):
The Plaintiffs were recruited by Signal and its recruiters, both in the United States and abroad, to work at Signal’s Texas Labor Camp. Because Signal’s need for workers was immediate, they represented to the Plaintiffs that they would first acquire temporary work visas (H-2B) because the visas could be obtained faster than green cards, but that the Defendants would also apply for green cards on the Plaintiffs’ behalf. The Plaintiffs accepted Signal’s offer, paid their fees, and were transported to the Texas Labor Camp in the United States to perform work for Signal. Once at the Texas Labor Camp, Signal ratified the actions of the recruiters, breached its obligations, and defrauded the Plaintiffs regarding their immigration status.
In the Texas Labor Camp, throughout the spring and summer of 2007, Signal representatives held meetings with the Plaintiffs and other workers to discuss the status of the Plaintiffs and other Indian workers’ visas. Through its agents, Signal continued to represent that it would arrange for H-2B visa extensions. At no point during these meetings were the Plaintiffs informed that they would not be receiving green cards. Signal was, in fact, evaluating the workers, including the Plaintiffs, and had no intention of applying for visa extensions for all of the workers or applying for green cards for any of the workers. Despite many promises to do so, the Defendants never provided the green cards or permanent residency. In fact, no Defendant ever even applied for a green card for any Plaintiff. And, despite contractual provisions that clearly require them to do so, the Defendants have failed to refund any of the money the Plaintiffs paid to them for green card and visa processing.
When deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must consider these facts as true.
In re Katrina Beaches Litig., 495 F.3d at 205. From these allegations, the Plaintiffs have clearly
pleaded enough factual content to draw the reasonable inference that the alleged pendent state
law claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract occurred in Texas.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 at 678. Even though the complaint alleges Signal’s actions and the
3. Signal’s assertion that the entire complaint contains allegations of activity that only occurred abroad is incorrect.
6

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 60 Filed 07/30/14 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 741
Plaintiffs’ injuries occurred in Texas and India, Signal has not cited to any persuasive authority that this subjects the Plaintiffs’ entire complaint to a 12(b)(6) dismissal. 4 In fact, district courts
have the power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over foreign law claims that form part of
the same case or controversy. In re BP p.l.c. Sec. Litig., 843 F. Supp. 2d 712, 799 (S.D. Tex.
2012) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)).
3. Pro Tanto Dismissal
Finally, Signal moves to dismiss the complaint pro tanto to the degree the complaint
refers to facts that occurred abroad with regard to the Plaintiffs’ claims under §§ 1981 and 1985.
Signal begins with the premise that §§ 1981 and 1985 claims are not extraterritorial. Signal asks the court to compare the complaint in this suit with 1) the first amended complaint5 in David et al. v. Signal, Int’l, L.L.C. et. al. and 2) one sentence in the David court’s order6 denying class
certification concerning what damages are attributable to the David plaintiffs’ discrimination
claims. Signal argues this comparison shows that at least part of the Plaintiffs’ §§ 1981 and 1985
claims in this case occurred abroad.
In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court typically does not look beyond the
complaint. However, a court may consider attachments to briefing if the documents are
referenced in the complaint, central to the complaint, referenced by the parties, and their
4. Signal appears to argue that this court should dismiss the instant case because of the “foreign nature” of the claims. However, none of the cases cited by Signal are applicable to the instant case in which Signal allegedly committed torts within Texas that caused the Plaintiffs injuries within Texas. See e.g. Boureslan v. Aramco, Arabian Am. Oil Co., 892 F.2d 1271 (5th Cir. 1990) (An American citizen brought a Title VII suit, alleging that while he was working in Saudi Arabia, the American corporation which employed him discriminated against him because of his race, religion and national origin.); Coca-Cola Co. v. Harmar Bottling Co., 218 S.W.3d 671, 680-81 (Tex. 2006) (“It is an especially sensitive matter for a jurisdiction to extend its laws governing economic competition beyond its borders.”); E.E.O.C. v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991) (An American citizen brought a Title VII action against a United States employer, alleging that while he was working abroad, the employer discriminated against him because of his race, religion, and national origin.).
5. David v. Signal Int’l, L.L.C., Civ. A. No. 08-1220 (E.D. La. April 29, 2008) (Doc. No. 47). 6. David et al. v. Signal, Int’l, L.L.C. et. al., Civ. A. No. 08-1220, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2012).
7

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 60 Filed 07/30/14 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 742
authenticity is not in dispute. See Walch v. Adjutant Gen. Dep’t, 533 F.3d 289, 293–94 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007)); Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2004). The David litigation is not mentioned in the complaint; and therefore, the David first amended complaint and the David court’s order denying class certification are not central to the Plaintiffs’ complaint in this case. Furthermore, Signal failed to include the documents in its briefing to this court. Obviously, without being able to consider the David court documents, Signal’s motion should not be granted on this basis.
V. Recommendation For the reasons stated above, Signal’s “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)” (Doc. No. 24) should be denied.
VI. Objections Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) (Supp. IV 2011), each party to this action has the right to file objections to this report and recommendation. Objections to this report must (1) be in writing, (2) specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, and (3) be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A party who objects to this report is entitled to a de novo determination by the United States District Judge of those proposed findings and recommendations to which a specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States
8

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 60 Filed 07/30/14 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 743 District Judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States District Judge, see Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996). SIGNED this 30th day of July, 2014. _________________________ Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge
9

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 61 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 744

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

SATHEESH MARIMUTHU et al.

'

'

v.

'

'

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C. et al '

NO. 1:13-CV-499

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is assigned to the Honorable Marcia Crone, United States District Judge, and is

referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial matters. Pending

before the undersigned is the “Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)” filed by Malvern C. Burnett, the Law Offices of Malvern C.

Burnett, A.P.C., and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. (hereinafter referred to

interchangeably as “Burnett” and “the Burnett Defendants”). (Doc. No. 36.) The undersigned

has considered the pending motion and the corresponding response (Doc. No. 43). The Burnett

Defendants’ motion should be denied because the court has specific personal jurisdiction over

the Defendants given the number of alleged tortious acts committed by the Defendants that

injured the Plaintiffs within Texas.

I. Background

A. Procedural Background

On March 7, 2008, twelve individuals who were allegedly trafficked into the United

States filed a putative class action against the Defendants in the Eastern District of Louisiana

asserting trafficking, RICO, civil rights, and state law contract and fraud claims. See David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, Civ. A. No. 08-1220 (E.D. La.). That Court denied class certification;1 and,

1. David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, Civ. A. No. 08-1220, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247, at *129 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2012).

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 61 Filed 08/01/14 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 745
as a result of this ruling, the Plaintiffs in the instant action filed suit in this District, where they were allegedly subjected to deplorable working conditions at a Signal facility in Orange, Texas. (Doc. No. 1.) On August 7, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this court against the following Defendants: Burnett, Signal International, L.L.C., Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P. (hereinafter referred to as “Signal”), Global Resources, Inc., Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. B. Factual Background
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, approximately 590 men, including the Plaintiffs, were allegedly trafficked into the United States through the federal government’s H-2B guest worker program to provide labor and services to the Signal Defendants. (Doc. No. 1.) The Plaintiffs claim they were lured to work for Signal through the fraudulent promise of legal and permanent work-based immigration to the United States for themselves and their families. (Id., p. 4.) Subsequently, after coming to the United States, the Plaintiffs were allegedly subjected to forced labor and other serious abuses at Signal operations in Orange, Texas. (Id.)
The Burnett Defendants consist of Malvern C. Burnett and his two corporations: Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. The Plaintiffs accuse Burnett of conspiring with Signal and other Defendants to recruit Indian welders and pipefitters to fill anticipated H-2B guest worker jobs at Signal’s Orange, Texas operations with false promises of permanent residency in the United States for the workers and their families. (Id.)
II. Jurisdiction The Burnett Defendants move to dismiss the instant case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) alleging that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. (Doc. No. 36.)
2 of 10

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 61 Filed 08/01/14 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 746
Rule 12(b)(2) requires a court to dismiss a claim if it does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Grynberg v. BP P.L.C., 855 F. Supp. 2d 625, 638 (S.D. Tex. 2012); see FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2). “When a court rules on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without holding an evidentiary hearing, the party asserting jurisdiction is required to present facts sufficient to constitute a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction to satisfy its burden.” Duke Energy Int’l, L.L.C. v. Napoli, 748 F. Supp. 2d 656, 678 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (citing Central Freight Lines Inc. v. APA Transport Corp., 322 F.3d 376, 380 (5th Cir. 2003); Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco A.B., 205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000)). “[O]n a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint must be taken as true, and conflicts between the facts contained in the parties’ affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor for purposes of determining whether a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction exists.” Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 213, 217 (5th Cir. 1990).
III. Analysis The undersigned finds this court has specific personal jurisdiction over the Burnett Defendants. Absent a statute that permits nationwide service of process, when a suit is based on a federal statute, the court looks to the long-arm statute of the state in which it sits to determine whether a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Omni Capital Intern., Ltd. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 105 (1987). The Texas long-arm statute confers jurisdiction to the limits of the federal constitution. Companion Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Palermo, 723 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 2013). Therefore, the undersigned’s focus is whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction offends or satisfies constitutional requirements of due process. In order to satisfy due process, the Burnett Defendants must have “certain minimum contacts with [Texas] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of
3 of 10

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 61 Filed 08/01/14 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 747
fair play and substantial justice.” Parker v. Pro W. Contractors, L.L.C., No. 13-30142, 2013 WL 3534082, at *1 (5th Cir. July 15, 2013) (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). “The minimum contacts requirement is satisfied by either: (1) contacts that give rise to general personal jurisdiction or (2) contacts that give rise to specific personal jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir. 1994)). Because the Plaintiffs do not argue minimum contacts are satisfied through general personal jurisdiction, the undersigned will focus only on whether the Burnett Defendants have sufficient contacts that give rise to specific personal jurisdiction.
“Specific jurisdiction is proper where the defendant has ‘purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.’” Parker, 2013 WL 3534082, at *1 (5th Cir. July 15, 2013) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985)); see also Electrosource, Inc. v. Horizon Battery Techs. Ltd., 176 F.3d 867, 871 (5th Cir. 1999) (litigation must arise out of or relate to activities purposefully directed at residents of the forum). “The constitutional requirement for specific jurisdiction is that the defendant has ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state such that imposing a judgment would not ‘offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”’ Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Wercinski, 513 F.3d 476, 484 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). A. Minimum Contacts
1. The Complaint In the complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that Signal authorized Pol, Dewan, and Burnett to act as their agents for the purposes of recruiting and providing Indian welders and fitters to fill
4 of 10

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 61 Filed 08/01/14 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 748
anticipated H-2B guest worker jobs at Signal’s Orange, Texas operations. (Doc. No. 1, p. 13.) Acting as Signal’s agents, Burnett then entered into contracts with the Plaintiffs in which they promised: (1) the Plaintiffs would work under a permanent resident (green card) program, and (2) the Plaintiffs would promptly receive a refund of all or nearly all of their payments if the Defendants did not succeed in securing green cards for Plaintiffs. (Id., p. 18.) However, Burnett had no intention of, and did not apply for or assist the Plaintiffs in obtaining permanent residency for themselves or their families. (Id., p. 7.) Furthermore, Burnett did not refund the fees the Plaintiffs paid in reliance on Burnett’s false promises. (Id.) The Plaintiffs further allege that “at all relevant times, Burnett had an attorney-client relationship with each Plaintiff for purposes of immigration issues and Plaintiffs’ work for Signal.” (Id., p. 24.) However, once they were in Signal’s facility, the Plaintiffs were not allowed to speak or meet with Burnett. (Id.) Furthermore, when the Plaintiffs did try to contract Burnett, their calls were not returned. (Id.) As a result, the Plaintiffs continued to work at Signal under the false premise that Burnett was working to secure permanent residency for them.
The Plaintiffs have satisfied the minimum contacts requirement by alleging the Burnett Defendants committed acts outside of Texas that caused tortious injuries within Texas. The Fifth Circuit has held that sufficient minimum contacts are established “[w]hen a nonresident defendant commits a tort within the state, or an act outside the state that causes tortious injury within the state.” Guidry v. United States Tobacco Co., 188 F.3d 619, 628 (5th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases). “Even an act done outside the state that has consequences or effects within the state will suffice as a basis for jurisdiction in a suit arising from those consequences if the effects are seriously harmful and were intended or highly likely to follow from the nonresident defendant’s conduct.” Id. (collecting cases). An individual injured in Texas “need not go to
5 of 10

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 61 Filed 08/01/14 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 749
[another jurisdiction] to seek redress from persons who, though remaining in other states,
intentionally, knowingly and recklessly caused severe physical, emotional and economic injuries
to the plaintiffs and others” in Texas. Id. at 630. Based upon the complaint, the Plaintiffs
have established that the Burnett Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with Texas
because the alleged tortious acts committed by the Burnett Defendants, even if most were
committed outside of Texas, caused tortious injuries within Texas. The Burnett Defendants,
who allegedly conspired with Signal to lure the Plaintiffs to Orange, Texas with false promises,
and who continued to deceive the Plaintiffs once they arrived in Texas by refusing to speak with
them and not fulfill their promises, cannot credibly argue that they could not reasonably have
anticipated being sued in this District. 2. The Burnett Deposition, Affidavit and Letter2
In his deposition (Doc. No. 43, Exh. A) Burnett stated as follows:
I would give the workers their documents and make sure, you know, that all the – you know, the visas, the applications, the experience letters, resumes . . . where in the proper order. [I] would go through a litany of information to provide to the workers, you know, and it basically went along these lines: You know, where you’re working, know your occupation, know your rate of pay, know whether you’re going to be working in Texas or Pascagoula.
In response to the Plaintiff’s attorney asking Burnett if he assisted Signal in filing
Employment and Training Administration (“ETA”) 750 applications in Mississippi for the
workers that were being moved from Texas to Mississippi, Burnett stated: “You know, I—unless
they got someone else to do it, I’m pretty sure I did it.” (Doc. No. 43, Exh. B.) Burnett also
2. “In resolving a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, the Court may consider ‘affidavits, interrogatories, depositions, oral testimony, or any combination of the recognized methods of discovery.”’ Allstate Ins. Co. v. Interline Brands, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-946-B, 2014 WL 462814, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2014) (quoting Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1192 (5th Cir.1985)).
6 of 10

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 61 Filed 08/01/14 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 750
states in his affidavit that he visited Signal’s Texas facility at least once in 2007 “in response to a request by Signal to generally discuss with the Texas Plant manager the overall status and employment of the non-immigrant workers who had been initially deployed to Signal’s facility in Texas.” (Doc. No. 36, Exh. 1., p. 2.) Furthermore, the Plaintiffs have attached as an exhibit to their response, a letter Burnett wrote to the Texas Workforce Commission in which he included an Application for Alien Employment Certification. (Doc. No. 43, Exh. E.) In this application, Burnett wrote that “110 unnamed welders” would be working in Orange, Texas. (Id.)
This evidence establishes Burnett “purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.” Parker, 2013 WL 3534082, at *1 (5th Cir. July 15, 2013). Burnett knew the Plaintiffs would be working in Pascagoula, Mississippi or Orange, Texas, and he visited Texas on at least one occasion to discuss the status of the workers. Burnett also submitted an Application for Employment Certification with the Texas Workforce Commission to get approval for Signal to hire “110 unnamed welders” for its Orange, Texas facility. In summary, Burnett “provided legal services for clients in Texas and he knew that those legal services were used to obtain workers for the man camp in Texas.” (Doc. No. 43, p. 9.) B. Traditional Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice
The undersigned also finds it will not “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” for this court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Burnett Defendants. The Fifth Circuit has used the following test to assess the reasonableness of a court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction: “(1) the burden upon the nonresident defendant to litigate in that forum; (2) the forum state’s interests in the matter; (3) the plaintiff’s interest in securing relief; (4) the
7 of 10

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 61 Filed 08/01/14 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 751
interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the several states’ shared interest in furthering substantive social policies.” Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Wercinski, 513 F.3d 476, 487 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 113 (1987)). First, the Burnett Defendants will not face a large burden in litigating the instant case in this District, because the Burnett Defendants, who consist of a single attorney and two “inactive” companies, are located in Louisiana, which is contiguous to Texas. Second, the forum state, Texas, does have an interest in the matter because the Plaintiffs were allegedly injured while working at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility. Third, keeping the Burnett Defendants claims in this District will provide the most efficient resolution of this case. Notwithstanding their status as putative class members, the Plaintiffs have already moved their case once from a different federal district court after their motion for class certification was denied. David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, Civ. A. No. 08-1220, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247, at *129 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2012). The most expeditious option at this point would be to continue this case in this District. Finally, the Burnett Defendants have not pointed out any clashes between the substantive social policies of Texas and any other potential forum state in regards to this case. There is no reason to believe that the State of Texas and the other potential forum state have different levels of interest in or conflicting views on the social issues pervading this case. Taking these factors into consideration, the undersigned finds that traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice will not be offended by exercising personal jurisdiction over the Burnett Defendants.
In summary, the undersigned finds the Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case that this court has personal jurisdiction over the Burnett Defendants by showing 1) the Burnett Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with Texas; and 2) it will not offend traditional
8 of 10

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 61 Filed 08/01/14 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 752
notions of fair play and substantial justice for this court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Burnett Defendants.
IV. Recommendation For the reasons stated above, the “Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion of Malvern C. Burnett, the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)” (Doc. No. 36) should be DENIED.
V. Objections Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) (Supp. IV 2011), each party to this action has the right to file objections to this report and recommendation. Objections to this report must (1) be in writing, (2) specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, and (3) be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). A party who objects to this report is entitled to a de novo determination by the United States District Judge of those proposed findings and recommendations to which a specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States District Judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any
9 of 10

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 61 Filed 08/01/14 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 753 such findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States District Judge, see Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996). SIGNED this 1st day of August, 2014. _________________________ Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge
10 of 10

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 82 PageID #: 827

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

SATHEESH KANNAN MARIMUTHU, BALAMURUGAN MARIMUTHU, MURUGANANDAM ARUMUGAM, MURALIDHARAN ARUMUGAM, SATYANARAYANA ELLAPU, MOORTHY NADHAMUNI, RAJENDRAN SAPPANI, RAJENDRAN SUBRAMANI, VENKATA SATYA SIVAGI RAO TALABATHULLA, and SAMMANASUNATHAN SILUVAIMUTHU,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, G.P., 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., GLOBAL RESOURCES, INC., SACHIN DEWAN, and DEWAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. (a/k/a MEDTECH CONSULTANTS).
Defendants.

) ) ) ) Civ. No. 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) AND JURY DEMAND ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a hum an trafficking case brought by Indian workers who were trafficked

into the United States through the governm ent’s H-2B guest worker program . Plaintiffs were

trafficked to the state of Texas in order to provide labor and services to Signal International, Inc.,

Signal International, LLC, Signal In ternational Texas, G.P., and Si gnal International Texas, L.P.

(collectively, “Signal”). In an effort to procure a cheap, compliant and expendable labor source,

Defendants targeted Indian workers, recruiting P laintiffs for positions as pipef itters and welders

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 2 of 82 PageID #: 828

with Signal using false promises of assistance in applying for and obtaining permanent residence

in the United States. Defendants then bilked Plai ntiffs out of tens of thousands of dollars in

“recruitment fees” (for which Plai ntiffs assumed massive debt), traf ficked them into the United

States, f orced them to live in squalid condition s in a gated, guarded, is olated labor cam p, and

required them to pay exorbitant sums for the “pri vilege” of living in these repulsive conditions.

If Plaintiffs complained, they were threatened with adverse immigrati on and employment action

and the resulting prospect of financial ruin. De fendants did not treat non-Indian workers in the

same manner.

2. Plaintiffs are all form er employees of Si gnal’s Orange, Texas fa cility. Plaintiffs

bring this action to recover for the unlawful and fraudulent conduct of Signal and its agents:

Malvern C. Burnett; the Law Off ices of Malver n C. Burnett, A.P.C.; Gulf Coast I mmigration

Law Center, LLC; Sachin Dewan; Dewan Consu Resources, Inc. (the “Agents”).1

ltant Pvt. Ltd.; Michael Pol; and Global

3. Signal is a Gulf Coast-based marine and fabrication company. Faced with a labor

shortage and significant volum e of work in the wake of Hurrican e Katrina, S ignal sought to

recruit s everal hund red Indian wo rkers for p ositions as welders and pipefitters in Signal’s

facilities in Orange, Texas and Pascagoula, Mississippi.

4. Signal re tained the Agents to as sist in the re cruitment process. Sp ecifically,

Signal retained Michael Pol and his com pany Global Resources, Inc. ( collectively referred to as

1

On June 13, 2013, Michael Pol filed for Ch apter 7 bankruptcy in the United S tates

Bankruptcy Court for the Southe rn District of Mi ssissippi (Case No. 13 -51168-KMG). Due to

the automatic bankruptcy stay, Michael Pol has not been included as a defendant in this action.

- 2 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 3 of 82 PageID #: 829

“Pol” unless a distinction is drawn), a labor r ecruitment firm based in Mississ ippi; attorne y

Malvern C. Burnett and his law firm s, the Law Offices o f Malvern C. Burnett an d Gulf Coast

Immigration Law Center, LLC (collectively ref erred to as “Burnett” unl ess a dis tinction is

drawn); and Sachin Dewan and his com pany, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (c ollectively referred

to as “Dewan” unless a distin ction is drawn), a labor rec ruitment f irm in India. Signal also

executed a power of attorney authorizing Dewan Consultants to recruit for Signal abroad.

5. To minimize cost to Signal, Defendants and Pol designed a schem e in which the

workers would pay for their own recruitm ent, immigration processing, and travel, which was

memorialized in the April 18, 2006 Skilled Wo rker Agreem ent between Signal and Global.

Under this schem e, any expenses and fees not paid up front by the workers would be paid by

Global. Global, in turn, would deduct amounts from the workers’ wages in order to recoup those

expenses and fees directly from the workers. Signal, however, would pay nothing.

6. By at least m id-2006, the Agents and, upon inform

ation and belief,

representatives of Signal began tr aveling to In dia to rec ruit work ers, including Plaintiffs. In

newspaper advertisem ents and in-person m eetings, Defendants and Pol prom ised to provide

stable employment and assist Pl aintiffs and other workers in applying for and obtaining a green

card for perm anent residence in th e United S tates. In ex change, Plaintiffs and other workers

were required to pay for “recruitm ent fees” to the Agents—ranging anywhere from $10,000 to

$25,000. Defendants an d Pol further rep resented that Plaintiffs’ families would be able to jo in

them in the United States.

7. To alleviate any concerns about the pot ential living conditions in the United

States, Defendants and Pol repres ented during in-person m eetings that the liv ing conditions

would be com parable to those some of the Plai ntiffs described experiencing in Singapore and

- 3 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 4 of 82 PageID #: 830

Dubai—which included, for example, a shar

ed two-bedroom a partment, quality food,

transportation to and from the job site, and one trip back to India per year.

8. Because Signal’s need for workers was immediate, Defendants and Pol told

Plaintiffs they would first ac quire tem porary work visas (H-2 B) because the visas could be

obtained faster than green cards, but that De fendants would also apply for green cards on

Plaintiffs’ behalf.

9. Lured by D efendants’ f raudulent prom ises of legal and perm anent work-based

immigration to the United States f or themselves and their f amilies, Plaintiffs paid the exorbitant

recruiting fees to take advantage of the seem ingly promising opportunities, causing them selves

and their f amilies to in cur m assive debt. Inde ed, to cove r the re cruiting and immigra tion f ees

Plaintiffs often had to sell fam ily assets, take out loans secured by real property and jewelry,

borrow m oney with high interest rates, and ot herwise incur lif e-altering debt. Plain tiffs

undertook such debt and paid th e recruiting and imm igration f ees in reasonable reliance on

Defendants’ promises. In further reliance on Defe ndants’ promises, some Plaintiffs relinquished

stable employment opportunities in Singapore and elsewhere.

10. Defendants, however, had no intention of making good on their promises to assist

Plaintiffs in applying for and obtaining perm anent residency. To be sure, Defendants did not

take—indeed, had no intention of taking—steps to assist Plainti ffs in applying for or obtaining

permanent residency. In fact, at the suggestion of its Agents, Signal repr esented to the United

States governm ent that it was employing the

Indian workers (incl uding Plaintiffs) only

temporarily and that they would be returned to I ndia “within the . . . year.” Moreover, internal

correspondence among Signal m anagement from Ma y 2006 reflects that “[a] ll [Signal is] doing

now is bringing the workers in under the H2B pr ogram.” Defendants brought Plaintiffs to the

- 4 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 5 of 82 PageID #: 831
United States through the tem porary H-2B guestworker visa program despite knowing, and failing to disclose, that the guestworker program was fundamentally incompatible with filing for green cards.
11. Defendants never inform ed Plaintiffs th at they had no intention of assisting Plaintiffs in applying for or obtaining green cards. Nor did Defendants ever disclose to Plaintiffs the representations they made to the United States government regarding the temporary nature of their em ployment and residence. Plaintiffs were sim ply unawa re that Defendants’ prom ises regarding employment and perm anent residency were false and re lied on the f alse promises to their detriment.
12. Upon arrival in the United States, Signal requ ired Plaintiffs to live in an isolated, Indian-only labor cam p located outside of Orange , Texas (the “Texas Labor Cam p”). Contrary to Defendants’ representations regarding living conditions, the conditions at the T exas Labor Camp were horrid. Plaintiffs were forced to live in cramped trailers—containing up to 24 men— with little to no priva cy. The tr ailers we re so crowded som e Plaintiffs had to sleep on their luggage. T he trailers had insufficient bathroom f acilities (one or two toile ts) that were rarely cleaned, which created n ot only an awful sm ell but also unsanitary liv ing conditions. Food was available only at certain hours an d was often rotten. As a res ult of the conditions, several of the residents became sick. The cam p was also fenced, gated, and guarded, such that Plaintif fs felt they were being imprisoned.
13. As with the “recru itment fees,” th e cost to live at the T exas Labor Cam p was borne by Plaintiffs. Indeed, Signal charged P laintiffs m ightily for the “right” to endure the horrible conditions at the cam p—deducting $35 pe r day seven days a week ($1,050 per m onth) out of the Plaintiffs’ pre-tax earnings. If work ers asked to live of f-site, Signal inf ormed them
- 5 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 6 of 82 PageID #: 832
that it would still deduct $1,050 per m onth from their inco me, effectively prohibiting workers from seeking more humane and sanitary conditions.
14. Significantly, non-Indian workers w ere not placed in guarded labor camps, were not subjected to squalid living conditions, and di d not have exorbitant room and board fees deducted from their pre-tax earnings.
15. The Indian workers at the Texas Labor Camp, including Plaintiffs, were also subjected to different, less favorable em ployment conditions than non-Indians. Upon information and belief, Indian workers were assi gned projects that were more difficult and m ore dangerous than those assigned to non-Indian workers, received te rms and conditions of employment that were different from and less favorable than non-Indian em ployees, and were subjected to offensive anti-Indian diatribe and repeated threats of deportation.
16. To prevent the Indian workers from complaining, Defendants deceived them regarding their immig ration st atus, threatened them with loss of immigration status and deportation, and generally perpetrated a ca mpaign of psychological coercion and fraud designed to render Indian workers com pliant, intim idated, and unable to leave Signal’s em ploy. As an additional element of control, Signal required Plai ntiffs and other Indian workers to set up direct deposit bank accounts to which Sig nal maintained access. These accou nts effectively permitted Signal to co ntrol worke rs’ ab ility to leave th e facility by threatening to cut off access to the accounts. Upon information and belief, Signal did exactly that to an Indian worker who had fled the Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.
17. Faced with crushing debt and fearful of the possibility of deportation by Signal should they com plain, Plaintiffs fe lt com pelled to continue working for Signal despite the
- 6 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 7 of 82 PageID #: 833
dreadful conditions at the Texas L abor Cam p, th e extortionate room a nd board f ees, and the discriminatory employment conditions. Simply put, Plaintiffs felt that they had no other option.
18. The compulsion Plaintiffs felt to continue working at Signal only increased when they learned about the events that transpired at the Pascagoula, Mississippi facility on March 9, 2007. Upset that workers were com plaining about conditions at th e facility, Signal decided to terminate and forcibly send five of t he more vocal Indian w orkers back to India. Signal locked the gate at the Pascagoula facility, preventing workers from leaving, rounded up and detained the vocal workers, and inform ed them that they we re being deported. One of these workers was so distraught over the threat of returning to I ndia without paying the debt he incurred over the recruitment f ees that he attem pted to comm it suicide. W hen news of the events and the attempted s uicide trave led to th e Texas Labo r Ca mp, Plaintiffs becam e even more afra id to complain about the con ditions they had been subj ect to. Understandably, Plaintiffs feared that they would be returned to India and/or physically harmed if they did so.
19. Ultimately, less th an a year- and-a-half after co ming to the Texas Lab or Camp, Plaintiffs were either term inated or told they were being sent to work at the Pascagoula, Mississippi facility for lower wages. Faced with the latter prospect, some Plaintiffs escaped and fled the Texas Labor Camp.
20. At no point did Defendants apply for or assist Plaintiffs in obtaining perm anent residency for them selves or their fa milies. At no point did Defendant s refund the tens of thousands of dollars in recrui tment and imm igration fees Plai ntiffs paid in reliance on Defendants’ false promises. And at no point did Defenda nts compensate or offer to com pensate Plaintiffs for the conditions they were forced to endure at the Texas Labor Cam p. Indeed, at no point did they even offer an apology. Instead , Defendants m aintain that how they treated
- 7 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 8 of 82 PageID #: 834
Plaintiffs and the other Indian workers was both lawful and moral. This mistaken viewpoint was most recen tly espoused by Signal’s CEO in a pre ss release, brazenly declaring that Signal “treated [th e Indian wo rkers] with dignity a nd respect jus t as we treat each and ev ery Signal employee.”
21. Signal’s self-delusion aside, Plaintiffs were victim s of reprehensible conduct. Plaintiffs assert claim s arising from violations of their rights under the Victim s of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (“TVPA”), the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981), the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1985), and claims for damages arising from fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 22. This Court has jurisdic tion over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) (civil trafficking), and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights). 23. 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 claim s arise out of the sam e nucl eus of facts that support the federal claims. 24. Additionally, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Si gnal entities pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k) an d Texas Code § 17.042, becau se th ey are registered to do business in Texas, maintain a continuing business presence in the state, operated the Orange, Texas facility and Texas Labor Camp where the Plaintiffs worked and resided and where Signal engaged in wrongful conduct, and a substantial portion of the communications, transactions, events, or omissions underlying Plaintiffs’ claim s occurred ei ther in Texas o r to secure labor for Signal’s Orange, Texas facility.
- 8 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 9 of 82 PageID #: 835
25. This Court also has personal jurisdicti on over the other Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) and Texas Code § 17.042, because th ey recruited Plaintiffs for e mployment at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility, had substantial business c ontacts with Texas, and a substantia l portion of the comm unications, transactions, even ts, or om issions underlying Plaintiffs’ claims either occurred in Texas or occurred to secure labor for Signal’s Orange, Texas facility.
26. Venue is appropriate in th e Eastern District of Te xas under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as Defendants engaged in hum an tra fficking, violations of Plai ntiffs’ ci vil ri ghts, fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract in this judicial district.
PARTIES Plaintiffs 27. Plaintiffs are from India and are o f I ndian alienage, race and ethn icity. The Plaintiffs were all recruited by Defendants in or about 2006 to work at Signal’s T exas Labor Camp. Each of the Plaintiffs paid between $15,000 - $25,000 in “recruitment fees” to the Agents in the belief that Defendants w ould assist them in obtaining green cards for Pl aintiffs and t heir families. 28. Plaintiff Satheesh Kannan Marim uthu wa s recruited by Defendants beginning in or around December 2006 as a fitter. He arrived in the United States o n or around February 15, 2007. 29. Plaintiff Balam urugan Marim uthu was recr uited by Defendants beginning in or around August 2006 as a fitter. He arrived in the United States on or around December 13, 2006. 30. Plaintiff Muruganandam Arumugam was recruited by Defendants beginning in or around May 2006 as a welder. He arrived in the United States on or around February 1, 2007.
- 9 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 10 of 82 PageID #: 836
31. Plaintiff Muralidharan Arum ugam was recruited by Defe ndants beginning in or around March 2006 as a fitter an d welder. He arrived in the United States o n or aroun d December 11, 2006.
32. Plaintiff Satyanarayan a Ellapu was r ecruited by Defenda nts beginning in or around June 2006 as a welder. He arrived in the United States on or around December 13, 2006.
33. Plaintiff Moorthy Nadhamuni was recruited by Defendants beginning in or around November 2006 as a fitter. He arrived in the United States on or around February 15, 2007.
34. Plaintiff Rajendran Sappani was recru ited by Defendants beginning in or around November 2006 as a fitter. He arrived in the United States on or around December 18, 2006.
35. Plaintiff Rajendran Sub ramani was r ecruited by Defenda nts beginning in or around late 2006 as a welder and f itter. He arrived in the Unite d States on or around February 15, 2007.
36. Plaintiff Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Ta labathulla was recruited by D efendants beginning in or around May 2006 as a welder. He arrived in the United States in or around December 2006.
37. Plaintiff Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu was recruited by Signal beginning in or around November 2006 as a welder. He arrived in the United Stat es in or around Decem ber 14, 2006.
Defendants 38. Signal operates a m arine and fabrication business in the G ulf Coast re gion that includes offshore drilling rig overhaul, repair, upgrade, and conversion.
- 10 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 11 of 82 PageID #: 837
39. Upon inform ation and belief, Defendants Signal Internationa l, LLC and Signal International, Inc. are corporat ions organized under the laws of Delaware and have facilities located in Orange, Texas, in addition to other locations in the Gulf Coast region.
40. Upon inform ation and belief, Defendant S ignal Internat ional Texas, G.P. is a general partnership organized under the laws of Texas and employed the labor for Signal International, LLC and Signal International, Inc. at the Texas Labor Camp.
41. Upon inform ation and belief, Defendant Si gnal Interna tional Texas, L.P. is a limited partnership of S ignal International, LLC and Signal Intern ational Texas, G.P. organize d under the laws of Texas.
42. Upon inform ation and belief, all polic ies, money for payroll, corporate governance, and legal advice for Defendant Signal International Texas, G.P. was provided by Signal International, LLC.
43. Upon inform ation and belief, all polic ies, money for payroll, corporate governance, and legal advice for Defendant Signa l International Texas, L.P. was provided by Signal International, LLC.
44. Upon information and belief, Defendant Si gnal does not distinguish the roles of the Signal entities, including but not limited to, which entity paid Plaintiffs.
45. Upon inform ation and belief, Defendant Signal International, LLC executed contracts relevant to this Complaint in the name of Signal International, Inc.
46. Upon and information and belief, Signal did not document which entity employed Plaintiffs.
47. Upon inform ation and belief, Defendant S ignal International, Inc. is the sole member of Defendant Signal International, LLC.
- 11 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 12 of 82 PageID #: 838
48. Upon inform ation and belief, Defendant Signal Internationa l, LLC and Signal International, Inc. acted as agents and/or alter egos of Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal International Texas, L.P. at all times relevant to the claims set forth herein. At all relevant times, Defendant Signal International, Inc. had knowledge of and consented to the actions of De fendant Signal International, LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal International Texas, L.P.
49. Defendant Global Resources, Inc. (“Global”) is a Mississippi corporation engaged in the busin ess of rec ruiting skilled f oreign wo rkers to wo rk in the U nited S tates, includ ing Texas. Upon inform ation and belief, Michael Pol was the sole corporate officer of Gl obal at all relevant times and en tered into contracts for Global with the other Defenda nts and Plaintiffs in connection with providing labor for the Texas Labor Camp. Through Michael Pol, Global worked to recruit workers for Signal’s Orange, Texas facility.
50. Defendant Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k /a Medtech Consultants) is a priv ate limited liability company organized under th e laws of India. Dewan Consultan ts has substantial business contacts with Orange, Te xas and recruited Indian worker s, including Plaintiffs, for employment in Texas. Defendant Sachin Dewan is the Director of Dewan Consultants and has had substantial business contacts with Orange, Texas, including recruiting Indian w orkers for employment in Orange, Texas. At all relevant times, Sachin Dewan acte d as the agent or a lter ego of Dewan Consultants.
51. Defendant Malvern C. Burnett is an atto rney who practices in the Gulf Coast region and resides in N ew Orlean s, Louisiana. He perform ed le gal work assoc iated with th e Plaintiffs’ employment in Orange, Texas, helped to recruit Plaintiffs, filed for visas on Plaintiffs’ behalf, and colle cted legal fees from Plaintiffs. At a ll relevant times, Burnett h ad an a ttorneyclient relationship with Plaintiffs, including both before and after Plai ntiffs arrived in Texas. In
- 12 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 13 of 82 PageID #: 839
addition, at all relevant tim es, Burnett had attorn ey-client and business re lationships with other Defendants.
52. Defendant Law Offices of Malvern C. Burn ett, A.P.C. (“Burnett Law Offices”) is a professional law corporati on organized under Louisiana law. Upon infor mation and belief, Malvern C. Burnett is the registered agent, sole member and/or corporate officer of Burnett Law Offices.
53. Defendant Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC (“Gulf Coast Immigration”) is a Louisiana lim ited liability corporation. Upon inform ation and belief, Malvern C. Burnett is the registered agent, sole member and/or corporate officer of Gulf Coast Immigration.
54. Upon information and belief, Defendants Bu rnett, Burnett Law Offices, and Gulf Coast Imm igration cons tituted a joint venture a nd/or were alte r egos of each other in that all entities have the sam e corporate m ailing address, intermingle business assets, do n ot operate at arms’ length, and Burnett is the registered agent and sole m ember and/or corpo rate officer for Burnett Law Offices and Gulf Coast Immigration.
55. At all relevant tim es, Burnett, Dewan, and Pol acted as agents and/or representatives of Signal. Burn ett, Dewan, and Pol were acting wi thin the course and scope of their agency at all relevant tim es and Signal had full knowledge of their acts and consented, permitted, a uthorized a nd ratif ied, express ly a nd/or im pliedly, the a cts perf ormed by Burnett, Dewan and Pol as alleged in this complaint.
56. At all relevant tim es, the Defendants were engaged in a joint venture with each other to recruit Plaintiffs, along with other Indi an workers, to work for Signal at the Orange, Texas facility. The Defendants entered into various written and oral agreements evidencing their agreement to accomplish such recruitment and each Defendant acted within the course and scope
- 13 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 14 of 82 PageID #: 840
of the ventu re and those agreem ents. Defendant s each had full knowled ge of the actions of the other Def endants se t f orth in th is C omplaint an d consented, perm itted, author ized a nd ratif ied, either expressly or impliedly the actions of the other Defendants.
SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS Signal Arranged for Dewan, Burnett, and Pol to Bring Temporary Workers
to the United States 57. The destruction caused by Hurrican e Katrina presented Signal with the potential to take on lucrative new work fixing dam aged oil rigs, ships, and other machine platform s. As a result of the hurricane, however, som e of Signal’ s workforce had left the Gulf Coast area, and Signal was in need of additional laborers—particularly skilled fitters and welders. 58. In early 2006, Pol approached Signal about providing additional workers for their operations. He inf ormed them that he could p rovide sk illed f itters and welders f rom India to work for Signal at no cost to Signal. 59. Pol explained to Signal that he would work with Burnett and Dewan to recruit the workers and obtain the appropriate immigration status for such workers , but that th e workers, including Plaintiffs, would pay fo r all costs an d fees asso ciated with the rec ruitment pro cess, immigration processing, and travel to the Un ited S tates. Signal w ould pay the workers, including Plaintiffs, between $14 - $18/hour, depending on each worker’s skill level. 60. Signal and Global ex ecuted a S killed W orker Recruitm ent Agreem ent (the “Recruitment Agreement”) on or about April 18, 2006, which set forth certain terms for Michael Pol and Global to recruit foreign skilled worker s for e mployment at Signal “under the ‘H-2B’ temporary program and/or the ‘perm anent resi dence’ p rocess.” The Recruitm ent Agreem ent required Global to be responsible f or delivering the workers “at no cost to Si gnal”, including paying for all costs associated w ith recruitment, transportation, and entry into the United States
- 14 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 15 of 82 PageID #: 841
by the foreign workers. The co sts incurred by Po l and Global were to be paid by the foreign workers, including Plaintiffs.
61. Dewan and Signal entered into a power of attorney on or about June 19, 2006, which permitted Dewan to act as Sig nal’s “representative in India to facilitate the recruitment of skilled workers to the U nited States of America” for e mployment with Signal. This power of attorney authorized Dewan to advertise, conduct seminars, conduct skills tests and sign necessary legal documentation related to the recruitment of skilled workers to work in the United States for Signal.
62. In approxim ately m id- to late-2006, Si gnal entered into an attorney-client relationship with Burnett with respect to legal issues related to Signal’s need for foreign workers. Upon infor mation and belief, Signal and Burnett en tered into a written retainer agreem ent. Under the retainer agreement, however, Signal would not be respons ible for any legal fees owed to Burnett, but instead Burnett would receive compensation out of the “recruitment fees” paid by the foreign workers, including Plaintiffs.
The Agents Recruited Plaintiffs and Other Indian Workers for Signal 63. Upon information and belief, Defendants targ eted Plaintiffs for recruitm ent based on their race and/or national origin. Specifical ly, Defendants targeted Indian workers on the belief th at the Indian worker s would provide a source of ch eap, co mpliant and potentially expendable labor. The goal of this schem e was to m aximize benefi ts to the D efendants— including the fees received by the Agents—at the expense of the Indian workers. 64. Acting as Signal’s recruiting agents for the purposes of facilitating the recruitment of Indian workers for em ployment at Signal, Pol and Dewan pl aced advertisem ents in newspapers throughout India and the United Arab Emirates in the spring, summ er, and fall of 2006 offering opportunities for welders and fitters to immigrate permanently to the United States
- 15 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 16 of 82 PageID #: 842
under the auspices of Signal, a pur ported leading marine and fabrication company in Mississippi and Texas. Defendants targeted only Indian work ers in the ir recruitment efforts—indeed, even the adv ertisements used in the United Ara b Emirates were p laced in Indian-langu age newspapers.
65. Among other things, the advertisem ents and recru iting efforts prom ised “permanent lif etime settlem ent in USA f or self and f amilies,” “perm anent res idency” in the United States, and/or “green cards.” Upon in formation and belief, Pol and Dewan undertook these advertisem ents and other recruiting efforts on behalf of, at the direction of, and/or in coordination with Signal and Burnett.
66. Signal authorized Pol, D ewan, and B urnett to act as their agents for the p urposes of recruiting and providing Indian w elders and f itters to f ill anticipated H-2B guest worker job s at Signal’s Orange, Texas operations.
67. Upon information and belief, Signal furt her authorized Pol, Dewan, and Burnett to represent that Signal would agree to sponsor bona fide green card applications for the Plaintiffs and obtain at least two H-2B visa extensions on behalf of Plaintiffs to allow them to remain in the United States workin g f or Signal while their green card applic ations were being processed.
68. Upon information and belief, Signal author ized these representations even though it knew or had reason to know that such visa extensions and green card applications would not be bona fide, valid, or lawful unde r 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 workers, including the Plaintiffs.
- 16 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 17 of 82 PageID #: 843
69. At the latest, Signal learned from the firs t Indian workers to arrive at Signal’s facilities in Texas and Mississipp i—workers who arrived well in advance of Plaintiffs—that those workers had paid exorbitant recruitm ent fees to the Agents, and had m ade those payments on the basis of prom ises of assistance in a pplying for and obtaining green cards which Signal knew was false. Signal nonetheless continued to facilitate the transpo rtation of hundreds m ore Indian workers to Signal worksites in Texas a nd Mississippi, including Plaintiffs, because it was in Signal’s financial interest to do so.
Plaintiffs Incurred Substantial Debt to Pay the Agents’ “Recruitment Fees” 70. In response to the advertisem ents posted by Pol and Dewan, Plaintiffs communicated with Pol and Dewan in the spri ng, summer, and fall of 2006 via telephone, and attended in-person meetings with P ol, Dewan, and Burnett. During tho se meetings, the Agents informed Pl aintiffs that the job opportunities that had been advertised were with Signal. In addition, the Agents, acting on Signal’s behalf, informed Plaintiffs of the opportunity to work for Signal on H-2B visas which would lead to permanent resident (green card) status. 71. Specifically, the Agents prom ised recruits, including Plaintiffs, that Signal would sponsor Plaintiffs’ green card applications and extend their H-2B visas multiple times to enable Plaintiffs to work in the United States while their green card applications were pending. In exchange, each Plaintiff would have to pay fees totaling as much as 8 lakh rupees (approximately $18,000) in a series of approximately three installments. 72. At the tim e Plaintif fs made their paym ents, one rupee was worth approxim ately $0.0225, and one lakh (100,000 rupees) was worth approximately $2,250. 73. The Agents further informed recruits, including Plaintiffs, that they would be able to obtain legal permanent residence for their spouses and children.
- 17 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 18 of 82 PageID #: 844
74. In addition, during the telephone comm unications, at recruitm ent m eetings, and through written documents, the Agents (includi ng through their employees) represented to Plaintiffs that Defendant Si gnal would provide lawful, st able, and am ple em ployment opportunities, that working under an H-2B visa fo r Signal was not inconsistent with applying for permanent immigration status sponsored by Signal , and that Signal would obtain for Plaintiffs work-authorized green cards enabling the Plainti ffs to perm anently and legally reside in the United States with their families.
75. In such co mmunications with Pla intiffs, the Agents f urther prom ised to ac t diligently and do everything neces sary to en sure that Plaintiffs obtain g reen cards within 18-2 4 months of initiating the green card process.
76. Upon information and belief, em ployees of Signal attended som e of the meetings and testing sessions with potential w orkers in India. Further, upon inform ation and belief, prior to the meetings and testing sessions Signal and th e Agents conferred regarding the logistics and substantive content of the meetings and testing sessions.
77. In reasonab le reliance on the Agent’s prom ises regard ing green cards and employment opportunities in the U nited States, Plaintiffs undertook cons iderable personal and familial sa crifices, including the mortgaging and/or s ale of personal prope rty and othe r incurrence of debt, in order to am ass the funds n ecessary to initiate the green card p rocess with Defendant Signal. F or exam ple, Plaint iff Satheesh K annan Marimuthu, Balam urugan Marimuthu, and Rajendran Sappani sold their wive s’ jewelry and/or mortgaged their fam ilies’ homes to cover the recruitm ent fees. In a ddition, several Plaintiffs relinquished stable employment in reliance on the Agent’s representations.
- 18 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 19 of 82 PageID #: 845
78. Reasonably relying on these and other prom ises m ade to them regarding green cards and work opportunities in the United States, Plaintiffs signe d green card contracts with the Agents at v arious points from m id-2006 to earl y 2007 and paid the ex orbitant recruiting fees required by the contracts.
79. These contracts and other docum ents provi ded by the Agents prom ised that (1) Plaintiffs would work under a “p ermanent resident (green card) program ,” and (2) Plaintiffs would promptly receive a refund of all or nearly all of their paym ents if Defendants did not succeed in securing green cards for Plaintiffs.
80. The Agents knew or should have known, however, that they would not refund Plaintiffs’ money as promised in the contracts and other documents.
81. The Agents induced Plaintiffs to enter into the green card contracts without intent to diligently pursue Plaintiffs’ applications a nd without any basis whatso ever for representing that Signal had lawful long-te rm employm ent opportunities to pr ovide Plaintiffs; that Signal could legally apply for num erous H-2B visa extensions to m aintain Plaintif fs’ presence in th e 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 the 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.
82. Plaintiffs would not have signed the green card contracts or paid the extraordinary recruitment fees charg ed by the Agents had they kno wn that Defendants’ p romises an d representations were false and th at Defendants had faile d to di sclose ma terial fa cts c oncerning the nature and terms and conditions of the immigration and work opportunities offered.
Defendants Arranged for H-2B Visas
- 19 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 20 of 82 PageID #: 846
83. On or about July 20, 2006, and August 17, 2006, the United States Department of Labor approved Signal’s labor cer tification applications for 590 H-2B workers for the period of October 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007.
84. In approving these applications, the United States Department of Labor relied on the accuracy of the applications’ stated 10-month period of need.
85. Upon inform ation and belief, the Departm ent of Labor’s internal guidelines prohibit it from granting labor certification ap plications w ithout rely ing on the applications’ statement of need.
86. In late August and early Septem ber 2006, the United S tates Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) approved Signal’s H-2B visa petitions for 590 H-2B workers for the period of October 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007.
87. In approv ing these v isa petition s, the USCIS relied on the accuracy of the petitions’ stated 10-m onth period of labor need and the represen tation that Signa l’s ne ed wa s based on a one-time, peak-load, temporary demand. Indeed, according to regulation, the USCI S must rely o n the stated period of the petitioner’s labor need. See 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(6)(ii)(B) (2006).
88. Defendants knew that the stated period of need in Signal’s applications f or labor certifications and for H-2B visas were incons istent with Signal’s prom ises of perm anent residency to Plaintiffs and its actual projecte d labor need and, therefor e, Defendants knew these statements to the government were false.
89. The Agents used the H-2B visas, obtained from the federal governm ent on the basis of false statements by Signal and Burnett, to elicit payments from Plaintiffs.
Defendants Prepared to Bring Plaintiffs and Other Indian Workers to the United States
- 20 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 21 of 82 PageID #: 847
90. At various tim es during the spring, su mmer, and fall of 2006, Signal employees and certain of the Agents traveled to various locations in India and the United Arab Emirates to test Plaintiffs’ welding and pipefitting skills in anticipation of employing Plaintiffs in the United States.
91. Plaintiffs paid to travel to the cities where these tests were held. 92. Plaintiffs also paid admission fees in order to take these tests. 93. Plaintiffs attended and passe d thes e tests, which were overseen and graded by Signal and/or Dewan’s agents, employees, and/or representatives. 94. Upon information and belief, prior to atte nding these testing sessions the Agents and Signal conferred regarding the logistics and substantive content of the testing sessions. 95. After USCIS visa approval, Plaintiffs made necessary preparations 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 and the Agents for m andatory H-2B visa and consular processi ng fees; attending H-2B visa in terviews; and, paying the Agents for travel arrangements. 96. In orde r to secure H-2 B visas to work for Signal, Pla intiffs attended inte rviews with United States consular offices in Indian cities. 97. To attend these consular interviews, Plainti ffs had to 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). 98. The Agents required that Plai ntiffs meet with Global, Pol, and/or Burnett in these cities before attending their consular interviews.
- 21 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 22 of 82 PageID #: 848
99. Upon information and belief, prior to these meetings, the Agents conferred among themselves and with Signal reg arding the top ics to be discussed and instru ctions to be given to Plaintiffs at these meetings.
100. At the pre -interview meetings, the Agents ensu red that Plaintiffs were up-to-da te on paying the recruitment fee installments required by their green card contracts.
101. Defendants further required that Plaint iffs pay an additional fee of 35,000 to 45,000 rupees ($787 to $1,012) for H-2B visa processing.
102. The Agents required Plaintif fs to sign docum ents perm itting Dewan to receive their visa-stamped passports from the consular offices on Plaintiffs’ behalf.
103. The Agents also coached Plaintiffs on what to say during consular interviews. 104. The Agents told P laintiffs that if they did no t f ollow thes e ins tructions at the ir interviews, Plaintiffs would not receive their visas and would forfeit all of the m oney they had already paid to Defendants, in addition to losi ng the opportunity to permanently immigrate to the United States. 105. During Plaintiffs’ consular interviews, th e consular official s took Plaintiffs’ passports from them. 106. Once Plaintiffs’ visas w ere approved, consul ar officials s ent th e passpo rts, with H-2B visas affixed, directly to Dewan. 107. After Plaintiffs’ visas w ere approved, the Agents m ade travel arrang ements for Plaintiffs’ departures to the United States. 108. Before Plaintiffs could leav e for the Un ited States, however, Plain tiffs were required to attend final m eetings in Dewan’s office. Such m eetings typically took place m ere
- 22 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 23 of 82 PageID #: 849
hours before Plaintiffs’ scheduled departures to the United States, when Dewan’s office was full of other Indian workers anxiously awaiting their departure to the United States.
109. At these meetings, Pol a nd Dewan c ollected final installment payments required by Plaintiffs’ green card contracts.
110. Pol and Dewan also required Plaintiffs—m ost of whom do not or did not at the time proficiently read or speak English—to sign English-language docum ents with little or no time for review. They did not allow Plaintiffs to keep a copy of the docum ents. Pol and Dewan or their staff de manded that P laintiffs quickly sign the m andatory docum ents to avoid m issing the flights to the United States and forfeiting the fees Plaintiffs had paid.
111. Plaintiffs had no reasonable opportunity to review, negotiate, or m ake any changes to the docum ents presented to them . Even when Plaintiffs asked Defendants what the documents said, Defendants refused to interpret or tell Plaintiffs what the documents said.
112. Dewan also refused to provide receipts to Plaintiffs who requested evidence of the amounts paid prior to Plaintiffs’ travel to the United States.
113. Pol and Dewan refused to return Plai ntiffs’ passports—which had been in Defendant Dewan’s possession since after Plain tiffs’ H-2B vi sas were approved by consular officials—until Plaintiffs had paid the final installments and signed the mandatory paperwork.
114. Without possession of their passports, and within this anxious and rushed atmosphere, Plaintiffs had no reasonable opport unity to review, negotiate, and/or m ake any changes to the documents presented to them.
115. On occasio ns when workers failed to presen t sufficient funds to pay the final installment required by the green ca rd contracts, Dewan and his asso ciates threatened to destroy and/or deface the workers’ passports. Such threat s were made in the presence of other workers,
- 23 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 24 of 82 PageID #: 850
causing the other work ers to reas onably be lieve that they h ad no choice but to pay the final installments in full.
116. Because of the Dewan and Pol’s coerciv e beh avior du ring these p re-departure meetings, and Plaintiffs’ extraordinary and incr easing levels of debt, Plaintiffs reasonably believed that they had no choice but to m ake the payments required by the Agents and to travel to the United States to work for Signal.
117. Plaintiffs did not rece ive their pas sports f rom the Agents until Plain tiffs had fulfilled all of Defendants’ requirements.
118. At various times from late October 2006 to April 2007, Plaintiffs and other Indian workers traveled from Mumbai to the United States on tickets arranged by Pol and Dewan.
119. Signal collected Plaintiffs at the Houston airport upon their arrival and transported them immediately to the Texas Labor Camp.
120. Signal sent approximately 300 workers to its Pascagoula, Mississippi facility (the “Mississippi Labor Camp”), and approximately 290 workers were sent to the Texas Labor Camp upon arrival in the United States.
121. Plaintiffs had no choice but to use th e Agents to secure em ployment wit h Defendant Signal. Managem ent personnel at Si gnal prohibited Indian workers from securing employment at Signal’s operations either through another recru iter or by bypassing recruiters altogether and applying directly with Signal.
Malvern Burnett Purported to Act As Plaintiffs’ Attorney 122. At all relev ant times, Burnett had an attorney -client relationship with the Indian workers, including Plaintiffs, for purposes of immigration issues and Plaintiffs’ work for Signal. 123. Upon inform ation and belief, the Indian workers, including each Plaintiff, individually ente red into an Atto rney Services Agreem ent with Burn ett. Those agreem ents
- 24 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 25 of 82 PageID #: 851
provided t he fol lowing: (a) Burnett woul d “represent [Pl aintiff] as a li censed att orney i n t he United States of Am erica and file all necessa ry docum ents with the governm ent to assist [Plaintiff] make application for the permanent resident (green card) program;” (b) Plaintiff would pay Burnett $3750 for legal services; (c) Burnett would “do everything within [his] power to assist worker to obtain permanent residence status in the United States within 24 months;” (d) if Burnett failed to obtain permanent residence status, Burnett would refund recruitments fees to his clients subject to certain exceptions; and (e) eith er party could “terminate the agreement with 30 days notice given to the other party.” Finally, the agreem ents provided that they “shall be construed, governed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Maharashtra, India and where applicable in the State of Mississippi.”
124. As part of his services, Burnett prep ared the imm igration form s required for Plaintiffs to apply for H-2B status and, thus, to work for Signal in Texas. In those forms, Burnett represented to the U.S. Departm ent of Homela nd Security, under penalty of perjury, that the Plaintiffs would stay in the United States only temporarily, returning to India within the year. At the same time Burnett was subm itting those forms, he was telling the Indian work ers that the y would be eligible for perm anent residency, and th at he would assist them in applying for green cards. Further, Burnett was aware of the repr esentations P ol and Dewan had m ade to Indian workers, in cluding Plaintiffs, about receiv ing g reen cards in connectio n with em ployment at Signal. Burnett also applied for H-2B visas for Plaintiffs despite the fact that H-2 B visas are incompatible with permanent residency under fede ral law. Burnett m isled Indian workers by conflating the H-2B visa and permanent resident status immigration processes in presentations to Indian workers during the recruitment process.
- 25 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 26 of 82 PageID #: 852
125. In addition, Burnett filed with the Te xas Workforce Commission completed ETA 750 for ms a nd attachm ents seeking perm ission to im port and hire 590 foreign guest workers (including Plaintiffs) under 8 U.S. C. § 1101(a)15(H)(ii)(b). In the applications to Texas, Burnett, on behalf of Signal, stated that Si gnal would em ploy workers from October 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007. Burnett knew that m aterial representations—inc luding those about the length of tim e the workers in tended to stay in the United States— were false. Burnett’s statements in the application s contradicted De fendants’ representations that he w ould assist Plaintiffs in obtaining permanent legal residence in the United States.
126. Despite acting as Plaintiffs’ attorn ey, Bu rnett concealed his tr ue loyalties from Plaintiffs by failing to disclose that he had a ttorney-client and business relationships with Signal and other Defendants, and was actively working to promote Defendants’ interest over those of Plaintiffs.
127. Specifically, by mid-2006, Burnett had entered into an attorney-client relationship with Signal for the broad purpose of applying for and obtaining lawful status for Indian workers to com e to the United S tates. In 2007, Signal and Burnett entered into a Retainer Agreem ent memorializing the arrangem ent—namely, that Bu rnett would rep resent Signal at ze ro co st because the fees for his work were to be paid by the Indian workers, including Plaintiffs. Burnett failed to dis close his a ttorney-client relationship or the pay ment arrangement with Signal to th e Indian workers, including Plaintiffs. Plain tiffs did not waive any conflic t of interest caused by Burnett’s relationship with Signal.
128. Similarly, Burnett f ailed to disclos e to Pl aintiffs his atto rney-client re lationship with Dewan and Pol, which began no later than mid-2006. Plaintiffs did not waive any conflicts of interest relating to this relationship.
- 26 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 27 of 82 PageID #: 853
129. Burnett a lso f ailed to d isclose that he had a “ Multilateral Business Agreem ent” with Dewan and Pol for the broad purpose of r ecruiting Indian workers to com e to t he United States. Plaintiffs did not waive any conflicts of interest relating to this relationship.
130. At all re levant tim es, Burnett pref erred Defendants to his I ndian clients even though he owed them the same duty of loyalty.
131. For exam ple, in a clear violation of his pr ofessional obligations, Burnett forwarded e-m ails he received fro m his Indian clients to third parties without the clients’ permission.
132. Further, even though the attorney-client relations hip between B urnett and Plaintiffs continued after Plainti ffs arrived in T exas, Plaintiffs were not generally allowed to speak or meet with Burnett in Texas. On one occasion, Signal representatives informed Plaintiff Satheesh K annan Marimuthu that he could not m eet with Burnett be cause it would “vio late company policy.” W hen Plaintiff Muruganandam Arumugam attempted to speak with Burnett, his calls went unreturned.
133. Upon information and belief, on another oc casion, an Indian worker m ade a call to Burnett f rom the public telephone at the Texas Labor Ca mp to schedule a meeting. The receptionist at Burnett’s office told the person that any S ignal employees who attended such a meeting would have to pay $100 each to meet with Burnett.
134. Moreover, when questioned by certain Indi an workers abo ut the possibility of obtaining trafficking visas, Burnett represented to Indian workers that he did not know of anyone who had ever received a traffickin g visa, and, thus, that the Indian workers would not be able to procure a trafficking visa. Upon infor mation a nd belief, Burnett attempted to dissuade certain Indian clients from applying for these visas in order to benefit Signal.
- 27 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 28 of 82 PageID #: 854
135. In contrast to his reluctance to co mmunicate with Plain tiffs and other Indian workers, and in contras t to his failu re to provi de Plaintiffs accurate inf ormation regarding their immigration status, Burnett actively engaged with Defendants and continued to represent Signal in connection with the Indian workers. Upon information and belief, Burnett continued to advise Signal on issues regarding the Indian workers and attended meetings with cer tain of the Ind ian workers at Signal’s request.
136. Burnett disp layed a con temptuous attitud e toward his Indian clien ts, which was demonstrated by the multitude of derogatory comments Burnett made about them. For example, on one occasion, Burn ett described his Indian clients’ comm unication style as a “ba mboo phone.”
137. On another occasion, when his Indian clients requested original documents rather than copies of those docum ents, Burnett referred to the clients as “dolts,” asking, “What can’t you m ake the dolts understand ?” and signing the em ail as “[ c]onfused and pissed.” ( David v. Signal International, LLC, No. 08-1220, ECF No. 994-9 at 7.)
138. Outside of his representation of Plaintiffs, Defendants Pol and Burnett played and compared scores achieved on the video ga me “Border Patrol,” a ga me hosted on a well-known white supremacist website wher e the object is f or the p layer to kill und ocumented immigrants, including children. (David v. Signal International, LLC, No. 08-1220, ECF No. 994-10 at 26.)
139. Burnett (and the other Defendants) viewed the Indian workers as an exploitable source of fees. This was poignantly displayed in an em ail Burnett sen t to Dewan and Pol on December 16, 2006, reg arding a Signal worker and cl ient of Burnett. The worker/clien t had stopped paym ent on a check to Burnett, and B urnett told Dewan and Pol to ensure that “the idiot” res tores the pay ment and t hreatened to have the worker/client’s visa “mysteriously”
- 28 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 29 of 82 PageID #: 855
revoked if he did not pay. Later in the em ail, Burnett referred to all the Indian workers, who were his clients, as “the idio ts” and speculated about whether he should threaten them with “immediate deportation” in order to prevent them from stopping payment on future checks.
140. Likewise, B urnett recommended to the Agen ts that they refuse to provide an Indian applicant with a refund des pite the fact that his father was dying with cancer, stating “[w]e did the work; we need to get paid.” ( David v. Signal International, LLC , No. 08-1220, ECF No. 994-10 at 29.)
141. To be sure, Burnett continued to engage in conduct that was tortious, perpetuate Defendants’ fraudulent schem e, and violate the oblig ations owed to Plaintiffs after they arrived in Texas.
142. As discussed above, Burnett continued to have an attorney-client relationship with Plaintiffs and other Indian workers, but failed to disclose and obtain waivers for his attorneyclient relationship with other Defendants. Ind eed, Burnett actively prom oted the inte rests of Defendants over those of Plaintiffs.
143. Further, once Plaintiffs were in Texas, Burnett f ailed to p rocess Plain tiffs f or green cards, failed to disclose that Signal was not going to process them for green cards, failed to provide them with critical inform ation regarding their immigration status, and failed to refund any of the fees Plaintiffs paid him.
144. Finally, upon information and belief, Burnett participated in meetings with Signal and certain Indian workers in Texas during wh ich the Te xas workers were threa tened with deportation if they engaged in or ganizing ef forts sim ilar to the Indian workers in Mississipp i. During that m eeting, Signal again re presented that it would file for green cards on the workers’ behalf.
- 29 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 30 of 82 PageID #: 856
145. Ultimately, Plaintiffs suffered the injury from Burnett’s conduct in Texas. Signal Subjected Plaintiffs to Degrading and Discriminatory Conditions at the Texas Labor
Camp 146. Signal assigned Plaintiffs to work at its facility in Orange, Texas, and reside at the Texas Labor Ca mp, a crowded “m an camp” consisting of trailer-like bunkhouses surrounded by barbed-wire fences and accessible only by a guarded entrance. When Plaintiffs Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Muruganandam Arumugam, and Muralidharan Arumugam first saw the Texas Labor Camp, they thought it was a prison. 147. Signal’s lack of regard for the Indian workers was demonstrated in internal emails that rid iculed aspects of Indian cu lture and re layed anti-imm igrant sentim ents. For exam ple, Signal (a) referred to an Indian worker as a “f*****g Keralite,” (b) stated that it intended to go on a “rat hunt” to expose Indian workers who spoke out against Signal, (c) called Indian workers “chronic ‘Whiners,’” and (d) joke d about setting up an arena and taking bets on fights between Indian workers. (David v. Signal International, LLC, No. 08-1220, ECF Nos. 994-15 at 32, 99414 at 37, 994-10 at 75, and 994-15 at 43-44.)
Isolated Living Conditions 148. The Texas Labor Camp was located m iles away from shopping, p laces of worship, pu blic transpo rtation, or residen tial co mmunities. This re mote location was chosen purposefully by Signal to keep the P laintiffs and other foreign workers segregated from the rest of Orange, Texas. In fact, Signa l’s workers and management went so far as to refer to the Texas Labor Camp as a “reservation.” 149. The Texas Labor Camp gates were m onitored by security guards retained by Signal. Sig nal’s security guards required Plaintiffs to show em ployee identification badges and
- 30 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 31 of 82 PageID #: 857
recorded the tim e when Plaintiffs entered and exited the Tex as Labor Ca mp. Signal’s security guards also searched Plaintiffs’ packages and bags when they entered the Texas Labor Camp.
150. The Indian workers were not perm itted to receive visitors in the Texas Labor Camp.
151. Signal did not require any of its non-Indian employees to live in the s egregated “man camps.”
Overcrowded and Unsanitary Bunkhouses 152. Signal packed up to 24 m en into each bunkhouse, in two-tiered bunk b eds. The bunkhouse was so congested that it wa s difficult for workers to m ove about or even to sit up in bed, and any semblance of privacy was impossible. 153. Each of the bunkhouses contained workers who worked both day and night shifts, so Plain tiffs had dif ficulty s leeping due to th e constant noise and the com ings and goings of workers from different shifts. 154. The bunkhouses contained insufficient toil ets and bathing facilities. Each bunkhouse contained only one or two toilets, so Plai ntiffs had to endure long lines, unsanitary conditions, and plumbing problems. 155. These conditions failed to m eet basic requirements of habitability and, not surprisingly, illness and disease were common.
Rotten Food
- 31 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 32 of 82 PageID #: 858
156. Food at the Texas Labor Ca mp was not readily available. Plaintiffs had to eat at Signal’s m ess halls, which were only open during limited hours. If the Indian workers arrived late for a meal, they were often denied food.
157. What food the Indian w orkers received wa s often rotten and cam e from kitchens that were n ot hygien ic. As a resu lt, the Indi an workers frequently becam e ill and som etimes required hospita lization. Plaintif f Rajendran Sappani, for exam ple, suffered fr om regular stomach ailments as a result of the poor food that required medicine to treat.
158. Further, Sig nal refused to accommodate re ligiously-based dietary restrictions. For example, Plaintiff Moorthy Madhamuni is a vegetarian by religion. He explained to Signal’s representatives the f act that his re ligion r equired him to eat vegetarian, but they refused to provide vegetarian food. Like wise, Plaintiff Murganandam Ar umugam was forced to choose between eating food he was allerg ic to (lamb and goat), eating f ood which violated his religious beliefs (beef and pork), or going hungry.
159. When Indian workers complained about not having enough clean plates on which to eat dinner, Signal responded, “Give them a paper plate that is firm enough to support the curry but flimsy enough to make them have to work at it and bitch.”
Signal Charged Plaintiffs $1,050 per Month For These “Accommodations” 160. For the “privilege ” of living in thes e deplorable conditions, Signal charged the Indian workers, including Plaintiffs, $35 pe r day (approxim ately $1,050 per m onth). Signal failed to inform most or all of the Plaintiffs of these fees during the recruitment process. 161. From this amount, $21 was allocated towards rent, and $14 towards food. The fee was deducted from Plaintiffs’ paychecks automatically with no ability to opt out.
- 32 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 33 of 82 PageID #: 859
162. Upon infor mation and belief, Signal paid Indian workers a lower amount than Signal paid its non-Indian workers.
163. Some of the Indian workers com plained of the disgusting living conditions and requested to m ove out of the Texas Labor Cam p. Initially, Signal sim ply refused. Eventually, Signal told workers that if they tried to live outside the Texas Labor Camp, Signal would still deduct the $35 per-day labor cam p fees from their wages. Given their already substantial debts, Plaintiffs had no reasonable choice but to con tinue living in the Texas Labor Camp. Whil e Plaintiffs were forced to pay these exorbitant fees becaus e they had no reasonab le financial alternative, Signal m ade over $730,000 in profit from the Missi ssippi and Texas m an camps in just one year.
164. Upon information and belief, Signal charge d Plaintiffs’ room and board in order to recoup the cost of building the man camps. So anxious w as Signal to recoup those expenses, that it even charged Plaintiff Muruganandam Arumugam for room and board while he was in the hospital recovering from an e mergency surgery. Signal did not require non-Indian workers to live at the Texas Labor Camp or to pay similar room and board expenses.
Continuous, Abusive, and Discriminatory Supervision 165. Plaintiffs f elt com pelled to rem ain at the Tex as Labor Cam p, in part, because Signal created an environment of fear through constant, abusive, and discriminatory supervision. 166. Signal’s personnel and/or security guards deprived Plaintiffs of any sense of privacy by conducting surprise searches of the bunkhouse, searching worker’s personal belongings, and even occasionally requiring that the Indian workers turn out their pockets. Upon information and belief, non-Indian workers were not subject to similar treatment.
- 33 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 34 of 82 PageID #: 860
167. As stated ab ove, Signal’s security g uards monitored Plaintiffs and required them to show id entification whenever th ey ente red and exited the Texas L abor Cam p and tracked Plaintiff’s movements in and out of the cam p. Upon information and belief, non-Indian workers were not subject to similar treatment.
168. Plaintiffs were subjected to “no visito rs” and “no alcohol” policies at the Texas Labor Camp. Violation subjected the worker s to fines and suspension of work. Upon information and belief, non-Indian workers were not subject to similar policies.
169. As stated above, Signal requ ired P laintiffs and other Indian workers to set up direct deposit bank acco unts upon arrival to the Te xas Labor Camp, to which Signal m aintained access. Plaintiffs reaso nably believed Signal c ould ex ert influence over Plaintiff’s financial arrangements. Upon infor mation and belief, non -Indian w orkers were not subject to sim ilar requirements.
170. The Indian workers, in cluding P laintiffs, were often given m ore difficult and dangerous jobs than the other non-Indian Signal workers. They wer e required to clean their equipment after work ho urs, while n on-Indian workers were permitted to clean their equipment during the last 30 m inutes of their shift. Indian workers were forced to take rep eated “sk ills tests” that non-Indian workers were not required to take. And non-Indian w orkers were permitted to work more overtime hours than the Indian workers.
171. Signal’s personnel and superv isors frequently used offensive language while speaking with or referring to Plaintiffs and ot her Indian wo rkers, including making anti-Indian comments.
172. Signal threatened Plain tiffs and other I ndian workers with deportation or adverse employment actions if they di d not continue w orking for Signa l, did not work according to
- 34 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 35 of 82 PageID #: 861
Signal’s sp ecifications, or com plained about the working and living conditio ns. Upon information and belief, workers of non-Indian race, ethnicity, and alien age were no t treated th is way.
Defendants’ Continued Misrepresentations, Omissions, and Coercive Conduct 173. At m eetings with Signal personnel, Indi an workers voiced com plaints regarding the discriminatory treatment to which they we re being subjected. W hen Signal did not respond to the work ers com plaints, Ind ian workers a t the Mississippi Labor Ca mp began m eeting to discuss how to persuade Signal to improve cond itions at the camp, and began meeting with third parties to discuss how to address their concerns. 174. Upon inform ation and belief, Sig nal becam e aware of these m eetings and contacted the Agents to express concern about worker organizing efforts. Upon information and belief, Defendants m et and decide d on a course of action regardi ng steps to be taken to quell further worker organization efforts. The deci ded course of action was intended to have a deterrent effect on other Indian workers that might attempt to exercise their rights. 175. Consistent with Defendants’ plan, on March 8, 2007, Signal m anagement m et with Indian workers at the Miss issippi Labor Camp and inform ed them that it would fight back against any “organizing ” efforts, and that Si gnal would not extend any of the wor kers’ H-2B visas if a single worker took legal action against Signal. 176. On March 9, 2007, Signal’s agents took five of the more vocal Indian workers at the Mississippi Labor Cam p into “custody,” fired them, and inform ed them that they would be deported. Distraught at what that meant for him and his fa mily, one of the workers attem pted to commit suicide. Dem onstrative of Def endants’ disregard for the Indian workers, in a m edia
- 35 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 36 of 82 PageID #: 862
interview, S ignal’s CEO referred to the suicide attempt as “theatrics, a bunch of nonsense.” (David v. Signal International, LLC, No. 08-1220, ECF No. 994-8 at 12.)
177. Later that sam e day, Pl aintiffs learned a bout the events at the Mississippi Labor Camp. Plaintiffs and other Indi an workers becam e frightened by these activities, particula rly when word spread th at Sign al h ad im prisoned Ind ian workers in Miss issippi who had complained about th e working conditions and that one worker attem pted suicide rather th an be deported and face the debts that he had incurred in India in order to come to Signal.
178. Plaintiffs reasonably feared that if they tried to leave Signal’s employ or oppose the conditions at the Texas Labor Cam p, including by consulting with counsel, Plaintiffs would face forced deportation, physical restrain t and detention, or other serious harms and/or abuses of the legal process at the hands of Signal.
179. In addition, throughout the spring and summer of 2007, S ignal representatives held meetings with Plaintiffs and other workers to discuss the status of Plaintiffs and other Indian workers’ visas. Through its ag ents, Signal continued to represent that it would arrange for H-2B visa extensions. At no point during these m eetings—indeed, at no point prior to term ination— were Plaintiffs informed that they would not be receiving green cards.
180. Signal was, in fact, evaluating the work ers, including Plaintiffs, and had no intention of applying for visa extensions for all of the workers or applying for green cards for the workers.
181. At various tim es, Signal refused to c onfirm whether it ha d obtained visa extensions f or Plain tiffs. As a result, Pla intiffs f elt f urther com pelled to continu e to work f or Signal and live at the T exas Labor Ca mp. U pon inform ation and belief, Signal prevented or
- 36 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 37 of 82 PageID #: 863

attempted to prevent Indian wo rkers, including Plaintiffs, from consulting with lawyers about

their situations.

182. Despite m any prom ises to do so, Defenda nts never provided the green cards or

permanent residency. In fact, no Defendant ever ev en applied for a green card for any Plaintiff.

And, despite contractual pr ovisions that clearly require them to do so, Defendants have failed to

refund any of the money Plaintiffs paid to them for green card and visa processing.

Plaintiffs Relied on Defendants’ Representations

Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu

183.

In or around Septem ber 2006, while worki ng as a fitter in Singapore, Satheesh

Kannan Marim uthu (“Satheesh”) le arned of an opportunity to work in the United States.

Specifically, Satheesh s aw advertis ements in three n ewspapers, Dinamalar, Dhinathanthi an d

The Hindu, stating that fitters and welders were needed in the United States. The advertisements

further stated that applicants would be eligib le for a visa and a green card and instru cted

interested parties to contact Dewan.

184. In or around December 2006, Satheesh called Dewan, who confirmed that he was

assisting in the hiring of fitters and welders f or positions in the United States. Dur ing this call

Dewan explained that S atheesh would need to take a tes t at De Silva Engineering and that if he

passed, he would get in an interview and that Dewan would begin processing hi s H-2B visa and

green card. Dewan also said there would be a service charge of eight lakhs (approxim ately

$18,000).

185. Satheesh called Dewan twice in January 2007 to confirm that there w as a job

vacancy for him and that he would get a g reen card. Sath eesh explain ed that he h ad a stab le

well-paying job in Singapore that he was unwilling to relinquish unless he had a job and a green

- 37 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 38 of 82 PageID #: 864
card lined up. Dewan told Satheesh that it was one hundred percent certai n that Satheesh would receive a green card and that Sa theesh should not pass up the rare opportunity to move to the United States with his family. Dewan stated that Pol and Burnett would work to ensure Satheesh received a green card.
186. Only after Dewan promised a green card and the fitter job in the United States did Satheesh resign his fitter job in Singapore.
187. In January 2007, Satheesh returned to I ndia to take the test at De Silva Engineering. At this tim e, Dewan stated tha t Satheesh n eeded to p ay the eight-lakh servic e charge and m ake two dem and drafts of $5,000 eac h—one payable to Michael Pol and the o ther payable to Malvern Burnett. Dewan stated that th e demand drafts were to cov er attorneys’ fees and that this payment would ensure Satheesh received a green card.
188. After Satheesh passed the test at De Silva Engineering, Dewan and his employee, Salimon, informed Satheesh that he also needed to pay $1,000 for visa stam ping at the em bassy and an additional $400 for “m edical fees” before he could begin working in the U nited States. Satheesh was instructed to contact Salimon only after he had compiled the necessary funds.
189. To compile the funds dem anded by Dewan, Satheesh was f orced to pawn fa mily jewelry, borrow $10,000 at a high interest rate from private lenders, and withdraw his lif e savings of $4,000.
190. After Satheesh notified Salim on that he ha d funds sufficient to pay the recruiting fees, Salimon instru cted Satheesh to com e to hi s office in Chennai, India to m ake the first payment of $1,000, which Satheesh did. Salimon accepted the m oney on behalf of Dewan and again confirm ed that Satheesh would receive a green card in exchange for the paym ent. Satheesh requested a receipt for his payment, which Salimon refused to provide.
- 38 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 39 of 82 PageID #: 865
191. After rece iving the pay ment f rom Satheesh, S alimon f illed out th e p aperwork Salimon stated was necessary for visa processing and notified Satheesh that he was scheduled for an interview at the United States Consulate in Chennai about three days later. Salim on called Satheesh two days af ter the interview to inform him that Satheesh’s visa had been approved and that Salimon was holding Satheesh’s passport.
192. Salimon eventually notif ied Sathe esh that his f light to the United States would leave from Mum bai on February 15, 2007. Sath eesh was instructed to bring funds for the remaining recruitm ent fees to Dewan’s office. W hen he arrived, Dewan took Satheesh’s payment, but again refused to provide receipts. Only after taking the paym ent did Dewan return Satheesh’s passport.
193. Satheesh departed India for the United States on February 15, 2007. A Signal employee picked Satheesh and others up from the airport in Houston, Texas and brought them directly to the Texas Labor Ca mp. Satheesh th ought the labor cam p was a prison the first tim e he saw it.
194. Prior to re ceiving Sath eesh’s pay ments, De wan and Salimon represented that Satheesh would be living in an apartment with two to three other workers when he arrived in the United States. Dewan and Salim on represented th at Satheesh’s living conditions in the United States would be as good as, or better than, hi s living conditions in Singapore. A s discussed above, the living conditions were far from what was promised.
195. In addition, Signal supervisors regularl y m ade racial and ridiculing comm ents about the Indian workers, incl uding Satheesh, and gave the most difficult and dangerous jobs to Indian workers.
- 39 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 40 of 82 PageID #: 866
196. Signal employees further threatened that if Satheesh left the labor cam p he would be fired and that Signal would stop processi ng his immigration status. Because of these statements, and his debt in India, Satheesh felt trapped, that could leave the Texas L abor Camp, and that he could not leave Signal’s employ.
197. In March 2007, Signal held a m eeting at which Satheesh and other workers were told that they had to stay in the labor cam p and that they c ould only eat the food cooked at the camp. Signal representatives stated that anyone who did not com ply with these rules would lose their job and be deported.
198. In April 2007, Signal held another m eeting, during which they notified Satheesh and others that only som e of the workers would have their visa s renewed. Signal stated that those workers whose visas had not been renewed would be deported.
199. Because Signal and Dewan frequen tly represented that M ichael Pol and Malvern Burnett wer e Sathe esh’s lawyer s f or imm igration m atters, Satheesh r equested to speak with and/or m eet with Mich ael Pol and Malvern Burn ett. Sig nal em ployees refused, stating th at Satheesh’s request would violate company policy.
200. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by Satheesh and never provided a green card for Satheesh or his family.
201. Satheesh relied upon D efendants’ prom ises of perm anent residency, long-term employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to
- 40 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 41 of 82 PageID #: 867
pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Satheesh felt in timidated into acqu iescence and co mpelled to continue working for Signal.
Balamurugan Marimuthu 202. Balagmurgan Marim uthu (“Marim uthu”) is from Trichy, India. In or around August 2006, he saw an advertisem ent for a job opportunity for welders and fitters in the newspaper Dinamalar. 203. Interested in the possibility of additional income, Marimuthu traveled to Chennai, India to interview for the position. At the interview, Pol and Dewan told Marimuthu he must pay 20,000 rupees (approxim ately $450) as an interv iew fee and for a m edical exam ination. Marimuthu declined to pay the fee. 204. Shortly after the interview, howeve r, Ma rimuthu saw a second advertisem ent in Dinamalar. The advertisem ent promised employment in the United S tates and green cards for the workers and their families. Marimuthu was extremely interested in the possibility of working in the United States and receiving green cards for himself and his family. 205. The advertisem ent indicated that inte rested applicants should appear on November 8, 9, or 10 at De Silva Engineering in Chennai, India for an inte rview. Marim uthu again travelled to Chennai and interviewed on November 8, 2006. 206. At the interview, Marimuthu learned th at the job opportunity was with Signal International. Pol, Dewan, Burnett, and repr esentatives f rom Signal attend ed this inte rview session, along with 40 to 50 potential workers. 207. During the interview, Pol and Burnett asked Marim uthu about his previous work experience. Marim uthu explaine d his prior work experience in Singapore, and described the accommodations, food, and benefits that were provided by the em ployer. Pol and Burnett
- 41 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 42 of 82 PageID #: 868

promised that Signal would provide the sam e type of accommodations, food, and benefits.

Consistent with the ad vertisement, Pol and Bu rnett a lso prom ised th at Signal w ould provide

green cards for Marimuthu, his wife, and his daughter.

208. Subsequently, one of Signal’s representatives administered a test to Marimuthu to

determine his capabilities as a fitter, which Marimuthu passed.

209. After he passed the test, Dewan and his em ployee, Salimon, informed Marimuthu

and the other workers who passed the test that they would enter the United S tates on an H-2B

visa and would be processed for a green card once they arrived in the United States.

210. Dewan then told the workers that th

is opportunity w ould cost 8 lakhs

(approximately $18,000) and represented that this fee would be used for processing of the

workers’ green cards.

211. Dewan told Marimuthu he would have to make an initial deposit of 35,000 rupees

(approximately $787), and then pay Pol and Burn ett $5,373 each by dem and draft. Marim uthu

understood that Burnett was an Am erican lawyer that was assistin g him with obtaining his green

card, among other things.

212. Based on the rep resentations from Dewan, Pol, and B urnett, including the

representations about receiving a green card for himself and his fam ily, Marimuthu was willing

to pay the required recruitm ent fees. To that end, on Novem ber 14, 2006, Marim uthu paid

approximately 35,000 rupees he had saved from his work in Singapore.

213. Marimuthu knew he would need to interv iew at the United States Cons ulate to

work for Signal. He asked Dewan when his inte rview with the Consulate would be, but he was

told he first had to pay an additional two lakhs (approximately $4,500).

- 42 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 43 of 82 PageID #: 869
214. Marimuthu did not have enough m oney to pay the additional fee and believed it would take him about three years to earn one la kh in India. As a result, he borrowed m oney from his father and a Tam il Nadu society. As collateral for the latter loan, Marimuthu provided his wife’s jewelry (despite deep sentimental and cultural value).
215. Marimuthu also borrow ed four lakhs (approxim ately $9,000) from his uncle at a significant monthly interest rate. As collateral, Marimuthu offered title to his house. Marimuthu only agreed to thes e terms because he believed he would be able to pay his uncle b ack quickly once Marimuthu arrived in the United States.
216. Pol and Burnett sch eduled Marimuthu’s interview at the Consulate for Decem ber 4, 2006 in Chennai.
217. Prior to the interview, on Dece mber 3, 2006, Salim on meet with Marim uthu and coached him on what to say during the interview.
218. Marimuthu attend ed th e Consulate interv iew on Decem ber 4 and was approved for a visa. The Consulate inform ed Marimuthu that his passport would be sent to his hom e by courier and gave Marimuthu a courier receipt.
219. After the interview, Marimuthu met Salimon at a hotel in Ch ennai. Salimon took Marimuthu’s paperwork, including the courier re ceipt for the passport. S alimon told Marimuthu he would keep Marim uthu’s passport, and that he would call when the visa in the passport was stamped. Salimon did not return Marimuthu’s passport after it was stamped with the visa.
220. On December 8, 2006, Salim on instructed Ma rimuthu to take out dem and drafts for Pol and Burnett. Salim on also inf ormed Marim uthu his f light to the United States was booked for December 13, 2006.
- 43 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 44 of 82 PageID #: 870
221. Believing that he would receive a green card for him self and his fa mily, Marimuthu obtained tw o de mand drafts payable to Pol and Burnett, each in the a mount of $5,373.00 (upon information and belief, these dem and drafts were required to be paid in Unite d States dollars). Marim uthu wrote in the memo line of the drafts “green card fees.” He paid an additional six lakhs (approximately $13,500) to Dewan in cash.
222. Two days before leaving for Chennai, Salimon contacted Marimuthu and told him he would need to arrange and pa y for his travel from Trichy to Chennai, as well as pay for medical testing. Marim uthu had not been previous ly informed that he w ould be responsible for these travel and m edical fees, which totale d about 15,000 rupees (a pproximately $337). Marimuthu told Salim on he did not believe he should have to pay these fees. S alimon told Marimuthu that if he did not, Si gnal would cancel his flight to the United States and Marim uthu would forfeit the payments he had already made. Marimuthu felt threatened, and he worried that he might lose his m oney and the opportunity to work in the Unite d States on a gree n card. As a result, he received a last-minute loan from a distant relative for the additional 15,000 rupees.
223. On Dece mber 12, 2006, Marim uthu travelle d to Chennai. From there, Salim on gave Marimuthu a plane ticket to Mumbai.
224. When he arrived at Dewan’s office in Mu mbai, Marimuthu attempted to negotiate with Dewan about reducing his recruitment fees, instead of charging the full eight lakhs. Dewan threatened to cancel Marimuthu’s plane ticket if he did not pay the full amount.
225. Fearful that he would forfeit the money he had already paid and the opportunity to receive a green card, M arimuthu made the final pa yments. He also paid an additional fee of 2,500 rupees (approximately $56) f or a m edical cer tificate that S ignal said he would need to
- 44 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 45 of 82 PageID #: 871
enter the U nited Sta tes. Af ter these paym ents, Marim uthu was f orced to sign several f orms, which were in English, without adequate time to read and understand the forms.
226. On Dece mber 13, 2006, Marim uthu traveled from Mum bai to Houston, Texas. Upon arriving in Houston, a Signal representative drove Marimuthu to the Texas L abor Camp. As described above, the conditions at the la bor cam p were horrid. Marim uthu was shocked because he had been prom ised that the liv ing conditions while working for Signal would be the same as those he described in Singapore.
227. Marimuthu f elt com pelled to rem ain at the Texas Labor Ca mp and work for Signal be cause of the d ebt he h ad incurred to p ay the rec ruiting fees a nd because he believed that, if he did so, Signal would obtain a green card for him and his family.
228. Marimuthu also f elt compelled to r emain at the Texas Labor Cam p and work for Signal, because Signal’s em ployees and representati ves threatened to de port workers if they d id not do their jobs properly or if they tried to leave Signal.
229. In Septem ber 2007, Signal held a m eeting for the workers. Signal told the workers that they were going to apply for one more H-2B visa extension, but that they would not be rece iving the prom ised green c ards. This was the f irst tim e that Signal ev er inf ormed Marimuthu that it was not providing the promised green cards.
230. True to form, neither Signal nor any of the other Defendants ever provided or applied for a green card for Marimuthu or his fa mily. Nor did they ev er return any of the recruitment fees incurred by Marimuthu.
231. Marimuthu relied upon Defendants’ prom ises of perm anent residency, long-term employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false
- 45 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 46 of 82 PageID #: 872
promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Marim uthu felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Muruganandam Arumugam 232. In or around May 2006, Muruganandam Arumugam (“Muruganandam”) learned of advertisem ents in two newspapers, Dinathandhi and The Hindu , stating that fitters and welders were being recruited to w ork in the United Sta tes. The a dvertisements instructed interested parties to contact Sachin Dewan and his company Dewan Consultants. 233. Muruganandam was wor king as a w elder in Singapore, but he was excited about the opportunity to live and work in the United St ates. He contacted Dewan. De wan informed him that welding jobs were ava ilable in the United States and that Dewan could help him secure such a position. Dewan told Muruganandam that he would need to pass a welding test at De Silva Institute before he would be considered for any positions. 234. Muruganandam traveled over 800 kilom eters on four separate occasions to participate in the we lder re cruitment proc ess. During one of these trips, Muruganandam met with Pol, Burnett and Dewan. At this m eeting, Muruganandam was inform ed that, if he was selected, he would definitely receive a green car d after he was hired for the welding job in the United States. He was al so repeatedly assured that his family would eventu ally be able to join him in the United Sta tes and tha t his liv ing conditions in th e United Sta tes would be better than in Singapore, where Muruganandam lived in a private apartment with his wife and kids. 235. Dewan also told Muruganandam that he w ould have to pay a service charge of eight lakhs (approxim ately $18,000) to Dewan Consultants to secure a green card and the
- 46 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 47 of 82 PageID #: 873
welding job in the United States. Of this amount, 35,000 rupees was due as a deposit before Dewan would arrange the necessary interview with the United States Consulate in Chennai.
236. After Muruganandam passed his welding test s, he was instructed to wait two to three months for a phone call from Dewan, which would inform him that it was time to interview at th e U.S. Consulate. During this tim e Muruganandam returned to his stab le weld ing job in Singapore which paid 750 Singapore dollars per week (approximately $540).
237. Eventually, Muruganandam was inform ed th at it was tim e to return to India to participate in the Consulate interview. Muruganandam was instructed to bring the initial deposit of 35,000 rupees—nearly his entire life savings —to Chennai. As instructed, Muruganandam paid the money to Dewan, Burnett, and Pol.
238. After that m eeting, Dewan’s em ployee, Salimon, provided Muruganandam with paperwork to bring to the Cons ulate f or the interv iew he ar ranged. During the interview, Muruganandam was informed that he could not get a visa through the Consulate in India because he was a perm anent resident of Singapore. Mu ruganandam relayed this inform ation to Dewan, who informed him that he would need to m ake an additional deposit of 165,000 rupees ($3,712) in order to continue the process.
239. To com pile the funds dem anded by Dewan, Muruganandam had to borrow 165,000 rupees from his m other-in-law. In late Novem ber 2006, Muruganandam paid this money to Salim on in Chennai. Salim on provided addition al documentation to Mur uganandam and instructed him to attend an inte rview at th e U.S. Consulate in Singapore, which eventuall y granted Muruganandam a visa.
240. Because Muruganandam could not com plete the welding tests, m eet with Dewan and Signal’s agents, and attend interviews at consulates in India and Singapore while also
- 47 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 48 of 82 PageID #: 874
working a full tim e job, he was forced to relin quish a stable, well-paying job in S ingapore to pursue the position with Signal.
241. Salimon instructed Muruganandam to ga ther the rem aining 600,000 rupees. To do so, Muruganandam was forced to borrow the additional funds from his mother-in-law.
242. When Muruganandam notified Salimon th at he had the 600,000 rupees, Salim on instructed him to get on a plane from Chennai to Mum bai, which was leaving in a m atter of hours, and to report to Dewan’s office.
243. Once in Mumbai, Muruganandam went to Dewan’s office as instructed. While in a sm all room , surrounded by several intim idating people who worked for Dewan, Muruganandam paid the additional rupees to De wan. He also signed va rious documents written in English that he did not understand.
244. Only after Muruganandam paid the 600,000 rupees did Dewan give Muruganandam’s passport back to him . De wan then provided Muruganandam with a plane ticket to the United States which was scheduled to leave in a matter of hours.
245. Murganandam departed India for the United States on February 1, 2007. A Signal employee drove Murganandam and others from th e airport in Houston, Texas directly to the Texas Labor Camp. The first time he saw it, Murganandam thought the labor camp was a prison.
246. Dewan had represented that Murgana ndam’s liv ing con ditions in the United States would be as good as, or better than, hi s living conditions in Singapore. A s described above, however, the living condition s were reprehensible, and Murganandam was forced to live in one of the labor camp’s crowded trailers.
247. As Signal was using two or three traile rs in the Labor Ca mp for storage, Murganandam and other workers asked if the equi pment could be moved to allow the workers to
- 48 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 49 of 82 PageID #: 875
spread out and have m ore sanitary living conditions. Signal refu sed to move the equipm ent and locked the trailer doors to prevent the workers fr om using the addition al bathrooms and beds in the storage trailers.
248. Because Sig nal often served spoiled food, or ran out of fish or chicken options, Murganandam was forc ed to choose between eating food he was allergic to (lamb and goat), eating food which violated his religious beliefs (beef and pork), or going hungry.
249. Signal supervisors also tr eated Indian workers, including Murganandam , far worse than the non-Ind ian workers. For instan ce, the forem an regularly allowed the non-Indian workers to clean their eq uipment during the fin al thirty minutes the workers were scheduled to work each day. Conversely, the Indian workers were required to clean their tools every day after their shift had ended, which am ounted to approximately thirty minutes of unpaid work each day. Similarly, the fore man allowed the non-Indian wo rkers to work overtim e far m ore frequently than the Indian workers.
250. Signal employees threatened that if Murganandam left the labor cam p on his own he would be fired and that Signal would stop pr ocessing his immigration st atus. Based on these statements and his deb t in Ind ia, M urganandam felt trappe d. He f elt that h e cou ld leave the Texas Labor Camp or Signal’s employ.
251. Signal informed Murganandam that he c ould live outside of the Labor C amp, but that he would still be responsible for paying for the housing and food provided at the Labor Camp. Murganandam was never infor med that Signal would charge him for food or housing before he left India.
252. Signal only provided infrequent m eetings for em ployees to express their grievances. Nevertheless, Murganandam could not attend these m eetings because they were
- 49 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 50 of 82 PageID #: 876
always conducted at 5:00 p.m., during Murganandam’s work shift. Moreover, the meetings were ineffectual for workers like Murganandam , be cause they were conducted in English and no translator was provided.
253. When Murganandam and a friend inquired about the status of their visas and green cards, a Signal representative declined to discuss their status. When Muruganandam called Burnett to discuss the status of his visa and green card, Burnett refused to return his calls.
254. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by Murganandam and have never provided a green card for Murganandam or his family.
255. Murganandam relied upon Defendants’ pr omises of perm anent residency, longterm employment, and good working condition s. He would not have incurred sub stantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Murganandam felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Muralidharan Arumugam 256. In or around March 2006, Muralidhara n Arum ugam (“Muralidharan”) saw advertisements in two local newspapers for weld ing and fitting jobs in the United States. The advertisements indicated that interested parties should contact Dewan Consultants. 257. Around July 2006, Muralidharan attended a meeting at Dewan Consultants. Sachin Dewan ran the m eeting with the assistan ce of Salimon, Pol and Burnett. During this meeting Muralidharan a nd the othe r attendees were advised that Sign al had f itting and welding jobs ava ilable in the United States. The atte ndees were advised that whoever secured a job
- 50 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 51 of 82 PageID #: 877

would earn $18 per hour for 50 hours of work per week, that food and lodging would be

provided, an d that e ach worker would get a g reen card. To be conside red f or these position s,

Muralidharan and the other attendees would

need to pass perform ance tests and pay

approximately six lakhs (approximately $13,500).

258. Encouraged by the prospect of working in the United States, Muralidharan took

and passed the requisite tests right after the initial meeting at Dewan Consultants.

259. Sachin Dewan said he would schedule a visa inte rview for Muralidha ran at th e

U.S. Consulate as soon as Muralidharan paid 1.5 lakhs (approximately $3,375).

260. In order to m eet Dewan’s demand, Mu ralidharan m ortgaged his fa mily’s

agricultural land ag ainst his fath er’s wishes. M uralidharan used the m oney he raised to pay 1.5

lakhs to Dewan for his Consulate interview.

261. Muralidharan successfully com pleted hi s Consulate interview around Novem ber

2006. Muralidharan prom ptly notified Dewan that he had passed and that he was ready to

continue with the process.

262. In or aroun d Decem ber 2006, Mu ralidharan attended a second m eeting with

Dewan Consultan ts. D uring th is m eeting Murali dharan learned that the cost to work in the

United States had increased to eight lakhs (app roximately $18,000), rather than the six lakhs he

was originally quoted.

263. At the sam e m eeting, Dewan told Muralidharan that he needed to pay a second

deposit of $10,746 towards this am ount in the form of two $5,373 dem and drafts—one payable

to Pol and the other payable to Burnett. Dewa n represented that these paym ents would ensure

that Muralidharan received a green card, which would enable him to perm anently live and work

- 51 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 52 of 82 PageID #: 878
in the United States. After receiv ing a letter that confirm ed he would receiv e a green card, Muralidharan paid the second deposit of $10,476 on December 9, 2006.
264. To compile the funds dem anded by Dewan, including the second deposit and the remaining amounts owed on the eight lakhs, Muralidharan mortgaged his father’s house, pawned his wife’s jewelry and took out private loans.
265. As soon as Muralidharan com piled the neces sary funds, he traveled to Mum bai and paid the rem aining portion of the eight la khs charged by Dewan. After Muralidharan paid, Dewan returned his passport and provided him with plane tickets for a flight to the United States that departed the next day.
266. Muralidharan departed India for the Un ited States on or about December 11, 2006. A Signal em ployee drove Mura lidharan and others from th e airport in Houston, Texas directly to the Texas Labor Cam p. The first time he saw it, Muralidharan thought the cam p was a prison.
267. Prior to rec eiving his f irst paych eck, Mura lidharan was n ot awar e th at Sign al would deduct money for room and board.
268. As described above, the liv ing conditions at the cam p were rep rehensible. As a result of over-crowding, unsanitary conditions, and spoiled food, nume rous workers, including Muralidharan, became ill seriously while living in Signal’s Texas Labor Camp.
269. Muralidharan contracted an intestinal vi rus or in fection while liv ing a t Signal’s Texas Labor Ca mp and had to have e mergency surgery. Muralidharan rem ained bedridden in the hospital for four days following the surgery. Muralidharan departed from the hospital early because he could not afford to stay as long as he was advised to stay. Mulihandharan ’s hospitalization resulted in charges exceeding $30,000.
- 52 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 53 of 82 PageID #: 879

270. Nonetheless, Signal continued to

charge Muralidharan for food and

accommodations while he was in the hospital, unable to work.

271. As a result of the debt he had incurred to pay the recruitin g fees and the fees for

his hospitalization, as well as the promise of a green card, Muralidharan felt compelled to remain

at Signal.

272. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by

Muralidharan and have never provided a green card for Muralidharan or his family.

273. Muralidharan relied upon Defenda nts’ pr omises of per manent residency, long-

term employment, and good working condition s. He would not have incurred sub stantial debt,

mortgaged his family’s land, or agreed to work f or Signal in the absence of such false prom ises.

Because of his fear that Signal would attempt to deport him, his fear of m istreatment and abuse

by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his fa mily had incurred to pay

Defendants’ recruiting fees, Muralidharan felt in timidated into acquies cence and compelled to

continue working for Signal.

Satyanarayana Ellapu

274. In or around June 2006, while working as a structural welder in Andhra Pradesh,

India, Satyanarayana Ellapu (“Satya”) saw an advertisem ent in the local newspaper, Eenadu, for

potential employment in the United States. The a dvertisement stated that a “leading m arine and

fabrication company in Mississippi and Texas” was hiring welders and pipefitters for its facilities

in the United States and was conducting tests on June 25, 26, and 28, 2006, for the positions.

275. The advertisem ent also stated th at the positions m ay include “perm anent

employment visas” and a “2 years [sic] contract.”

- 53 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 54 of 82 PageID #: 880
276. Satya was hopeful that the job opportunity would better enable him to provide for his family, for whom he was the sole breadwinner.
277. On June 26, 2006, Satya traveled an hour from his village to a training center to take a te st to determ ine his eligib ility f or h ire at Signal. Sachin Dewan and other S ignal representatives were present at this meeting, along with 20 to 30 other welders an d pipefitters. Satya passed the test and was instructed to return in three days.
278. Three days later, Satya return ed to the training cen ter an atte nded an informational m eeting with approxim ately 50 other workers. Dewan and Burnett led the meeting. Dewan inform ed the workers that th e opportun ities were for position s in Signal’s facilities in Mississipp i or Texas. Dewan furthe r informed the workers that they would receive an H-2B visa for the first 9 m onths of their employment with Signal, but that they would then be provided a green card. Dewan indicated that the process would take four to six months and would cost six lakhs (approxim ately $13,500), of which one lakh (approx imately $2,250) had to be paid up front.
279. Satya complained about the cost to Dewan and Burnett. They informed Satya that he had no choice—“If you want the job, you have to pa y.” However, they also promised that the money would be “easily recovered” once Satya began working in the United States.
280. In response to the workers’ concern a bout the size of th e up-front paym ent, Dewan and Burnett stated that the workers could pay 20,000 rupees (approximately $450) within 20 days and pay the balance later. If the m en paid the 20,000 rupees, they would be guaranteed the job.
281. Dewan and Burnett then distributed applications explaining that the worker had to pay the recruiting fees in installments by demand drafts and cash.
- 54 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 55 of 82 PageID #: 881
282. After the meeting, Satya returned to his village to discuss the opportunity with his family. His fa mily did not have enough m oney cover the recruiting fees , but they nonetheless encouraged him to apply—believing that a green card would assist Satya in providing for them.
283. Because Satya’s life s avings totaled one lakh, he borrowe d four and a h alf lakhs (approximately $10,125) from a lender with interest. As collateral, Satya pledged his father’s ancestral land and his hom e, which the lender threatened to repossess if Satya m issed any payments.
284. On July 20, 2006, Sat ya m et with an e mployee of Dewan to m ake his first payment of 20,000 rupees. The employee gave Satya four forms to sign. The first form was for Global and explained the paym ent schedule and amounts. The second f orm was for Burnett and explained the attorneys’ fees for legal services, employment agreements, and labor certifications. The third form explained Dewan’s services. Th e fourth form was an em ployment agreem ent with Signal. Satya signed the four forms, trusting that Dewan had accurately translated them.
285. Subsequently, Satya had several m eetings with Dewan’s empl oyees in which he was asked to m ake addition al pay ments, includi ng fees for visa pro cessing, bank drafts, and travel and accommodation in Chennai, where he interviewed with the United States Consulate.
286. Prior to Satya’s interview with th e Consulate on Nove mber 3, 2006, Dewan contacted him and requested that he bring docum ents evidencing his land or inheritance, which Dewan claimed was ne cessary for the visa applicat ion. Satya traveled to Chennai and m et with Dewan two days before his interv iew with the Consulate. During this meeting, Dewan instructed Satya regarding what to say during the Consulate interview.
- 55 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 56 of 82 PageID #: 882
287. After the Consulate granted Satya’s visa , Dewan contacted Satya and infor med him that he could leave for the United States as soon as he m ade a final paym ent of six lakhs (approximately $13,500). Satya also had to borrow the funds necessary to make that payment.
288. On Decem ber 12, 2006, Satya trav eled to Mumbai to pick up his passport and plane ticket from Dewan’s office. After colle cting Satya’s fee paym ents, Dewan gave Satya a series of for ms in English to sign. Satya aske d for a translation, but Dewan refused, citing th e workers’ imminent plane departure. Satya beli eved he had no choice but to sign the for ms even though he could not read them.
289. After he signed the form s, Satya was given his plane ticket and passport. Satya’s plane left Mum bai shortly ther eafter and arrived in Houston, Texas on or about Decem ber 13, 2006. A Signal representative m et Satya and other workers at the airport and drove them to the Texas Labor Camp.
290. The m orning following his arrival, Si gnal hosted an orientation for the new workers. D uring that m eeting, Satya learned for the first tim e that he would need to pay an additional $170 for his tools. Sa tya was also forced to sign se veral more form s in English. When Satya asked Signal’s representatives to explain what the forms said, they refused.
291. As a result of the conditions at the Texa s Labor Camp, Satya felt isolated, lonely, and anxious. At one point, he was hospitalized w ith an eye injury result ing from the conditions in which he was forced to weld. Satya did not complain, however, because he was fearful Signal would terminate his employment if he did. His fear was based in part upon news that (1) S ignal had threatened to deport a work er who refused to do a particular job; and (2) another worker missed two days of wor k and was forcibly depor ted by Signal. Satya f elt further compelled to
- 56 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 57 of 82 PageID #: 883
stay at Signal, because he could not repay the debts he incurred for the recruitment fees if he left and believed he would receive a green card if he stayed.
292. Defendants have never returned any of the “recruitment fees” incu rred by Saty a and never received provided a green card for Satya or his family.
293. Satya relied upon Defendants’ prom ises of perm anent residency, long-term employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Satya felt intim idated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Moorthy Nadhamuni 294. In Novem ber 2006, while Moorthy Nadham uni (“Moorthy”) was working as a fitter in Dubai, he learned of a job opportunity in the United States through an adv ertisement in the Indian newspaper, Dinathandy. The advertisement was placed by Dewan Consultants, stated Dewan was seeking to f ill perm anent job vaca ncies, and p romised employm ent in the United States along with permanent residency through a green card. 295. As a result of the advertisem ent, M oorthy took an e mergency leave from his position in Dubai and travelled to Chennai, India to attend an infor mational meeting about the opportunity. 296. Pol, Dewan, his em ployee Salim on, and othe rs were present at the m eeting. During the m eeting, Dewan told Moorthy that he had to pass a test, which cost 500 rupees
- 57 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 58 of 82 PageID #: 884
(approximately $11), to be eligible for potential employment. Moorthy paid the 500 rupees and passed the test. Salim on contacte d Moorthy three days later and instructed him to attend an upcoming meeting.
297. Approximately one week later, Moor thy attended a general m eeting led by Dewan. Several other workers were present. Dewan inform ed the workers that th ey had b een selected to work f or Signal Interna tional in th e United States at either a Texas or Mississipp i facility, that workers w ould be paid $14-18/ho ur, and that the workers would receive green cards.
298. Dewan inform ed the workers that they w ould first have to attend an interview with the United Sta tes Consulate in Chennai. If the interview went well, the work ers would be given H-2B visa and would recei ve a green card approxim ately 18 months after working in the United States. Dewan also prom ised the workers that, after they received their green cards, their families could join them in the United States.
299. Dewan stated the green card processing would cost the workers eight lakhs (approximately $18,000) in three installm ents. First the workers had to pay Dewan 35,000 rupees (approximately $787). Second, the wo rkers would have to pay $3,871 to Pol and $3,871 to Burnett in cashier’s check by late January. Finally, the workers would have to pay the remainder o f the eigh t lakhs to Dewan. Dewan further stated that th e workers ’ green cards would be p rocessed an d their f amilies could join them in the United State s, but only if the workers paid these fees.
300. Moorthy made the initia l payment to De wan with m oney he had saved from his previous employment. To accumulate the remainder of the eight lakhs, Moorthy borrowed funds from a local lender, pledging his wife’s land as collateral, and pawned his wife’s jewelry.
- 58 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 59 of 82 PageID #: 885
301. After rec eiving Moor thy’s in itial p ayment, Dewan inf ormed Moor thy tha t his interview w ith the Con sulate was scheduled for Decem ber 2, 2006. Dewan also inform ed Moorthy that he must bring an additional 4,600 rupees (approximately $103) for visa processing.
302. On December 2, 2006, Moorthy arrived in Ch ennai. He met with Dew an prior to his interview, during w hich Dewan coached Moorthy regarding the interview and provided him with documents for the Consulate.
303. Moorthy was subsequently approved fo r a visa. After the approval, Dewan instructed Moorthy to make the final payment of $3,871 to both Pol and Burnett.
304. On approxim ately February 13, 2007, Moorthy m et Dewan in Chennai and received a ticket from Chenna i to Mum bai. Dewan said that Moorthy would receive the remainder of his ticket to the United States in Mumbai.
305. On February 14, 2007, Moorthy travelled from Chennai to Dewan’s office in Mumbai. There, he and several other worker s were called one by one to m ake their final payments to Pol, Burnett, and Dewan. Som e workers were unable to m ake the paym ents and were informed by Dewan’s representatives that they would not receive plane tickets and would forfeit all pr ior payments if they did not m ake the final payment in f ull. Having witnessed this , Moorthy felt com pelled to m ake his paym ents. After m aking that paym ent, Moorthy was required to sign several forms in English, which Dewan’s representatives refused to translate.
306. On February 15, 2007, Moorthy departed Mu mbai for Houston, Texas. When he arrived in Houston, a Signal representative pi cked him up a t the airport and brought Moorthy along with the other workers to the Texas Labor Camp.
307. Moorthy w as appalled by the living c onditions, which—as described above— were horrid. They were m uch worse than the living conditions he had experienced previously
- 59 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 60 of 82 PageID #: 886
when working in Dubai and Singapore. Signal refused to serve vegetarian food, even though Moorthy is a vegetarian for reli gious reasons. Meanwhile, Signal continued deducting fees from Moorthy’s paychecks for food and accommodations.
308. Moorthy felt trapped and believed that, because of the debt he had incurred, he had to continue working f or Signal despite the repreh ensible conditions. In additio n, based on the promises made to him previously, Moorthy al so believed that he wo uld receive a green card if he continued to work for Signa l and tha t his f amily could eventua lly join him in the United States. Accordingly, Moorthy continued to work for Signal without complaint.
309. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by Moorthy and never provided a green card for Moorthy or his family.
310. Moorthy relied upon Defendants’ prom ises of perm anent residency, long-term employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Moorthy felt intim idated into acqu iescence and co mpelled to continue working for Signal.
Rajendran Sappani 311. In 2006, R ajendran Sappani (“Sappani”) was working in Singapore when he learned about a newspaper advertisem ent pl aced by Dewan offering welders and fitters employment and permanent residency in the United States. 312. Sappani learned that Dewan Consultants was holding inte rviews for the positions in Chennai, India, and that the last date to interview was November 11, 2006.
- 60 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 61 of 82 PageID #: 887
313. On or around November 8, 2006, Sappani left his job in Singapore and returned to his hom etown of Trichy, India, be fore trave lling to Chenna i f or an in terview and testing with Dewan.
314. Sappani interviewed with Dewan and passed a written pipe fitting test. After the test, Sappani he was required to pay eight la kh (approxim ately $18,000) for the employm ent opportunity, visa processing, and green card. He was also required to make an initial payment of 45,000 rupees to Dewan. Dewan also informed Sappani he would need to pass an interview with the Consulate and that, if the Consulate did not stam p his pass port with a visa, Sappani would forfeit the 45,000 rupees payment.
315. To raise the funds necessary to pay the recruitm ent fees, Sappani borrowed money from lenders. T o obtain one of the loan s, the lende r required Sappani to prove that the funds were for a green card. Sappani contacte d Dewan who faxed a letter to Sappani confirm ing that Sappani would be receivi ng a green card. Sappani presen ted the letter to the bank and received the funds. Sappani also sold his wi fe’s jewelry—with the exception of her wedding band, which he used as collateral for a loan—and mortgaged his fam ily’s house and land. As a result, his family now pays 1,000 rupees per month to live in the house.
316. Subsequently, Sappani attended an inte rview with the United Sta tes Consulate and was processed for a visa. In Decem ber 2006, prior to leaving for the United States, Sappani was instructed to trave l to Dewan’s of fice in Mumbai, wher e he pa id th e f inal recru iting f ees, including an additional 1,500-rupee fee for a m edical certificate. Dewan withheld Sappani’s passport until the final paym ents were made. Sa ppani was then required to sign several papers quickly, without an opportunity to read them, before he received his ticket to travel to the United States.
- 61 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 62 of 82 PageID #: 888
317. On or abou t Decem ber 18, 2006, Sappani ar rived at Sign al’s Orange, Texas facility. Sappani was shocked by the condition s at the Texas Labor Camp, which were m uch worse than he had experienced in Singapore. But Sappani felt that he could not turn back because have no way of repaying the money he had borrowed. As a result, Sappani was afraid to do anything that might create problems for him at Signal.
318. Defendants have never returned any of the “recruitment fees” incurred by Sappani and never provided a green card for Sappani.
319. Sappani relied upon Defendants’ prom ises of perm anent residency, long-term employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Sappani f elt intim idated into acqu iescence and com pelled to continue working for Signal.
Rajendran Subramani 320. Rajendran Subram ani (“Rajendran”) is a welder and structural fitter from Tiruchirappali, India. Rajendran supports his mother and family financially. 321. In or about 2006, Rajendran was working as welder in Malaysia. His friend informed him about an advertisem ent in a Hind u newspaper offering the opportunity to live and work in th e United Sta tes as weld er or f itter and obtain a green ca rd. R ajendran reviewed the advertisement and confirm ed that it prom ised the opportunity to get a green card in the United States. To take advantage of this opportunity, Rajendran travelled to I ndia to interview for a position.
- 62 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 63 of 82 PageID #: 889
322. On or about January 7, 2007, Rajendran interviewed with Salim on, an e mployee of De wan. Rajendran understood that Dewan wa s recruiting workers on behalf of Signal. During this interview, S alimon represented to R ajendran that he would make $18.00 per hour in the United States, that there w ould be opportunities to receive overtime pay, and the job with Signal would las t for at least two y ears. Salim on further represented R ajendran would initially receive a visa every six m onths, but that af ter two years Signal would get a green card for Rajendran and help him bring his family to the United Sates.
323. Despite the fact that Rajendran had a two-year contract for his job in Malaysia, he was very interested in obtaining a green card and earning an income that was higher than what he was making in Malaysia. Raje ndran felt that this em ployment opportunity would perm it him to make a better life for his family and to support his aging mother.
324. During the interview, Rajendran spoke with Salim on about his work arrangem ent in Malaysia and described the accommodations, food, and benefits that were provided by the employer. Salim on prom ised Rajendran that Signal would provide sim ilar type of accommodations, food, and benefits, including that he would only have to share an apartm ent with a few men.
325. Salimon told Rajendran that it would cost him eight lahks f or the opportunity to work for Si gnal and receive a green card. Base d on the representations that Salim on made on behalf of Si gnal, including the representations a bout receiving a green card for him self and his family, Rajendran agreed to pay the money.
326. Rajendran had saved about 100,000 rupees during his tim e working in Malaysia, but still needed to borrow an additional 700,000 rup ees to pay the recruitm ent fee. Rajendran’s mother use d to work f or a wealth y f amily, th e Muthus, who agreed to loan Ra jendran the
- 63 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 64 of 82 PageID #: 890
700,000 rupees at an interest rate of three percent (3%) per m onth, a total of thirty-six percent (36%) interest per year.
327. In or about January 2007, Rajendran paid 40,000 rupees ($900) to Salim on as an initial depos it in orde r to obtain an inte rview w ith the U.S. Consulate. Approxim ately four weeks la ter, Salim on called Rajen dran and to ld him that his interview was sc heduled f or February 7, 2007. Rajendran met with Salimon in Madras in order to coach him for interview.
328. Rajendran m et with the em bassy on or about February 7, 2007, and after the meeting they told him that his passport would be sent to S alimon once it was stam ped. Several days after the interview with the embassy Rajendran received a phone call from Dewan saying that they had his p assport, but that he needed to come to Dewan’s of fice in Bom bay to pay the remaining 760,000 rupees, which he did prior to departing for the United States.
329. On February 15, 2007, Rajendran traveled to the United States. A Signal employee picked up Rajendran and other Indian workers at the airport in Houston, Texas and drove them to the Texas Labor Camp.
330. Rajendran thought that the Texas L abor Camp resem bled a prison—it was very isolated, it was surrounded by a fence, and guarded by security guards.
331. A Signal e mployee had Rajendran and othe r Indian workers complete paperwork when they arrived at the Texas Labor Cam p. Si gnal did not, however, tr anslate or explain the paperwork for the Indian workers.
332. At the Texas Labor Cam p, Rajendran wa s required to shar e an overcrowded bunkhouse with more than twenty (20) men. The bunk beds were so tightly packed together that Rajendran and others were forced to sleep with their suitcases in their beds with them. The toilet and showering facilities were in sufficient and unsanitary. Inde ed, there was only bathroom and
- 64 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 65 of 82 PageID #: 891
one shower between the twenty men. There was no privacy at the bunkhouse and sleep was very difficult due to the close quarters, oppressive smells, and constant noise from the workers coming and going to their different shifts.
333. As described above, the food that Signal provided was deplorable. Rajendran often became ill from the food, which was freq uently rotten and/o r left out for lon g periods of time.
334. Signal deducted approximately $1,050 per month from Rajendran’s paychecks for room and board. Prior to arriving at the Texa s Labor Ca mp, Rajendran had not been infor med this amount would be withheld from his paychecks.
335. As a result of the conditions at the Texas Labor Ca mp, Rajendran asked Signal if he could live som ewhere else, but he was told Signal would still deduct $1,050 per month from his paychecks if he m oved. Becau se of the su bstantial debt Rajend ran had incurred to pay th e recruitment fees, he could not afford to pay for accommodations outside the Texas L abor Camp and still pay Signal $1,050 per m onth. Rajendran was, in effect, com pelled to stay in the Texas Labor Camp.
336. Rajendran and other workers com plained to Signal about the awful con ditions at the Texas Labor Cam p. In response, Signal th reatened to send Rajendran and other workers back to India if they continued to complain or spoke to others about Signal’s actions. Faced with threats of deportation, and crushing debt in Indian, Rajendran fe lt compelled to continue his employment at Signal.
337. Notwithstanding the prior promises of employment for two years and a green card for Rajendran and his family, during a meeting in June 2007, Signal informed Rajendran and the others who voiced concern about the conditions at the Texas Labor Camp that they could not
- 65 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 66 of 82 PageID #: 892
work for Signal after July 30, 2007 and that Signal would not renew their visas. At that point, Rajendran realized that the prom ises about the length of his e mployment and Signal obtaining a green card for Rajendran and his family were lies.
338. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by Rajendran and never provided a green card for Rajendran or his family.
339. Rajendran relied upon Defendants’ prom ises of perm anent residency, long-term employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Rajendran felt intimidated into acquies cence and c ompelled to continue working for Signal.
Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla 340. In or about May 2006, while working as a structural welder in Andhra Pradesh, India, Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathu lla (“Talabathulla”) saw an advertisement in the local newspaper, Eenadu, f or potentia l employm ent in the Unite d States. The advertise ment stated that an Americ an com pany was hiring welders a nd pipef itters f or its f acilities in the United States. The advertisem ent gave certain dates fo r tests and interviews in Chennai, and provided the contact information for Dewan. 341. Talabathulla and three of his friends traveled to Chennai 16 hours by train to discuss the opportunity with Dewan. Dewan expl ained the job opportunity, represented that it was for long-term employment, that there was ample work, and that workers would be processed for green cards. Specifically, Dewan infor med Talabathulla that he would work under an H-2B
- 66 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 67 of 82 PageID #: 893
visa for the initial nine m onths and then woul d be processed for and receive a green card. Dewan also explained that that Talabathulla w ould need to undergo a testing process that was being conducted over the next couple of days.
342. Dewan required that Talabathulla pay two lakhs (approxim ately $4,500), within 10 days to p roceed. Talabathulla n eeded to go back home to Andhra Pradesh in order to obtain the m oney. Before leav ing to obtain the m oney, Talabathulla took and passed the fitting test. During the test, Talabathulla met Pol, who informed him that the job opportunity was for Signal. Pol reiterated the promise of permanent residency in the United States.
343. Talabathulla paid two lakhs to Dewan in November 2006. In order to pay those funds, Talabathulla had to borrow money from his father, who in turn borrowed from lenders at an interest rate of 3% per month (43% per year).
344. After receiv ing Talabathulla’s paym ent, Dewan infor med Talabathulla that h e needed to pay an additional $5,373 to Malvern Burnett, $5,373 to Michael Pol, and another $3,680 to D ewan. Talabathulla ultim ately paid these am ounts. To do so, Talaba thulla had to borrow more money from his father, who in turn borrowed the money from lenders, pledging his house as collateral for the loan.
345. In December 2006, Talabathulla traveled to Dewan’s office in Mumbai in order to receive his passport an d airline ticket to the United S tates. Talab athulla arrived shortly before his plane w as scheduled to depart for the Unit ed States. During this m eeting, Dewan required that Talabathulla pay the rem aining recruitm ent f ees in order to re ceive his passport. Talabathulla f elt tha t h e had no choice but to follow Dewan’s directions. After receiving Talabathulla’s paym ent, Dewan gave Talabath ulla h is pa ssport a s well as an Off er of Employment letter from Signal that was in English and had not b een translated. Dewan refused
- 67 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 68 of 82 PageID #: 894

to provide a receip t for the paym ent. Before leaving for the United States, Dewan continued to

assure Talabathulla that he would receive a green card.

346. When Talabathulla arrived in the United States, Signal informed him that it going

to deduct approxim ately $1,050 pe r m onth from his salary for room a nd board. He was also

informed that he would be charged these am ounts reg ardless of whether he lived at th e Texas

Labor Camp. This was the f irst time Talabathulla had heard that he would be charged for room

and board. As described above, the conditio ns at the Texas Labor Ca mp were deplorable.

Because Talabathulla co uld not afford to pay fo r living expenses twice and repay h is loans, he

felt compelled to remain at the Texas Labor Camp.

347. While he was at the Texas Labor Ca

mp, Defendants continued to assure

Talabathulla that he would receive a green card.

348. During the spring of 2007, Talabathulla he that Signal had threatened to deport

other Indian workers back to India. Signal ultim ately transferred Talabathulla to its f acility in

Pascagoula, Mississippi and reduced his wages. In doing so, however, Signal again reiterated its

promise that there would be am ple work at the Mississippi facility, which ultim ately turned out

not to be true. As a res ult of the threats of deportation and the debt he had incurred to pay the

recruitment fees, Talabathulla felt compelled to remain at Signal, work at its Mississ ippi facility,

and accept the lower wages.

349. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by

Talabathulla and never provided a green card for Talabathulla.

350. Talabathulla relied upon Defendants’ promises of permanent residency, long-term

employment, and good working c onditions. He would not have in curred subs tantial debt,

relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false

- 68 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 69 of 82 PageID #: 895

promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment

and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to

pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Talabathulla felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to

continue working for Signal.

Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu

351. In or around 2005, while working as a we lder in Abu Dhabi, Samm anasunathan

Siluvaimuthu (“Siluvaimuthu”) saw a newspaper advertisement placed by Dewan seeking fitters

and welders. The advertisem ent offered the opport unity to work in the United States and obtain

a green card.

352. Siluvaimuthu spoke with Dewan and

was told to attend an upcom

ing

informational m eeting if he was interes ted in the job opportunity. During the call, Dewan

promised Siluvaimuthu that he would receive a green card as part of the job opportunity.

353. Siluvaimuthu subsequently attended the inform

ational m eeting, along

approximately 100 other Indian workers. Pol and Dewan were present at the m eeting and

explained the job opportunity. Am ong other things , they represented that the job opportunity

was with Signal and that Signal would obtain perm anent residency for the workers in the Unite d

States.

354. Pol and De wan told Siluvaim uthu and the other workers that they had to pay

recruitment fees for the job opportunity totaling the equivalent of six or seven lakhs. They

explained that the work ers could pay the recru itment f ees in three installments, if they did not

have enough money up front.

355. Siluvaimuthu did not believe he had enough money to pay the recruitment fees.

- 69 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 70 of 82 PageID #: 896
356. In or around Nove mber 2006, however, Sil uvaimuthu learned th at som e of hi s friends were going to work for Signal through Dewan Consultants. Siluvaim uthu had dream ed of living in the United States, a nd decided to pursue the job opport unity with Signal. To that end, he m et with Sachin Dewan in Chennai for te sting. After passing the test, Dewan inform ed Siluvaimuthu that the recruitment fees had risen to 8.5 lakhs (approximately $19,125).
357. Siluvaimuthu was inform ed that he woul d have to pay 3.5 lakhs (approxim ately $7,875) up front. Siluvaim uthu paid the initial 3.5 lakhs by dem and draft. To do s o, Siluvaimuthu borrowed m oney from friends at an interest rate of 5 percent per m onth. Siluvaimuthu received a loan for the rem ainder of the 8.5 lakhs. As collatera l for th e lo an, Siluvaimuthu pledged his house and his wife’s jewelry.
358. Subsequently, Siluvaimuthu met with Dewan to pay the remaining recruiting fees. During that m eeting, Dewan represented to Siluva imuthu that he would r eceive a green card in approximately 6 months and then could bring his family to join him in the United States. Dewan further represented that the em ployment with Signal would be long-term and the living conditions would be comfortable, safe, and sanitary.
359. On or around Nove mber 24, 2006, Siluvaim uthu received a visa from the United States Consulate in Chennai. Following Siluvaim uthu’s interview at the Consulate, Dewan kept Siluvaimuthu’s passport.
360. Shortly b efore he was to le ave f or th e United States, Siluvaim uthu attended a meeting at Dewan’s office, durin g which he was forced to sign form s in English without a translation. Siluvaimuthu felt compelled to sign the forms because his plane to the United States was leaving shortly, he had paid the recruitment fees to Dewan, and Dewan still had his passport.
- 70 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 71 of 82 PageID #: 897
Dewan only returned Siluvaimuthu’ s passport immediately before he boarded the f light to the United States.
361. When Siluvaim uthu arrived at the Texas Labor Ca mp, he was horrified by the conditions. Signal subsequently inform ed hi m, for the first tim e, that it would deduct approximately $1,050 per m onth from his wages for room and board, regardless of whether he lived at the Texas Labor Camp. Despite the conditions, Siluvaimuthu felt compelled to remain at the Texas Labor Cam p and continue working because he could not afford to pay twice for room and board and also repay the debt he had incurred in India.
362. Defendants have never returned any of the “recru itment fees” incurred by Siluvaimuthu and never provided a green card for Siluvaimuthu.
363. Siluvaimuthu relied upon Defendants’ pr omises of perm anent residency, longterm employment, and good working condition s. He would not have incurred sub stantial debt, relinquished prior em ployment, or agreed to wo rk for Si gnal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal wou ld attempt to deport h im, his fear of m istreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recru iting fees, Siluvaim uthu felt in timidated into acqu iescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2003 Forced Labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589) (Trafficking with Respect to Peonage, Slavery, Involuntary
Servitude, or Forced Labor) (18 U.S.C. § 1590) All Defendants
364. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
- 71 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 72 of 82 PageID #: 898
365. Plaintiffs are authorized to bring these civil claims against Defendants pursuant to the civil rem edies provision of the Trafficking Victim s Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. § 1595.
366. Defendants attempted to and did subject P laintiffs to forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589.
367. Defendants controlled Plaintiffs’ ability to meet their bas ic needs, including their housing, food, and access to m edical care and legal counsel and threat ened to withhold access to these necessities if Plaintiffs refused to continue working for Signal.
368. Defendants forced Plaintiffs to live in guarded and gated camps. 369. Defendants coerced Pla intiffs into paying subs tantial rec ruitment f ees prior to hiring Plaintiffs and subsequently forced Plaintiffs to work at Signal to s atisfy their outstand ing debts. 370. Defendants’ schem e to isolate Pla intiffs, to co erce them to liv e in c onditions causing psychological harm , and to lim it th eir outside contacts, including unlawful discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, wa s designed to convince Plaintiffs that they would suffer serious harm, including financial ruin, if they left the employ of Signal. 371. Defendants reta liated a gainst Plain tiffs f or attem pting to exercise their legal rights, th reatened Plain tiffs with de portation, a nd deceived Plaintiffs about the term s of their immigration status in a manner that constitutes an abuse of the legal process. 372. Defendants knowingly attem pted to and did provide or obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs by means of force, threats of force, and threats of physical restraint made to the Plaintiffs in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(1).
- 72 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 73 of 82 PageID #: 899
373. Defendants knowingly attem pted to and di d obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs by m eans of s erious harm or threats of serious harm to Plaintiffs in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(2). F urther, Defendants knowi ngly attempted to and di d obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs using a scheme, plan, or patter that, 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 Signal's employ, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(2).
374. Defendants knowingly attem pted to and did provide or obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs by m eans of the abuse or threaten ed abuse of la w or legal process in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(3).
375. Defendants knowingly attem pted to and did provide or obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs by using a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause Plaintiffs to believe that, if they did not pe rform such labor or services, P laintiffs would suffer serious harm or physical restraint, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(4).
376. Defendants knowingly recruited, transporte d, harbored, provided, and/or obtained the Plaintiffs for labor and services in violation of laws prohibiting peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, and forced labor within the m eaning of the provisions of the Trafficking Victim s Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1590.
377. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590, and in ad dition to the violat ions of 18 U.S.C. § 1589 set forth above, the Defendants know ingly recruited, transported, harbored and/or obtained the Plaintiffs for labor or serv ices in furt herance of Defendants’ violations of the following provisions of Title 18, Chapter 77 of the U.S. Code:
a. enticing, persuading, or i nducing the Plaintiffs to go onboard an airliner,
train and passenger van, and to go to va rious locations throughout the United Arab
- 73 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 74 of 82 PageID #: 900
Emirates, India, and the United State s, with th e intent that they m ay be held in m odernday slavery, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1583;
b. knowingly and willfully holding Plain tiffs to involuntary servitude, as
defined by 22 U.S.C. § 7102(5)(a) and (b), violating 18 U.S.C. § 1584;
c. removing, confiscating, or possessi ng Plaintiffs’ passports and other
immigration documents in the course of, or w ith the intent to viol ate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1583, 1584, 1589, and 1590, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1592(a); and
d. attempting to violate 18 U.S. C. §§ 1583, 1584, 1589, and 1590, violating
18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). 378. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries to their persons, businesses, and property, and other damages. 379. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including attorneys’ fees.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Defendant Signal (Signal International, LLC, Signal International, Inc., Signal International
Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P.) 380. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 381. Plaintiffs assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for declaratory relief, and damages against Defendant Signal. 382. The actions of Signal, as set forth herein, violated Plaintiffs’ rights to rec eive 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 Signal.
- 74 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 75 of 82 PageID #: 901
383. Specifically, Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs to discriminatory and offensive mandatory room and board arrangem ents at the Te xas Labor Ca mp on the basis of Plaintiffs’ race and/or national origin.
384. Defendant Signal did not subject its non-Indi an employees to the sam e or similar room and board arrangements.
385. As set forth in th e p receding paragraphs, Defendant Signal also imposed discriminatory job-related requ irements and ad verse term s and conditions of em ployment to which non-Indian employees were not similarly subjected.
386. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, th rough the actions and statements of its personnel referring to and/or direct ed at Plaintiffs and other Indian workers, Signal m aintained an objectively hostile and abusive work envir onment on account of Plaintiffs’ race and/or national origin.
387. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs , Signal’s discrim inatory and offensive treatment of Plaintiffs was sufficiently severe that it created an o bjectively h ostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
388. Plaintiffs reasonably perceived their work environment to be hostile, abusive, and discriminatory on the basis of their race and/or national origin.
389. Signal’s hostile, abusive, and discrim inatory treatm ent of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated was unwelcome.
390. Signal knowingly, willfully, m aliciously, in tentionally, and without justification acted to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights on the basis of Plaintiffs’ race and/or national origin.
391. As a result of Signal’s unlawful acts, Pl aintiffs have suf fered inju ry to th eir property and/or persons.
- 75 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 76 of 82 PageID #: 902
392. Plaintiffs seek all app ropriate relief, including declaratory relief, attorn eys’ fees, costs of this action, and dam ages, including compensatory and punitive dam ages, in an am ount to be determined at trial.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT OF 1871
42 U.S.C. § 1985 and the Thirteenth Amendment All Defendants
393. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
394. Plaintiffs assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for declaratory relief, and damages against the Defendants.
395. As set f orth in the pr eceding paragraphs, Defendants conspi red, agreed, planned and coordinated for, and acted in furtherance of, the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of equal protection of their rights under the T hirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and its im plementing and enforcing st atutes (inter alia , 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1590) to be free from forced labor, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons.
396. As demonstrated above, Defendants were motivated by racial, anti-Indian, and/or anti-immigrant anim us when they conspired to de prive Plaintiffs of t heir righ ts and acted in furtherance of a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.
397. Defendants knowingly, willfully , m aliciously, inten tionally, and without justification planned and acted to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.
398. As a result of the unlawful acts of the Defe ndants, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.
- 76 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 77 of 82 PageID #: 903
399. Plaintiffs seek all app ropriate relief, including declaratory relief, attorn eys’ fees, costs of this action, and dam ages, including compensatory and punitive dam ages, in an am ount to be determined at trial.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
All Defendants 400. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs. 401. As set forth in the preceding paragra phs, Defendants, individually and through their agents, e mployees, and/or representatives, knowingly and/or negligen tly m ade m aterially false and untrue statem ents and representations to Plaintiffs regarding the nature and term s and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and em ployment in the United States. Among other things, Defendants and/ or their respective agents represented to the Plaintiffs that: (1) they would be eligible for permanent residency through their employment with Signal; (2) Defendants would apply for per manent residency in the United States on behalf of Plaintiffs; (3) Defendants would extend Plaintiffs’ H-2B visas wh ile they were being processed for permanent residency; and (4) Plaintiffs would have steady and ongoing work opportunities in the United States with Signal. Def endants a nd/or their respec tive a gents a lso m ade f alse representations regarding the living conditions at the Texas Labor Camp. 402. As set forth in the preced ing para graphs, Defendants knowingly and/or negligently f ailed to disclose m aterial f acts to Plain tiffs r egarding th e natu re an d term s and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and em ployment in the United States.
- 77 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 78 of 82 PageID #: 904
403. Defendants intended, or should have known, that the false statem ents m ade by Defendants and/or their agents, em ployees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to pay the exorbitant fees demanded by the Pol, Dewan, and/or Burnett.
404. Defendants intended, or should have known, that the false statem ents m ade by Defendants and/or their agents, employees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to leave their homes and jobs in I ndia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates and trave l to th e United States to work for Defendant Signal.
405. Plaintiffs were entitled to rely on Defendants’ representations. 406. In reliance on Defenda nts’ false and/or ne gligent representations regarding green cards and employm ent opportunities, Plaintiffs paid large sum s of money to Pol, Dewan and/or Burnett, which dire ctly benef itted D efendant Signal in the f orm of cheap labor an d increas ed profits. 407. In reliance on Defenda nts’ false and/or ne gligent representations regarding green cards and employm ent opportunities, Plaintiffs incurred substant ial interest-bearing debts in order to pay recruitment, immigration-related, and travel fees charged by Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives. 408. In reliance on Defenda nts’ false and/or ne gligent representations regarding green cards and employm ent opportunities, Plaintiffs sold personal a nd real property and surrendered employment opportunities in India, Singapore, and/or the United Arab Emirates. 409. In reliance on Defenda nts’ false and/or ne gligent representations regarding green cards and employm ent opportunities, Plaintiffs left their hom es and jobs and India and other countries and traveled to the United States to work for Defendant Signal. 410. At all times, Plaintiffs’ reliance was reasonable.
- 78 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 79 of 82 PageID #: 905
411. As a direct and proxim ate result of De fendants’ knowin g, willing, intentional, and/or negligent actions, Plaintiffs have been injured.
412. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
413. This claim is recognized under the laws of Texas, Mississippi, and India. The Court has previously indicated that P laintiffs need not choose which jurisdiction’s laws apply at this time (ECF No. 60 at 4-5; ECF No. 70). Plain tiffs reserve the right to pursue these claim s under the laws of Texas, Mississippi, or India (directly or in the alternative).
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF BREACH OF CONTRACT All Defendants
414. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every a llegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
415. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants, individually and/or through their agen ts, em ployees and/or rep resentatives, offered to obtain perm anent residence and immigration status f or Plaintiffs in the United States within 18 to 24 mo nths of the tim e when Plaintiffs entered into the Unite d States, as well as to provide steady work opportunities in the United States with Defendant Signal in exchange for Plaintiffs’ paym ent of exorbitant fees to Defendants and their employees, agents and/or representatives.
416. Defendants also prom ised to return Plai ntiffs’ money if Defendants were unable to secure permanent residency on Plaintiffs’ behalf.
417. Plaintiffs accepted Defendants’ offers and the parties entered into valid contracts.
- 79 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 80 of 82 PageID #: 906
418. Plaintiffs paid the agreed-upon fees, and perform ed the agreed-upon work, as required by the contracts.
419. Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with their binding promises regarding permanent residence and immigration status.
420. Defendants also breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with their binding promises to return Plaintiffs’ money if Defendants were unable to secure permanent residence for Plaintiffs.
421. In reliance on these agreem ents, Plaintiffs paid large sum s of m oney and entered into substantial debts, surrendered other em ployment opportunities, and in curred other financial losses.
422. As a direct result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages. 423. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 424. This claim is recognized under the laws of Texas, Mississippi, and India. The Court has previously indicated that P laintiffs need not choose which jurisdiction’s laws apply at this time (ECF No. 60 at 4-5; ECF No. 70). Plai ntiffs reserve the right to pursue these claim s under the laws of Texas, Mississippi, or India (directly or in the alternative).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief:
a. Declaratory relief; b. Compensatory damages; c. Punitive damages; d. An award of prevailing party costs, including attorney fees;
- 80 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 81 of 82 PageID #: 907
e. A finding of alter ego between Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal International Texas, L.P., thus piercing the corporate veil;
f. A finding of alter ego between Signal International Texas, L.P. and Signal International, LLC, thus piercing the corporate veil;
g. A finding that Signal International, Inc. is the successor in interest to Signal International LLC, or in the alternative, a finding of alter ego between Signal International LLC and Signal International, Inc., thus piercing the corporate veil;
h. A finding of alter ego among Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., thus piercing the corporate veil;
i. A finding of alter ego between Global Resources, Inc. and Michael Pol, thus piercing the corporate veil;
j. A finding of alter ego between Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants Pvt., thus piercing the corporate veil; and
k. Such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38 of t he Federal Rules of Ci vil Procedure, Plaintiffs dem and trial by jury in this action of all issues so triable.

Date: September 16, 2014

By: /s/ Eric H. Findlay Eric H. Findlay State Bar No. 00789886 Michael Findlay State Bar No. 24077855 FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C. 102 N. College Ave., Suite 900 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 534-1100 (Office) Fax: (903) 534-1137 efindlay@findlaycraft.com mfindlay@findlaycraft.com

- 81 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 82 of 82 PageID #: 908
Pro hac vice applications to be submitted for the following counsel: James E. Dorsey (MN#137893) Sten-Erik Hoidal (MN #35241X) Timothy M. O’Shea (MN #386437) Lousene Hoppe (MN #387171) Andrew F. Johnson (MN #390783) FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A. 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 492-7000 Fax: (612) 492-7077 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on Septem ber 16, 2014, al l counsel of record were served with the foregoing document via the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Eric H. Findlay Eric H. Findlay
- 82 -

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 126 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 3451

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

SATHEESH MARIMUTHU, et al.

'

'

v.

'

'

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C., et al. '

NO. 1:13-CV-499

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON BURNETT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 77)

This case is assigned to the Honorable Marcia A. Crone, United States District Judge, and

is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial matters. (Doc. No.

4.) Pending before the undersigned is the “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.

12(b)(6)” (Doc. No. 77) filed by Malvern C. Burnett, the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett,

A.P.C., and the Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. (collectively, “Burnett”). Burnett

seeks dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (“KKKA”) and state-law claims.

The undersigned, after considering Burnett’s motion, the Plaintiffs’ response (Doc. No. 79), the

amended complaint (Doc. No. 76), and applicable authorities, finds that the Plaintiffs have

adequately pled their KKKA and state-law claims. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends

that Burnett’s motion be denied.

I. Background

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, approximately 590 men, including the ten

Plaintiffs in this case, were allegedly trafficked into the United States to provide labor for

Signal’s operations. (Doc. No. 76, pp. 1–8.) The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants made

“false promises of assistance in applying for and obtaining permanent residence in the United

States,” as well as “bilked Plaintiffs out of tens of thousands of dollars in ‘recruitment fees’ (for

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 126 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 3452
which Plaintiffs assumed massive debts) . . . [and] forced them to live in squalid conditions in a gated, guarded, isolated labor camp . . . .” (Id. at p. 2.)
A putative class action was filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all the workers who had allegedly been trafficked to the United States to work at Signal’s facilities in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. (See Doc. 1, David v. Signal Int’l, L.L.C., 2:08-cv-1220 (March 7, 2008)). The court in David denied class certification, which caused the individual class members to file suit where their alleged injuries occurred. See David v. Signal Int’l, L.L.C., No 08-1220, 2012 WL 10759668, at *37 (E.D. La. Jan. 4, 2012). The Plaintiffs in this case worked at Signal’s facility in Orange, Texas, which is within this judicial district.
The Plaintiffs are suing Burnett, as well as Signal International L.L.C., Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Global Resources, Inc., Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k/a Medtech Consultants). The Plaintiffs allege that some or all of the Defendants violated the following federal statutes: (1) the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003; (2) the Civil Rights Act of 1866; and (3) the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. (Doc. No. 76, pp. 71–77.) In addition, the Plaintiffs assert causes of action for state-law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract against all of the Defendants. (Id.)
On February 22, 2014, Burnett moved to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that they had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. No. 38.) The undersigned recommended granting Burnett’s motion in part. (Doc. No. 64.) Specifically, the undersigned found that there were insufficient factual allegations to support a claim under the KKKA, and that the Plaintiffs’ state-law claims were deficient, but that the remainder of the Plaintiffs’ claims were adequately pled. (Id.) The undersigned also recommended that the
2

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 126 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 3453
Plaintiffs be given an opportunity to amend their complaint. The District Court adopted the undersigned’s recommendations. (Doc. No. 69.) The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and Burnett again sought to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ KKKA and state-law claims.
II. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted.” Harrington v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 563 F.3d 141, 147 (5th Cir. 2009). When a court analyzes a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it “accepts ‘all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004)). A court should grant such a motion only when the complaint fails to contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
III. Analysis Burnett seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ KKKA and state-law claims.1 Burnett argues that the Plaintiffs’ KKKA claim should be dismissed because they failed to plead any facts showing that there was a conspiracy or that Burnett was motivated by racial animus. As to the Plaintiffs’
1. Burnett, “so as to not be deemed to have waived his assertions that Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action on which relief can be based . . . reaffirms and reasserts that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for human trafficking against him upon which relief can be granted.” (Doc. No. 77, p. 2.) However, having already found that the Plaintiffs stated a claim for human trafficking, the focus of Burnett’s current motion is only the claims that were previously dismissed.
3

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 126 Filed 02/27/15 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 3454
state-law claims, Burnett claims that dismissal is warranted because the Plaintiffs’ amended complaint again fails to demonstrate that the conduct supporting the state-law claims occurred in Texas. Burnett also reasserts that the Plaintiffs’ state-law claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
A. Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)) “To state a claim under §1985(3), [the plaintiff] must allege that two or more persons
conspired directly, or indirectly, to deprive him of the equal protection of the laws or equal privileges and immunities under the laws.” Green v. State Bar of Tex., 27 F.3d 1083, 1089 (5th Cir. 1994). In addition, “[t]he language requiring intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities, means that there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971). Burnett argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts showing that there was a conspiracy or that there was any racial animus.
First, Burnett claims that the Plaintiffs have “not pled any facts that support a conclusion that [he] conspired with any other Defendants to deprive these Plaintiffs of their right to be free from involuntary servitude.” (Doc. No. 77, pp. 6–7.) “Fifth Circuit precedent [holds] that specific facts must be pled when a conspiracy is alleged; mere conclusory allegations will not suffice. In pleading these specific facts, the Plaintiff must allege the operative facts of the alleged conspiracy.” Williams v. Thompson, No. 5:11-cv-68, 2012 WL 651650, at *11 (E.D. Tex. Jan 26, 2012) (Craven, Mag. J.) (discussing the sufficiency of a KKKA claim). Here, the Plaintiffs have put forth sufficient facts to plead a plausible claim of conspiracy. For example, the Plaintiffs allege that there were contractual relationships between Burnett and his co-conspirators, and that Burnett had attorney-client relationships with several of the Defendants.
4

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 126 Filed 02/27/15 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 3455
(See Doc. No. 79) (discussing examples of Burnett’s relationships that are further detailed in the amended complaint). Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege that Burnett played an integral role in the overall conspiracy to bring the Plaintiffs to the United States and keep them in a condition of involuntary servitude by processing the Plaintiffs’ immigration related documents while at the same time supposedly knowing of the allegedly false promises made by his co-conspirators. (Doc. No. 76, pp. 24–26.) These factual allegations are sufficient to create a plausible claim that all the Defendants were working in concert to further the goals of the conspiracy.
Not every conspiracy, however, is actionable under the KKKA. Rather, the KKKA only reaches conspiracies that deprive another of certain rights. See Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 278 (1993). The right at issue in this case is the right to be free from involuntary servitude. Burnett claims that the only fact pled showing that there was a conspiracy to deprive the Plaintiffs of the right to be from involuntary servitude is the allegation that Burnett was present at a meeting where the Plaintiffs were threatened with deportation. Threats of deportation have been held to support a claim of involuntary servitude. Kiwanuka v. Bakilana, 844 F. Supp. 2d 107, 115 (D.D.C. 2012) (collecting cases). While Burnett denies being at this meeting, that is a fact issue that is not proper for resolution on a motion to dismiss. The allegation that Burnett was a participant is sufficient to tie Burnett to the conspiracy to deprive the Plaintiffs of their right to be free from involuntary servitude. Accordingly, after taking all the facts in the Plaintiffs’ amended complaint as true, it is plausible that Burnett was part of a conspiracy in violation of the KKKA.
As to whether the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged racial animus, Burnett argues that the Plaintiffs’ “Amended Complaint did not change or add anything new or different from their original Complaint, which this Court determined failed to plead facts in support of its conclusory
5

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 126 Filed 02/27/15 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 3456
allegations.” (Doc. No. 77, p. 4.) Burnett points to paragraph 396 of the Plaintiffs’ amended complaint as support. While this paragraph of the Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is identical to one in their original complaint, Burnett overlooks the numerous new factual allegations in the prior paragraphs of the Plaintiffs’ amended complaint that supports their claim of racial animus. (See Doc. No. 79, p. 10) (noting that the amended complaint contains “no less than 23 amendments relating to racial and anti-immigrant animus . . .”). In sum, the Plaintiffs allege that Burnett actively worked against their interests, that he did so because they were Indian, and even go so far as to include certain racist comments made by Burnett, which supports an inference that he was motived by racial animus. This is enough to move the Plaintiffs’ claim from “possible” to “plausible.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’”) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
Burnett also argues that the mere fact that the Plaintiffs were all of Indian descent does not “demonstrate or support any ‘anti-Indian’ animus on the part of Burnett.” (Doc. No. 77, p. 6) (claiming that Indian workers were recruited because “India was believed to have a large pool of skilled workers”). In some respects, Burnett is correct. The mere fact that the workers recruited by the Defendants were all of Indian descent does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that there was racial animus. See e.g., United States v. Calimlim, 538 F.3d 706, 711 (7th Cir. 2008) (“Obtaining the services of another person is not itself illegal; it is only illegal when accompanied by one of the three given circumstances [in 18 U.S.C. §1589], and the jury must find that the defendant knew that the circumstance existed.”). But, the numerous factual
6

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 126 Filed 02/27/15 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 3457
allegations concerning the conditions the Plaintiffs faced upon arrival to the United States, coupled with the fact that the Plaintiffs argue that only the Indian workers were treated in this manner, makes it plausible that that both Burnett, as well as the conspiracy as a whole, were motived by racial animus. For instance, the complaint alleges that that only the Indian workers were forced to live in the “man camps,” that the Indian workers were “subjected to different, less favorable employment conditions” and generally—as a class—the Indian workers were subject to improper treatment. (See Doc. No. 76, pp. 4–7.) The disparate treatment of a racially identifiable class of people creates a plausible claim of racial animus.
In addition, Burnett’s attempts to analogize the facts of this case to those of Iqbal are unavailing. (Doc. No. 77, pp 4–5.) In Iqbal, at issue was a policy of seeking out potential terrorists in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 682. The Supreme Court noted that “[i]t should come as no surprise that a legitimate policy directing law enforcement to arrest and detain individuals because of their suspected link to the attacks would produce a disparate, incidental impact on Arab Muslims, even though the purpose of the policy was to target neither Arabs or Muslims.” Id. The Court went on to reason: “As between that ‘obvious alternative explanation’ for the arrests, and the purposeful, invidious discrimination respondent asks us to infer, discrimination is not a plausible conclusion.” Id. The facts of this case, however, do not align with the Court’s reasoning in Iqbal. Here, there was a deliberate attempt to seek out workers of Indian descent, whereas in Iqbal, the fact that one racial group was targeted was merely a consequence of a racially neutral policy. Moreover, what further distinguishes the Plaintiffs’ allegations from those in Iqbal is that the Plaintiffs have alleged numerous specific ways in which they were treated differently because of their membership in a racially defined class. Compare id. (“[T]he complaint does not show, or even intimate, that petitioners
7

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 126 Filed 02/27/15 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 3458
purposefully housed detainees in ADMAX SHU due to their race, religion or nation origin.”). Because the Plaintiffs have pled that they were treated differently because of their membership in a certain class, and offered specific instances, they have “nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
B. State-law claims In a prior order, the undersigned recommended that the Plaintiffs’ state-law claims be
dismissed because “it was unclear if any of Burnett’s alleged conduct used to support the claims occurred in Texas.” (Doc. No. 64, p. 9.) The Plaintiffs’ amended complaint adds new allegations attempting to show how Burnett’s conduct, in Texas, damaged them. (Doc. No. 79, pp. 4–5) (discussing the “additional allegations related to acts and omissions by Burnett in Texas”). Burnett argues that while the Plaintiffs have alleged facts showing that their breach of contract claim contains a choice of law clause implicating either Mississippi or Indian law, Plaintiffs have made no showing that Texas law applies. (Doc. No. 77, p. 9.) Moreover, Burnett argues—without undertaking a comprehensive choice of law analysis—that Indian law applies to the remainder of the Plaintiffs claims, and therefore, because Texas law applies to none of the Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, they should all be dismissed. (Id. at pp. 10–11.)
Burnett’s motion should be denied for two reasons. First, the parties miss a critical point—the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged at least one federal cause of action, therefore, this court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims regardless of what law applies to each individual claim.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Second, in the Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, they now clearly allege that their claims are “recognized under the laws of Texas, Mississippi, and India.” (Doc. No. 76, pp. 79–80.) The Plaintiffs’ original complaint contained no such indication, so it was unclear precisely what substantive law governed their claims. By clearly
2. This point was not raised in the parties’ initial briefing.
8

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 126 Filed 02/27/15 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 3459
stating that their claims are recognized under Texas, Mississippi, or Indian law, the Plaintiffs have adequately pled their state-law causes of action. See McGee v. Arkel Int’l L.L.C., 671 F.3d 539, 543 (5th Cir. 2012) (holding that Iraqi law applied to the plaintiff’s tort claim).
Burnett also argues that the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The undersigned addressed this argument in its previous order, noting that “to the extent the Burnett Defendants believe the Plaintiffs’ state law claims are still barred by the statute of limitations in light of Judge Zainey’s tolling order, that is a matter best addressed in a motion for summary judgment, after the parties have had an opportunity for full discovery and the court can consider evidence outside the pleadings.” (Doc. No. 64.) Burnett has pointed to no new or different information persuading the undersigned that a determination on tolling can be made without considering extrinsic evidence. Accordingly, such an issue is still better addressed in a motion for summary judgment.
VI. Recommendation For the reasons stated above, the undersigned recommends that Burnett’s “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)” (Doc. No. 77) should be denied.
V. Objections Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) (Supp. IV 2011), each party to this action has the right to file objections to this report and recommendation. Objections to this report must (1) be in writing, (2) specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, (3) be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report, and (4) be no more than eight pages in length. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); LOCAL RULE CV-72(c). A party who objects to this report is entitled to a de novo determination by the United States District Judge of those proposed findings and
9

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 126 Filed 02/27/15 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 3460 recommendations to which a specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen days of being served with a copy of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States District Judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996). SIGNED this 27th day of February, 2015.
_________________________ Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge
10

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 770

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

SATHEESH MARIMUTHU et al.

'

'

v.

'

'

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C. et al '

NO. 1:13-CV-499

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING IN PART THE BURNETT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 38)

This case is assigned to the Honorable Marcia A. Crone, United States District Judge, and is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial matters. Before the undersigned is a “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)” filed by Malvern C. Burnett, the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. (hereinafter referred to interchangeably as “Burnett” and “the Burnett Defendants”). (Doc. No. 38.) The undersigned has considered the pending motion and the corresponding response. (Doc. No. 42.) The Burnett Defendants’ motion should be granted in part as to the Plaintiffs’ Ku Klux Klan Act claim because the Plaintiffs failed to allege Burnett was motivated by racial animus. The motion to dismiss should also be granted as to the state law claims on the grounds that the complaint fails to adequately allege the conduct underlying those claims occurred in Texas. However, the Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend their complaint as to KKKA and state law claims. Burnett’s motion should be denied in every other respect because the Plaintiffs sufficiently stated a TVPA claim upon which relief can be granted, and a motion for summary judgment is the proper vehicle to prove the Plaintiffs state law claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

1 of 14

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 771
I. Background A. Procedural Background
On March 7, 2008, twelve individuals who were allegedly trafficked into the United States filed a putative class action against the Defendants in the Eastern District of Louisiana. See David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, Civ. A. No. 08-1220 (E.D. La.). That Court denied class certification;1 and, as a result of this ruling, the Plaintiffs in the instant action filed suit in this District, where they were allegedly subjected to deplorable working conditions at Signal’s Orange, Texas facilities. (Doc. No. 1.) On August 7, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this court against the following Defendants: Burnett, Signal International, L.L.C., Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P. (hereinafter referred to as “Signal”), Global Resources, Inc., Sachin Dewan, and Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, the Burnett Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 38.) B. Factual Background
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, approximately 590 men, including the Plaintiffs, were allegedly trafficked into the United States through the federal government’s H-2B guest worker program to provide labor and services to the Signal Defendants. (Doc. No. 1.) The Plaintiffs claim they were lured to work for Signal through the fraudulent promise of legal and permanent work-based immigration to the United States for themselves and their families. (Id., p. 4.) Subsequently, after coming to the United States, the Plaintiffs were allegedly subjected to forced labor and other serious abuses at Signal operations in Orange, Texas. (Id.)
1. David v. Signal Int’l, LLC, Civ. A. No. 08-1220, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114247, at *129 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2012).
2 of 14

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 772
The Burnett Defendants consist of Malvern C. Burnett and his two corporations: Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. The Plaintiffs accuse Burnett of conspiring with Signal and other Defendants to recruit Indian welders and pipefitters to fill anticipated H-2B guest worker jobs at Signal’s Orange, Texas operations with false promises of permanent residency in the United States for the workers and their families. (Id.)
II. Jurisdiction The Plaintiffs seek recovery pursuant to several federal statutes. For actions brought under these statutory provisions, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction predicated upon federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). For the state law causes of action, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction predicated upon supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the above claims occurred within the confines of this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
III. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted.” Harrington v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 563 F.3d 141, 147 (5th Cir. 2009). When a court analyzes a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it “accepts ‘all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’” In re Katrina Beaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004)). A court should grant such a motion only when the complaint fails to contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
3 of 14

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 773
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
IV. Analysis The Plaintiffs allege Burnett violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1590 (“TVPRA”) and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (“KKKA”). (Doc. No. 1.) The Plaintiffs have also asserted state law claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. (Id.) First, Burnett argues the Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient facts to state any claim. (Doc. No. 38.) Second, Burnett states that the laws of Texas could not apply to the state law claims because the underlying facts used to support the state law claims occurred in India or the United Arab Emirates. Third, Burnett asserts the Plaintiffs’ state law claims are barred by the statute of limitations. (Id.) A. Federal Claims Burnett generally argues the Plaintiffs failed to state more than mere conclusions and recitals of statutory language without any basis in fact in their complaint. In particular, Burnett argues that the Plaintiffs only allege in a conclusory fashion that Burnett violated the KKKA and the TVPRA. 1. Ku Klux Klan Act 1871 The four elements a plaintiff must allege to state a cause of action under the KKKA, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), are as follows: “(1) the defendants must conspire; (2) 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; and (3) the defendants must act in
4 of 14

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 774
furtherance of the object of the conspiracy, whereby (4) one was (a) injured in his person or property or (b) deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.” McLellan v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 545 F.2d 919, 923 (5th Cir. 1977). “The language requiring intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities, means that there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971). In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Burnett Defendants “conspired, agreed, planned and coordinated for, and acted in furtherance of, the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of equal protection of their rights under the Thirteenth Amendment.” (Doc. No. 1, p. 71.) The Plaintiffs further state that the Burnett Defendants were “motivated by racial, anti-Indian, and/or anti-immigrant animus when they conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights and acted in furtherance of a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.” (Id.) The undersigned agrees with Burnett that the Plaintiffs have only alleged the elements of a claim under the KKKA. Nowhere in the complaint have the Plaintiffs pled any facts or factual content that Burnett was motivated by racial animus to deprive the Plaintiffs of their right to equal protection under the law. Therefore, the undersigned recommends granting Burnett’s motion to dismiss as it relates to the Plaintiff’s KKKA claims against Burnett. The Plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend their complaint within seven (7) days of the date the district court adopts this report and recommendation, if the district court does so. 2
2. Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act The forced labor provision of the TVPRA (18 U.S.C. § 1589), provides that:
2. See Texas Indigenous Council v. Simpkins, 544 F. App’x 418, 421 (5th Cir. 2013) (“Granting leave to amend is especially appropriate . . . when the trial court has dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Permission should be denied only if it appears to a certainty that plaintiffs cannot state a claim showing they are entitled to relief or defendant will be unduly prejudiced.”) (citations omitted).
5 of 14

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 775
(a) Whoever 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 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 physical restraint, shall be punished as provided under subsection (d).
(c) In this section: (1) The term “abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process” means the use or threatened use of a law or legal process, whether administrative, civil, or criminal, in any manner or for any purpose for which the law was not designed, in order to exert pressure on another person to cause that person to take some action or refrain from taking some action.
The Plaintiffs have alleged Burnett knowingly obtained the Plaintiffs’ labor by using the
legal process in a way it was not designed in order to induce the Plaintiffs to move to the United
States to work for Signal. See 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(3). The Plaintiffs allege Burnett acted as
Signal’s agent for the “purposes of recruiting and providing Indian welders and fitters to fill
anticipated H-2B guest worker jobs at Signal’s Orange, Texas operations.” (Doc. No. 1, p. 15.)
Allegedly, Burnett falsely promised the Plaintiffs that: “(1) they would be eligible for permanent
residency through their employment with Signal; (2) Defendants would apply for permanent
residency in the United States on behalf of Plaintiffs; (3) Defendants would extend Plaintiffs’
H-2B visas while they were being processed for permanent residency; and (4) Plaintiffs would
have steady and ongoing work opportunities in the United States with Signal.” (Id., p. 72.)
Burnett allegedly made these false statements in order to recruit the Plaintiffs to travel to the
6 of 14

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 776
United States to work for Signal. (Id., p. 73.) Reasonably relying on these promises, the Plaintiffs signed green card contracts, paid the required fees, and prepared to travel to Signal’s facilities. (Id., p. 18.)
In approving the Plaintiffs’ H-2B 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 Signal’s need was based on a one-time, peak-load, temporary demand.” (Id., p. 19.) The 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 promises of permanent residency to Plaintiffs and its actual projected labor need and, therefore, Defendants knew these statements to the government were false.” Id. Finally, the Plaintiffs allege Burnett elicited payment from the Plaintiffs for the H-2B visas that were procured by making false statements to the federal government. (Id., p. 20.)
Once the Plaintiffs arrived at the Texas Labor camp, “[a]t various times, Signal refused to confirm whether it had obtained visa extensions for Plaintiffs.” (Id., p. 32.) Faced with crushing debt—a result of the recruitment and legal fees paid to the Defendants (including Burnett)—and the threat of deportation should they complain, the Plaintiffs “felt compelled to continue working for Signal despite the dreadful conditions at the Texas Labor Camp.” (Id., p. 6.) Despite repeated representations that Burnett was each Plaintiff’s lawyer for immigration purposes, they were generally not allowed to speak or meet with him. (Id., p. 25.) In an e-mail Burnett sent to another Defendant, he speculated about whether he should threaten his clients with immediate deportation to prevent them from stopping payments on his legal fees. (Id., p. 25.)
Burnett abused the legal process by using the temporary H2-B visa process in a way it
7 of 14

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 777
was not intended in order to lure the Plaintiffs into working for Signal. The H2-B visa process is only meant to bring workers to the United States temporarily and not as a pathway to legal residency. However, Burnett used the visa as a way to induce the Plaintiffs to the United States to work for Signal under the guise that Burnett would later apply for green cards, and a visa extension if necessary, which according to the complaint, was never Burnett’s intention. (Id., p. 18.) Burnett also allegedly abused the legal process by exacting fees for obtaining the H2-B visas which were obtained by making false statements to the federal government. The undersigned finds that these allegations are sufficient to state a plausible TVPRA claim. B. State Law Claims
1. Extraterritorial Conduct In cursory fashion, Burnett argues without citing any authority, that “all of the alleged conduct that is asserted as support of the state based causes of action occurred in India or the United Arab Emirates”; and, therefore, only Indian or “Arabian” law applies to the instant case. (Doc. No. 38, p. 15.) Burnett also posits that “given the totality of the allegations, and the very few factual assertions of conduct by Burnett, it is submitted that there was no actionable conduct by Burnett under either country’s laws.” First, the undersigned finds that Burnett has failed to provide any legal support that under Indian or United Arab Emirates law, Burnett’s conduct is not “actionable.” “The district court is not required to conduct its own research into the content of foreign law if the party urging its application declines to do so.” Mutual Service Ins. Co. v. Frit Industries, Inc., 358 F.3d 1312, 1321 (11th Cir. 2004). The undersigned simply will not trust Burnett’s “submission” that Burnett’s alleged conduct is not actionable under those countries’ laws. However, Burnett’s point that the conduct used to support the state law claims appears to
8 of 14

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 778
have only occurred abroad is well-taken. In reviewing the complaint, the Plaintiffs adequately allege their state law claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, but it is unclear if any of Burnett’s alleged conduct used to support the claims occurred in Texas. The Plaintiffs only mention that after they arrived in Texas, Burnett “quelled” organizing efforts and refused to meet with the Plaintiffs to provide legal advice. (Doc. No. 42, p. 6.) Those allegations alone are simply insufficient to support the above state law claims. The Plaintiffs also ask the court to cross-reference their briefing that responded to Signal’s contentions that their alleged conduct only occurred abroad. (Id., p. 2, n.2.) While it is true that the instant complaint is replete with allegations that Signal committed the state law torts in Texas, the same cannot be said for Burnett. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends granting Burnett’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s state law claims on this basis. The Plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend their complaint within seven (7) days of the date the district court adopts this report and recommendation, if the district court does so.
2. Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation3 Burnett also claims the Plaintiffs’ complaint only states “legal conclusions” in relation to the pendent state law claims. However, the undersigned finds the Plaintiffs have provided sufficient facts to support their argument that Burnett is liable for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), “a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.” In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege Burnett knowingly and negligently made the following materially false promises to the
3. The undersigned recognizes that dismissal has already been recommended on the Plaintiffs’ state law claims on the grounds that the complaint fails to adequately allege the conduct underlying those claims occurred in Texas. However, because the undersigned recommends giving the Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint, this report will also address Burnett’s alternate alternative for dismissing the Plaintiff’s state law claims.
9 of 14

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 779
Plaintiffs: “(1) they would be eligible for permanent residency through their employment with Signal; (2) Defendants would apply for permanent residency in the United States on behalf of Plaintiffs; (3) Defendants would extend Plaintiffs’ H-2B visas while they were being processed for permanent residency; and (4) Plaintiffs would have steady and ongoing work opportunities in the United States with Signal.” (Doc. No. 1, p. 72.) “Defendants and/or their respective agents also made false representations regarding the living conditions at the Texas Labor Camp.” (Id.) In reliance on Burnett’s promises, the Plaintiffs: 1) paid large sums of money to Burnett, which directly benefitted Signal in the form of cheap labor and increased profits; 2) 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; 3) sold personal and real property and surrendered employment opportunities in India, Singapore, and/or the United Arab Emirates; and 4) left their homes and jobs and India and other countries and traveled to the United States to work for Defendant Signal. (Id. pp. 73-74.) The Plaintiffs further allege Burnett knew, or should have known, the Plaintiffs would have induced the Plaintiffs to take these steps. (Id.) Given these allegations, the undersigned finds that the Plaintiffs have met the 12(b)(6) pleading standard and recommends denying the Defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim.
3. Breach of Contract Burnett generally states the Plaintiffs failed to allege facts to support their breach of contract claim. (Doc. No. 38, p. 7.) However, the Plaintiffs allege they entered into valid contracts with Burnett under which they would pay fees to Burnett in exchange for his promise to provide them with lawful employment and work-authorized green cards enabling them to permanently and legally reside in the United States with their families. (Doc. No. 1, p. 74.)
10 of 14

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 780
Burnett allegedly breached this contract by not fulfilling those promises and refusing to refund the fees the Plaintiffs paid him. (Id., p. 7.) Accordingly, the undersigned recommends denying dismissal of this claim.
4. Statute of Limitations The Burnett Defendants also assert that the Plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims are time barred by the statute of limitations. Burnett argues the statute of limitations on the state law claims began to run, at the latest, a year and a half after each Plaintiff’s arrival because “less than a year-and-a-half after coming to the Texas Labor Camp, Plaintiffs were either terminated or told they were being sent to work at the Pascagoula, Mississippi facility for lower wages.” (Doc. No. 38, p. 13.) Burnett submits that most of the Plaintiffs arrived in December 2006, while four arrived February 2007; and, therefore the statute of limitations would have commenced no later than August 2008. (Id.) Although Burnett does not catalogue the statute of limitations for each pendent state law claim under Texas law, he claims they would expire, at the latest, in four years—2012. The complaint in the instant case was filed in 2013. Burnett also argues the federal class action filed in the David court, which was not certified, did not toll the running of the statute of limitations on the state law claims. In response, the Plaintiffs argue the David Court noted in an Order that Burnett consented to the tolling of the state-law claims. (Doc. No. 42, p. 15.) In the alternative, they argue Texas law supports the tolling of the statute of limitations as to all purported members of a class upon the filing of the class action. (Id., p. 16.) The David complaint was filed on March 7, 2008. (Doc. No. 37, Exh. 1.) United States District Judge Jay Zainey, upon the consent of Signal and the Burnett Defendants, entered an order tolling the statute of limitations for the absent class members’ (who are the Plaintiffs in
11 of 14

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 781
this case) state law claims for 120 days until after the court’s final ruling on class certification. Order, Kurian David et al. v. Signal International, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:08-cv-1220 (E.D. La. Jan. 20, 2011) (Doc. No. 982). Judge Zainey entered an order denying class certification on January 4, 2012, making the expiration of the tolling period May 3, 2012. Order and Reasons, David, No. 2:08-cv-1220 (Doc. No. 1117). The case was subsequently transferred to United States District Judge Susie Morgan. Order Reassigning Case, David, No. 2:08-cv-1220 (Doc. No. 1157). Over Signal’s objections, Judge Morgan further tolled the statute of limitations for the Plaintiffs’ claims until August 28, 2013. Order and Reasons, David, No. 2:08-cv-1220 (Doc. No. 1379). However, pursuant to Burnett’s request, Judge Morgan clarified that prior order by stating it only tolled the limitations period for the federal law claims, not any state law claims. Order and Reasons, David, No. 2:08-cv-1220 (Doc. No. 1417).
For a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court is typically not to look beyond the complaint. However, a court may consider attachments to briefing regarding a motion to dismiss if the documents are referenced in the complaint, central to the complaint, referenced by the parties, and their authenticity is not in dispute. See Walch v. Adjutant Gen. Dep’t, 533 F.3d 289, 293–94 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007)); Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2004). Those are the only documents the undersigned should consider in deciding the motion to dismiss as it concerns the limitations issue—not the various court orders entered by the New Orleans district courts tolling state statutes of limitations for the pendent state law claims.4
Nevertheless, even if the undersigned were to consider and apply Judge Zainey’s tolling
4. Burnett did not address the tolling orders entered by the David court, and the Plaintiffs only mentioned Judge Zainey’s order, not Judge Morgan’s orders. It should be noted that the briefing on the instant motion occurred after all of the David tolling orders had been entered.
12 of 14

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 782
order from the date the David complaint was filed until its expiration, the undersigned would still need to go outside the pleadings to intelligently determine the appropriate accrual date for the various state law claims and what effect the tolling period from Judge Zainey’s order has on the timeliness of the pendent state law claims filed in the instant complaint.5 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), “if on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56, and all parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present material that is pertinent to the motion.” Accordingly, to the extent the Burnett Defendants believe the Plaintiffs’ state law claims are still barred by the statute of limitations in light of Judge Zainey’s tolling order, that is a matter best addressed in a motion for summary judgment, after the parties have had an opportunity for full discovery and the court can consider evidence outside the pleadings.
V. Recommendation For the reasons stated above, the Burnett Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)” (Doc. No. 38) should be granted as to the Plaintiffs’ Ku Klux Klan Act claim and state law claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud and breach of contract. However, the Plaintiffs should be given leave to amend these claims. See Texas Indigenous Council, 544 F. App’x at 421. Should the Plaintiffs choose to do so, they shall amend the complaint within seven (7) days of the date in which the district court adopts this report and recommendation if applicable. Id. The motion should be denied as to the other claims
5. Burnett cites Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995, writ denied) in support of their argument that Texas courts hold the filing of a proposed federal class action does not toll the limitations period on pendent state law claims. See also Newby v. Enron Corp., 542 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2008). In those cases, it does not appear the Defendants consented to the tolling of the statute of limitations, as the Burnett Defendants did here, at least for the period of time reflected in Judge Zainey’s order. As such, those cases appear to be inapposite.
13 of 14

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 64 Filed 08/12/14 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 783
asserted by the Plaintiffs, subject to reconsideration in a motion for summary judgment that the state law claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
VI. Objections Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) (Supp. IV 2011), each party to this action has the right to file objections to this report and recommendation. Objections to this report must (1) be in writing, (2) specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, and (3) be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A party who objects to this report is entitled to a de novo determination by the United States District Judge of those proposed findings and recommendations to which a specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States District Judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States District Judge, see Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996).
SIGNED this 12th day of August, 2014.
_________________________ Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge
14 of 14

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 68 Filed 09/09/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 807

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SATHEESH MARIMUTHU, et al.,

'

'

Plaintiffs,

'

'

v.

'

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-499

'

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C.,

'

et al.,

'

'

Defendants.

'

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is referred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for

all pretrial matters. (Doc. No. 4.) The court has received and considered the report and

recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 61), which recommends that the court deny the

“Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) of Malvern C. Burnett, The Law Offices

of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C.” (collectively,

“Burnett”). (Doc. No. 36). Burnett filed timely objections (Doc. No. 63) to the report, and the

Plaintiffs filed a response (Doc. No. 67).

Pursuant to Burnett’s objections, the court has conducted a de novo review of the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation based on the relevant pleadings, motions, and

responses. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). After careful consideration, the court concludes that the

magistrate judge correctly determined that the Burnett’s motion to dismiss should be denied.

Consequently, Burnett’s objections are without merit.

It is therefore ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc.

No. 61) is ADOPTED; and the “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) of

Malvern C. Burnett, The Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., and Gulf Coast Immigration

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 68 Filed 09/09/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 808 Law Center, L.L.C.” (Doc. No. 36) is DENIED. Burnett’s alternative request for an interlocutory appeal to th. e United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is also DENIED. SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004. SIGNED at Sherman, Texas, this 9th day of September, 2014. ________________________________________ MARCIA A. CRONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 of 2

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 70 Filed 09/09/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 811

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SATHEESH MARIMUTHU, et al.,

'

'

Plaintiffs,

'

'

v.

'

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-499

'

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C.,

'

et al.,

'

'

Defendants.

'

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is referred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for

all pretrial matters. (Doc. No. 4.) The court has received and considered the report and

recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 60), which recommends that the court deny the

“Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)” filed by Defendants Signal International,

L.L.C., Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas,

L.P. (Doc. No. 24.) No objections were filed to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed.

It is therefore ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc.

No. 60) is ADOPTED; and the “Motion of Signal Defendants to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(.6)” (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED. SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004. SIGNED at Sherman, Texas, this 9th day of September, 2014.

________________________________________ MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 82 PageID #: 827

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

SATHEESH KANNAN MARIMUTHU, BALAMURUGAN MARIMUTHU, MURUGANANDAM ARUMUGAM, MURALIDHARAN ARUMUGAM, SATYANARAYANA ELLAPU, MOORTHY NADHAMUNI, RAJENDRAN SAPPANI, RAJENDRAN SUBRAMANI, VENKATA SATYA SIVAGI RAO TALABATHULLA, and SAMMANASUNATHAN SILUVAIMUTHU,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, G.P., 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., GLOBAL RESOURCES, INC., SACHIN DEWAN, and DEWAN CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. (a/k/a MEDTECH CONSULTANTS).
Defendants.

) ) ) ) Civ. No. 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) AND JURY DEMAND ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a human trafficking case brought by Indian workers who were trafficked

into the United States through the government’s H-2B guest worker program. Plaintiffs were

trafficked to the state of Texas in order to provide labor and services to Signal International, Inc.,

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

(collectively, “Signal”). In an effort to procure a cheap, compliant and expendable labor source,

Defendants targeted Indian workers, recruiting Plaintiffs for positions as pipefitters and welders

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 2 of 82 PageID #: 828
with Signal using false promises of assistance in applying for and obtaining permanent residence in the United States. Defendants then bilked Plaintiffs out of tens of thousands of dollars in “recruitment fees” (for which Plaintiffs assumed massive debt), trafficked them into the United States, forced them to live in squalid conditions in a gated, guarded, isolated labor camp, and required them to pay exorbitant sums for the “privilege” of living in these repulsive conditions. If Plaintiffs complained, they were threatened with adverse immigration and employment action and the resulting prospect of financial ruin. Defendants did not treat non-Indian workers in the same manner.
2. Plaintiffs are all former employees of Signal’s Orange, Texas facility. Plaintiffs bring this action to recover for the unlawful and fraudulent conduct of Signal and its agents: Malvern C. Burnett; the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.; Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC; Sachin Dewan; Dewan Consultant Pvt. Ltd.; Michael Pol; and Global Resources, Inc. (the “Agents”).1
3. Signal is a Gulf Coast-based marine and fabrication company. Faced with a labor shortage and significant volume of work in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Signal sought to recruit several hundred Indian workers for positions as welders and pipefitters in Signal’s facilities in Orange, Texas and Pascagoula, Mississippi.
4. Signal retained the Agents to assist in the recruitment process. Specifically, Signal retained Michael Pol and his company Global Resources, Inc. (collectively referred to as

1

On June 13, 2013, Michael Pol filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Case No. 13-51168-KMG). Due to

the automatic bankruptcy stay, Michael Pol has not been included as a defendant in this action.

- 2 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 3 of 82 PageID #: 829
“Pol” unless a distinction is drawn), a labor recruitment firm based in Mississippi; attorney Malvern C. Burnett and his law firms, the Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC (collectively referred to as “Burnett” unless a distinction is drawn); and Sachin Dewan and his company, Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (collectively referred to as “Dewan” unless a distinction is drawn), a labor recruitment firm in India. Signal also executed a power of attorney authorizing Dewan Consultants to recruit for Signal abroad.
5. To minimize cost to Signal, Defendants and Pol designed a scheme in which the workers would pay for their own recruitment, immigration processing, and travel, which was memorialized in the April 18, 2006 Skilled Worker Agreement between Signal and Global. Under this scheme, any expenses and fees not paid up front by the workers would be paid by Global. Global, in turn, would deduct amounts from the workers’ wages in order to recoup those expenses and fees directly from the workers. Signal, however, would pay nothing.
6. By at least mid-2006, the Agents and, upon information and belief, representatives of Signal began traveling to India to recruit workers, including Plaintiffs. In newspaper advertisements and in-person meetings, Defendants and Pol promised to provide stable employment and assist Plaintiffs and other workers in applying for and obtaining a green card for permanent residence in the United States. In exchange, Plaintiffs and other workers were required to pay for “recruitment fees” to the Agents—ranging anywhere from $10,000 to $25,000. Defendants and Pol further represented that Plaintiffs’ families would be able to join them in the United States.
7. To alleviate any concerns about the potential living conditions in the United States, Defendants and Pol represented during in-person meetings that the living conditions would be comparable to those some of the Plaintiffs described experiencing in Singapore and
- 3 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 4 of 82 PageID #: 830
Dubai—which included, for example, a shared two-bedroom apartment, quality food, transportation to and from the job site, and one trip back to India per year.
8. Because Signal’s need for workers was immediate, Defendants and Pol told Plaintiffs they would first acquire temporary work visas (H-2B) because the visas could be obtained faster than green cards, but that Defendants would also apply for green cards on Plaintiffs’ behalf.
9. Lured by Defendants’ fraudulent promises of legal and permanent work-based immigration to the United States for themselves and their families, Plaintiffs paid the exorbitant recruiting fees to take advantage of the seemingly promising opportunities, causing themselves and their families to incur massive debt. Indeed, to cover the recruiting and immigration fees Plaintiffs often had to sell family assets, take out loans secured by real property and jewelry, borrow money with high interest rates, and otherwise incur life-altering debt. Plaintiffs undertook such debt and paid the recruiting and immigration fees in reasonable reliance on Defendants’ promises. In further reliance on Defendants’ promises, some Plaintiffs relinquished stable employment opportunities in Singapore and elsewhere.
10. Defendants, however, had no intention of making good on their promises to assist Plaintiffs in applying for and obtaining permanent residency. To be sure, Defendants did not take—indeed, had no intention of taking—steps to assist Plaintiffs in applying for or obtaining permanent residency. In fact, at the suggestion of its Agents, Signal represented to the United States government that it was employing the Indian workers (including Plaintiffs) only temporarily and that they would be returned to India “within the . . . year.” Moreover, internal correspondence among Signal management from May 2006 reflects that “[a]ll [Signal is] doing now is bringing the workers in under the H2B program.” Defendants brought Plaintiffs to the
- 4 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 5 of 82 PageID #: 831
United States through the temporary H-2B guestworker visa program despite knowing, and failing to disclose, that the guestworker program was fundamentally incompatible with filing for green cards.
11. Defendants never informed Plaintiffs that they had no intention of assisting Plaintiffs in applying for or obtaining green cards. Nor did Defendants ever disclose to Plaintiffs the representations they made to the United States government regarding the temporary nature of their employment and residence. Plaintiffs were simply unaware that Defendants’ promises regarding employment and permanent residency were false and relied on the false promises to their detriment.
12. Upon arrival in the United States, Signal required Plaintiffs to live in an isolated, Indian-only labor camp located outside of Orange, Texas (the “Texas Labor Camp”). Contrary to Defendants’ representations regarding living conditions, the conditions at the Texas Labor Camp were horrid. Plaintiffs were forced to live in cramped trailers—containing up to 24 men— with little to no privacy. The trailers were so crowded some Plaintiffs had to sleep on their luggage. The trailers had insufficient bathroom facilities (one or two toilets) that were rarely cleaned, which created not only an awful smell but also unsanitary living conditions. Food was available only at certain hours and was often rotten. As a result of the conditions, several of the residents became sick. The camp was also fenced, gated, and guarded, such that Plaintiffs felt they were being imprisoned.
13. As with the “recruitment fees,” the cost to live at the Texas Labor Camp was borne by Plaintiffs. Indeed, Signal charged Plaintiffs mightily for the “right” to endure the horrible conditions at the camp—deducting $35 per day seven days a week ($1,050 per month) out of the Plaintiffs’ pre-tax earnings. If workers asked to live off-site, Signal informed them
- 5 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 6 of 82 PageID #: 832
that it would still deduct $1,050 per month from their income, effectively prohibiting workers from seeking more humane and sanitary conditions.
14. Significantly, non-Indian workers were not placed in guarded labor camps, were not subjected to squalid living conditions, and did not have exorbitant room and board fees deducted from their pre-tax earnings.
15. The Indian workers at the Texas Labor Camp, including Plaintiffs, were also subjected to different, less favorable employment conditions than non-Indians. Upon information and belief, Indian workers were assigned projects that were more difficult and more dangerous than those assigned to non-Indian workers, received terms and conditions of employment that were different from and less favorable than non-Indian employees, and were subjected to offensive anti-Indian diatribe and repeated threats of deportation.
16. To prevent the Indian workers from complaining, Defendants deceived them regarding their immigration status, threatened them with loss of immigration status and deportation, and generally perpetrated a campaign of psychological coercion and fraud designed to render Indian workers compliant, intimidated, and unable to leave Signal’s employ. As an additional element of control, Signal required Plaintiffs and other Indian workers to set up direct deposit bank accounts to which Signal maintained access. These accounts effectively permitted Signal to control workers’ ability to leave the facility by threatening to cut off access to the accounts. Upon information and belief, Signal did exactly that to an Indian worker who had fled the Pascagoula, Mississippi facility.
17. Faced with crushing debt and fearful of the possibility of deportation by Signal should they complain, Plaintiffs felt compelled to continue working for Signal despite the
- 6 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 7 of 82 PageID #: 833
dreadful conditions at the Texas Labor Camp, the extortionate room and board fees, and the discriminatory employment conditions. Simply put, Plaintiffs felt that they had no other option.
18. The compulsion Plaintiffs felt to continue working at Signal only increased when they learned about the events that transpired at the Pascagoula, Mississippi facility on March 9, 2007. Upset that workers were complaining about conditions at the facility, Signal decided to terminate and forcibly send five of the more vocal Indian workers back to India. Signal locked the gate at the Pascagoula facility, preventing workers from leaving, rounded up and detained the vocal workers, and informed them that they were being deported. One of these workers was so distraught over the threat of returning to India without paying the debt he incurred over the recruitment fees that he attempted to commit suicide. When news of the events and the attempted suicide traveled to the Texas Labor Camp, Plaintiffs became even more afraid to complain about the conditions they had been subject to. Understandably, Plaintiffs feared that they would be returned to India and/or physically harmed if they did so.
19. Ultimately, less than a year-and-a-half after coming to the Texas Labor Camp, Plaintiffs were either terminated or told they were being sent to work at the Pascagoula, Mississippi facility for lower wages. Faced with the latter prospect, some Plaintiffs escaped and fled the Texas Labor Camp.
20. At no point did Defendants apply for or assist Plaintiffs in obtaining permanent residency for themselves or their families. At no point did Defendants refund the tens of thousands of dollars in recruitment and immigration fees Plaintiffs paid in reliance on Defendants’ false promises. And at no point did Defendants compensate or offer to compensate Plaintiffs for the conditions they were forced to endure at the Texas Labor Camp. Indeed, at no point did they even offer an apology. Instead, Defendants maintain that how they treated
- 7 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 8 of 82 PageID #: 834
Plaintiffs and the other Indian workers was both lawful and moral. This mistaken viewpoint was most recently espoused by Signal’s CEO in a press release, brazenly declaring that Signal “treated [the Indian workers] with dignity and respect just as we treat each and every Signal employee.”
21. Signal’s self-delusion aside, Plaintiffs were victims of reprehensible conduct. Plaintiffs assert claims arising from violations of their rights under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (“TVPA”), the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981), the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1985), and claims for damages arising from fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 22. 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), and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights). 23. 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 that support the federal claims. 24. Additionally, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Signal entities pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k) and Texas Code § 17.042, because they are registered to do business in Texas, maintain a continuing business presence in the state, operated the Orange, Texas facility and Texas Labor Camp where the Plaintiffs worked and resided and where Signal engaged in wrongful conduct, and a substantial portion of the communications, transactions, events, or omissions underlying Plaintiffs’ claims occurred either in Texas or to secure labor for Signal’s Orange, Texas facility.
- 8 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 9 of 82 PageID #: 835
25. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over the other Defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) and Texas Code § 17.042, because they recruited Plaintiffs for employment at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility, had substantial business contacts with Texas, and a substantial portion of the communications, transactions, events, or omissions underlying Plaintiffs’ claims either occurred in Texas or occurred to secure labor for Signal’s Orange, Texas facility.
26. Venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as Defendants engaged in human trafficking, violations of Plaintiffs’ civil rights, fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract in this judicial district.
PARTIES Plaintiffs 27. Plaintiffs are from India and are of Indian alienage, race and ethnicity. The Plaintiffs were all recruited by Defendants in or about 2006 to work at Signal’s Texas Labor Camp. Each of the Plaintiffs paid between $15,000 - $25,000 in “recruitment fees” to the Agents in the belief that Defendants would assist them in obtaining green cards for Plaintiffs and their families. 28. Plaintiff Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu was recruited by Defendants beginning in or around December 2006 as a fitter. He arrived in the United States on or around February 15, 2007. 29. Plaintiff Balamurugan Marimuthu was recruited by Defendants beginning in or around August 2006 as a fitter. He arrived in the United States on or around December 13, 2006. 30. Plaintiff Muruganandam Arumugam was recruited by Defendants beginning in or around May 2006 as a welder. He arrived in the United States on or around February 1, 2007.
- 9 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 10 of 82 PageID #: 836
31. Plaintiff Muralidharan Arumugam was recruited by Defendants beginning in or around March 2006 as a fitter and welder. He arrived in the United States on or around December 11, 2006.
32. Plaintiff Satyanarayana Ellapu was recruited by Defendants beginning in or around June 2006 as a welder. He arrived in the United States on or around December 13, 2006.
33. Plaintiff Moorthy Nadhamuni was recruited by Defendants beginning in or around November 2006 as a fitter. He arrived in the United States on or around February 15, 2007.
34. Plaintiff Rajendran Sappani was recruited by Defendants beginning in or around November 2006 as a fitter. He arrived in the United States on or around December 18, 2006.
35. Plaintiff Rajendran Subramani was recruited by Defendants beginning in or around late 2006 as a welder and fitter. He arrived in the United States on or around February 15, 2007.
36. Plaintiff Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla was recruited by Defendants beginning in or around May 2006 as a welder. He arrived in the United States in or around December 2006.
37. Plaintiff Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu was recruited by Signal beginning in or around November 2006 as a welder. He arrived in the United States in or around December 14, 2006.
Defendants 38. Signal operates a marine and fabrication business in the Gulf Coast region that includes offshore drilling rig overhaul, repair, upgrade, and conversion.
- 10 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 11 of 82 PageID #: 837
39. Upon information and belief, Defendants Signal International, LLC and Signal International, Inc. are corporations organized under the laws of Delaware and have facilities located in Orange, Texas, in addition to other locations in the Gulf Coast region.
40. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International Texas, G.P. is a general partnership organized under the laws of Texas and employed the labor for Signal International, LLC and Signal International, Inc. at the Texas Labor Camp.
41. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International Texas, L.P. is a limited partnership of Signal International, LLC and Signal International Texas, G.P. organized under the laws of Texas.
42. Upon information and belief, all policies, money for payroll, corporate governance, and legal advice for Defendant Signal International Texas, G.P. was provided by Signal International, LLC.
43. Upon information and belief, all policies, money for payroll, corporate governance, and legal advice for Defendant Signal International Texas, L.P. was provided by Signal International, LLC.
44. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal does not distinguish the roles of the Signal entities, including but not limited to, which entity paid Plaintiffs.
45. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International, LLC executed contracts relevant to this Complaint in the name of Signal International, Inc.
46. Upon and information and belief, Signal did not document which entity employed Plaintiffs.
47. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International, Inc. is the sole member of Defendant Signal International, LLC.
- 11 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 12 of 82 PageID #: 838
48. Upon information and belief, Defendant Signal International, LLC and Signal International, Inc. acted as agents and/or alter egos of Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal International Texas, L.P. at all times relevant to the claims set forth herein. At all relevant times, Defendant Signal International, Inc. had knowledge of and consented to the actions of Defendant Signal International, LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal International Texas, L.P.
49. Defendant Global Resources, Inc. (“Global”) is a Mississippi corporation engaged in the business of recruiting skilled foreign workers to work in the United States, including Texas. Upon information and belief, Michael Pol was the sole corporate officer of Global at all relevant times and entered into contracts for Global with the other Defendants and Plaintiffs in connection with providing labor for the Texas Labor Camp. Through Michael Pol, Global worked to recruit workers for Signal’s Orange, Texas facility.
50. Defendant Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k/a Medtech Consultants) is a private limited liability company organized under the laws of India. Dewan Consultants has substantial business contacts with Orange, Texas and recruited Indian workers, including Plaintiffs, for employment in Texas. Defendant Sachin Dewan is the Director of Dewan Consultants and has had substantial business contacts with Orange, Texas, including recruiting Indian workers for employment in Orange, Texas. At all relevant times, Sachin Dewan acted as the agent or alter ego of Dewan Consultants.
51. Defendant Malvern C. Burnett is an attorney who practices in the Gulf Coast region and resides in New Orleans, Louisiana. He performed legal work associated with the Plaintiffs’ employment in Orange, Texas, helped to recruit Plaintiffs, filed for visas on Plaintiffs’ behalf, and collected legal fees from Plaintiffs. At all relevant times, Burnett had an attorneyclient relationship with Plaintiffs, including both before and after Plaintiffs arrived in Texas. In
- 12 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 13 of 82 PageID #: 839
addition, at all relevant times, Burnett had attorney-client and business relationships with other Defendants.
52. Defendant Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (“Burnett Law Offices”) is a professional law corporation organized under Louisiana law. Upon information and belief, Malvern C. Burnett is the registered agent, sole member and/or corporate officer of Burnett Law Offices.
53. Defendant Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, LLC (“Gulf Coast Immigration”) is a Louisiana limited liability corporation. Upon information and belief, Malvern C. Burnett is the registered agent, sole member and/or corporate officer of Gulf Coast Immigration.
54. Upon information and belief, Defendants Burnett, Burnett Law Offices, and Gulf Coast Immigration constituted a joint venture and/or were alter egos of each other in that all entities have the same corporate mailing address, intermingle business assets, do not operate at arms’ length, and Burnett is the registered agent and sole member and/or corporate officer for Burnett Law Offices and Gulf Coast Immigration.
55. At all relevant times, Burnett, Dewan, and Pol acted as agents and/or representatives of Signal. Burnett, Dewan, and Pol were acting within the course and scope of their agency at all relevant times and Signal had full knowledge of their acts and consented, permitted, authorized and ratified, expressly and/or impliedly, the acts performed by Burnett, Dewan and Pol as alleged in this complaint.
56. At all relevant times, the Defendants were engaged in a joint venture with each other to recruit Plaintiffs, along with other Indian workers, to work for Signal at the Orange, Texas facility. The Defendants entered into various written and oral agreements evidencing their agreement to accomplish such recruitment and each Defendant acted within the course and scope
- 13 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 14 of 82 PageID #: 840
of the venture and those agreements. Defendants each had full knowledge of the actions of the other Defendants set forth in this Complaint and consented, permitted, authorized and ratified, either expressly or impliedly the actions of the other Defendants.
SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS Signal Arranged for Dewan, Burnett, and Pol to Bring Temporary Workers
to the United States 57. The destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina presented Signal with the potential to take on lucrative new work fixing damaged oil rigs, ships, and other machine platforms. As a result of the hurricane, however, some of Signal’s workforce had left the Gulf Coast area, and Signal was in need of additional laborers—particularly skilled fitters and welders. 58. In early 2006, Pol approached Signal about providing additional workers for their operations. He informed them that he could provide skilled fitters and welders from India to work for Signal at no cost to Signal. 59. Pol explained to Signal that he would work with Burnett and Dewan to recruit the workers and obtain the appropriate immigration status for such workers, but that the workers, including Plaintiffs, would pay for all costs and fees associated with the recruitment process, immigration processing, and travel to the United States. Signal would pay the workers, including Plaintiffs, between $14 - $18/hour, depending on each worker’s skill level. 60. Signal and Global executed a Skilled Worker Recruitment Agreement (the “Recruitment Agreement”) on or about April 18, 2006, which set forth certain terms for Michael Pol and Global to recruit foreign skilled workers for employment at Signal “under the ‘H-2B’ temporary program and/or the ‘permanent residence’ process.” The Recruitment Agreement required Global to be responsible for delivering the workers “at no cost to Signal”, including paying for all costs associated with recruitment, transportation, and entry into the United States
- 14 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 15 of 82 PageID #: 841
by the foreign workers. The costs incurred by Pol and Global were to be paid by the foreign workers, including Plaintiffs.
61. Dewan and Signal entered into a power of attorney on or about June 19, 2006, which permitted Dewan to act as Signal’s “representative in India to facilitate the recruitment of skilled workers to the United States of America” for employment with Signal. This power of attorney authorized Dewan to advertise, conduct seminars, conduct skills tests and sign necessary legal documentation related to the recruitment of skilled workers to work in the United States for Signal.
62. In approximately mid- to late-2006, Signal entered into an attorney-client relationship with Burnett with respect to legal issues related to Signal’s need for foreign workers. Upon information and belief, Signal and Burnett entered into a written retainer agreement. Under the retainer agreement, however, Signal would not be responsible for any legal fees owed to Burnett, but instead Burnett would receive compensation out of the “recruitment fees” paid by the foreign workers, including Plaintiffs.
The Agents Recruited Plaintiffs and Other Indian Workers for Signal 63. Upon information and belief, Defendants targeted Plaintiffs for recruitment based on their race and/or national origin. Specifically, Defendants targeted Indian workers on the belief that the Indian workers would provide a source of cheap, compliant and potentially expendable labor. The goal of this scheme was to maximize benefits to the Defendants— including the fees received by the Agents—at the expense of the Indian workers. 64. Acting as Signal’s recruiting agents for the purposes of facilitating the recruitment of Indian workers for employment at Signal, Pol and Dewan placed advertisements in newspapers throughout India and the United Arab Emirates in the spring, summer, and fall of 2006 offering opportunities for welders and fitters to immigrate permanently to the United States
- 15 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 16 of 82 PageID #: 842
under the auspices of Signal, a purported leading marine and fabrication company in Mississippi and Texas. Defendants targeted only Indian workers in their recruitment efforts—indeed, even the advertisements used in the United Arab Emirates were placed in Indian-language newspapers.
65. Among other things, the advertisements and recruiting efforts promised “permanent lifetime settlement in USA for self and families,” “permanent residency” in the United States, and/or “green cards.” Upon information and belief, Pol and Dewan undertook these advertisements and other recruiting efforts on behalf of, at the direction of, and/or in coordination with Signal and Burnett.
66. Signal authorized Pol, Dewan, and Burnett to act as their agents for the purposes of recruiting and providing Indian welders and fitters to fill anticipated H-2B guest worker jobs at Signal’s Orange, Texas operations.
67. Upon information and belief, Signal further authorized Pol, Dewan, and Burnett to represent that Signal would agree to sponsor bona fide green card applications for the Plaintiffs and obtain at least two H-2B visa extensions on behalf of Plaintiffs to allow them to remain in the United States working for Signal while their green card applications were being processed.
68. Upon information and belief, Signal authorized these representations even though 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 workers, including the Plaintiffs.
- 16 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 17 of 82 PageID #: 843
69. At the latest, Signal learned from the first Indian workers to arrive at Signal’s facilities in Texas and Mississippi—workers who arrived well in advance of Plaintiffs—that those workers had paid exorbitant recruitment fees to the Agents, and had made those payments on the basis of promises of assistance in applying for and obtaining green cards which Signal knew was false. Signal nonetheless continued to facilitate the transportation of hundreds more Indian workers to Signal worksites in Texas and Mississippi, including Plaintiffs, because it was in Signal’s financial interest to do so.
Plaintiffs Incurred Substantial Debt to Pay the Agents’ “Recruitment Fees” 70. In response to the advertisements posted by Pol and Dewan, Plaintiffs communicated with Pol and Dewan in the spring, summer, and fall of 2006 via telephone, and attended in-person meetings with Pol, Dewan, and Burnett. During those meetings, the Agents informed Plaintiffs that the job opportunities that had been advertised were with Signal. In addition, the Agents, acting on Signal’s behalf, informed Plaintiffs of the opportunity to work for Signal on H-2B visas which would lead to permanent resident (green card) status. 71. Specifically, the Agents promised recruits, including Plaintiffs, that Signal would sponsor Plaintiffs’ green card applications and extend their H-2B visas multiple times to enable Plaintiffs to work in the United States while their green card applications were pending. In exchange, each Plaintiff would have to pay fees totaling as much as 8 lakh rupees (approximately $18,000) in a series of approximately three installments. 72. At the time Plaintiffs made their payments, one rupee was worth approximately $0.0225, and one lakh (100,000 rupees) was worth approximately $2,250. 73. The Agents further informed recruits, including Plaintiffs, that they would be able to obtain legal permanent residence for their spouses and children.
- 17 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 18 of 82 PageID #: 844
74. In addition, during the telephone communications, at recruitment meetings, and through written documents, the Agents (including through their employees) represented to Plaintiffs that Defendant 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 Plaintiffs work-authorized green cards enabling the Plaintiffs to permanently and legally reside in the United States with their families.
75. In such communications with Plaintiffs, the Agents further promised to act diligently and do everything necessary to ensure that Plaintiffs obtain green cards within 18-24 months of initiating the green card process.
76. Upon information and belief, employees of Signal attended some of the meetings and testing sessions with potential workers in India. Further, upon information and belief, prior to the meetings and testing sessions Signal and the Agents conferred regarding the logistics and substantive content of the meetings and testing sessions.
77. In reasonable reliance on the Agent’s promises regarding green cards and employment opportunities in the United States, Plaintiffs undertook considerable personal and familial sacrifices, including the mortgaging and/or sale of personal property and other incurrence of debt, in order to amass the funds necessary to initiate the green card process with Defendant Signal. For example, Plaintiff Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, and Rajendran Sappani sold their wives’ jewelry and/or mortgaged their families’ homes to cover the recruitment fees. In addition, several Plaintiffs relinquished stable employment in reliance on the Agent’s representations.
- 18 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 19 of 82 PageID #: 845
78. Reasonably relying on these and other promises made to them regarding green cards and work opportunities in the United States, Plaintiffs signed green card contracts with the Agents at various points from mid-2006 to early 2007 and paid the exorbitant recruiting fees required by the contracts.
79. These contracts and other documents provided by the Agents promised that (1) Plaintiffs would work under a “permanent resident (green card) program,” and (2) Plaintiffs would promptly receive a refund of all or nearly all of their payments if Defendants did not succeed in securing green cards for Plaintiffs.
80. The Agents knew or should have known, however, that they would not refund Plaintiffs’ money as promised in the contracts and other documents.
81. The Agents induced Plaintiffs to enter into the green card contracts without intent to diligently pursue Plaintiffs’ applications and without any basis whatsoever for representing that Signal had lawful long-term employment opportunities to provide Plaintiffs; that Signal could legally apply for numerous H-2B visa extensions to maintain 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 the 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.
82. Plaintiffs would not have signed the green card contracts or paid the extraordinary recruitment fees charged by the Agents had they known that Defendants’ promises and representations were false and that Defendants had failed to disclose material facts concerning the nature and terms and conditions of the immigration and work opportunities offered.
Defendants Arranged for H-2B Visas
- 19 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 20 of 82 PageID #: 846
83. 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.
84. In approving these applications, the United States Department of Labor relied on the accuracy of the applications’ stated 10-month period of need.
85. Upon information and belief, the Department of Labor’s internal guidelines prohibit it from granting labor certification applications without relying on the applications’ statement of need.
86. In late August and early September 2006, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) approved Signal’s H-2B visa petitions for 590 H-2B workers for the period of October 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007.
87. In approving these visa petitions, the USCIS relied on the accuracy of the petitions’ stated 10-month period of labor need and the representation that Signal’s need was based on a one-time, peak-load, temporary demand. Indeed, according to regulation, the USCIS must rely on the stated period of the petitioner’s labor need. See 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(6)(ii)(B) (2006).
88. 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 promises of permanent residency to Plaintiffs and its actual projected labor need and, therefore, Defendants knew these statements to the government were false.
89. The Agents used the H-2B visas, obtained from the federal government on the basis of false statements by Signal and Burnett, to elicit payments from Plaintiffs.
Defendants Prepared to Bring Plaintiffs and Other Indian Workers to the United States
- 20 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 21 of 82 PageID #: 847
90. At various times during the spring, summer, and fall of 2006, Signal employees and certain of the Agents traveled to various locations in India and the United Arab Emirates to test Plaintiffs’ welding and pipefitting skills in anticipation of employing Plaintiffs in the United States.
91. Plaintiffs paid to travel to the cities where these tests were held. 92. Plaintiffs also paid admission fees in order to take these tests. 93. Plaintiffs attended and passed these tests, which were overseen and graded by Signal and/or Dewan’s agents, employees, and/or representatives. 94. Upon information and belief, prior to attending these testing sessions the Agents and Signal conferred regarding the logistics and substantive content of the testing sessions. 95. After USCIS visa approval, Plaintiffs made necessary preparations 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 and the Agents for mandatory H-2B visa and consular processing fees; attending H-2B visa interviews; and, paying the Agents for travel arrangements. 96. In order to secure H-2B visas to work for Signal, Plaintiffs attended interviews with United States consular offices in Indian cities. 97. To attend these consular interviews, Plaintiffs had to 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). 98. The Agents required that Plaintiffs meet with Global, Pol, and/or Burnett in these cities before attending their consular interviews.
- 21 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 22 of 82 PageID #: 848
99. Upon information and belief, prior to these meetings, the Agents conferred among themselves and with Signal regarding the topics to be discussed and instructions to be given to Plaintiffs at these meetings.
100. At the pre-interview meetings, the Agents ensured that Plaintiffs were up-to-date on paying the recruitment fee installments required by their green card contracts.
101. Defendants further required that Plaintiffs pay an additional fee of 35,000 to 45,000 rupees ($787 to $1,012) for H-2B visa processing.
102. The Agents required Plaintiffs to sign documents permitting Dewan to receive their visa-stamped passports from the consular offices on Plaintiffs’ behalf.
103. The Agents also coached Plaintiffs on what to say during consular interviews. 104. The Agents told Plaintiffs that if they did not follow these instructions at their interviews, Plaintiffs would not receive their visas and would forfeit all of the money they had already paid to Defendants, in addition to losing the opportunity to permanently immigrate to the United States. 105. During Plaintiffs’ consular interviews, the consular officials took Plaintiffs’ passports from them. 106. Once Plaintiffs’ visas were approved, consular officials sent the passports, with H-2B visas affixed, directly to Dewan. 107. After Plaintiffs’ visas were approved, the Agents made travel arrangements for Plaintiffs’ departures to the United States. 108. Before Plaintiffs could leave for the United States, however, Plaintiffs were required to attend final meetings in Dewan’s office. Such meetings typically took place mere
- 22 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 23 of 82 PageID #: 849
hours before Plaintiffs’ scheduled departures to the United States, when Dewan’s office was full of other Indian workers anxiously awaiting their departure to the United States.
109. At these meetings, Pol and Dewan collected final installment payments required by Plaintiffs’ green card contracts.
110. Pol and Dewan also required Plaintiffs—most of whom do not or did not at the time proficiently read or speak English—to sign English-language documents with little or no time for review. They did not allow Plaintiffs to keep a copy of the documents. Pol and Dewan or their staff demanded that Plaintiffs quickly sign the mandatory documents to avoid missing the flights to the United States and forfeiting the fees Plaintiffs had paid.
111. Plaintiffs had no reasonable opportunity to review, negotiate, or make any changes to the documents presented to them. Even when Plaintiffs asked Defendants what the documents said, Defendants refused to interpret or tell Plaintiffs what the documents said.
112. Dewan also refused to provide receipts to Plaintiffs who requested evidence of the amounts paid prior to Plaintiffs’ travel to the United States.
113. Pol and Dewan refused to return Plaintiffs’ passports—which had been in Defendant Dewan’s possession since after Plaintiffs’ H-2B visas were approved by consular officials—until Plaintiffs had paid the final installments and signed the mandatory paperwork.
114. Without possession of their passports, and within this anxious and rushed atmosphere, Plaintiffs had no reasonable opportunity to review, negotiate, and/or make any changes to the documents presented to them.
115. On occasions when workers failed to present sufficient funds to pay the final installment required by the green card contracts, Dewan and his associates threatened to destroy and/or deface the workers’ passports. Such threats were made in the presence of other workers,
- 23 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 24 of 82 PageID #: 850
causing the other workers to reasonably believe that they had no choice but to pay the final installments in full.
116. Because of the Dewan and Pol’s coercive behavior during these pre-departure meetings, and Plaintiffs’ extraordinary and increasing levels of debt, Plaintiffs reasonably believed that they had no choice but to make the payments required by the Agents and to travel to the United States to work for Signal.
117. Plaintiffs did not receive their passports from the Agents until Plaintiffs had fulfilled all of Defendants’ requirements.
118. At various times from late October 2006 to April 2007, Plaintiffs and other Indian workers traveled from Mumbai to the United States on tickets arranged by Pol and Dewan.
119. Signal collected Plaintiffs at the Houston airport upon their arrival and transported them immediately to the Texas Labor Camp.
120. Signal sent approximately 300 workers to its Pascagoula, Mississippi facility (the “Mississippi Labor Camp”), and approximately 290 workers were sent to the Texas Labor Camp upon arrival in the United States.
121. Plaintiffs had no choice but to use the Agents to secure employment with Defendant Signal. Management personnel at Signal prohibited Indian workers from securing employment at Signal’s operations either through another recruiter or by bypassing recruiters altogether and applying directly with Signal.
Malvern Burnett Purported to Act As Plaintiffs’ Attorney 122. At all relevant times, Burnett had an attorney-client relationship with the Indian workers, including Plaintiffs, for purposes of immigration issues and Plaintiffs’ work for Signal. 123. Upon information and belief, the Indian workers, including each Plaintiff, individually entered into an Attorney Services Agreement with Burnett. Those agreements
- 24 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 25 of 82 PageID #: 851
provided the following: (a) Burnett would “represent [Plaintiff] as a licensed attorney in the United States of America and file all necessary documents with the government to assist [Plaintiff] make application for the permanent resident (green card) program;” (b) Plaintiff would pay Burnett $3750 for legal services; (c) Burnett would “do everything within [his] power to assist worker to obtain permanent residence status in the United States within 24 months;” (d) if Burnett failed to obtain permanent residence status, Burnett would refund recruitments fees to his clients subject to certain exceptions; and (e) either party could “terminate the agreement with 30 days notice given to the other party.” Finally, the agreements provided that they “shall be construed, governed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Maharashtra, India and where applicable in the State of Mississippi.”
124. As part of his services, Burnett prepared the immigration forms required for Plaintiffs to apply for H-2B status and, thus, to work for Signal in Texas. In those forms, Burnett represented to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, under penalty of perjury, that the Plaintiffs would stay in the United States only temporarily, returning to India within the year. At the same time Burnett was submitting those forms, he was telling the Indian workers that they would be eligible for permanent residency, and that he would assist them in applying for green cards. Further, Burnett was aware of the representations Pol and Dewan had made to Indian workers, including Plaintiffs, about receiving green cards in connection with employment at Signal. Burnett also applied for H-2B visas for Plaintiffs despite the fact that H-2B visas are incompatible with permanent residency under federal law. Burnett misled Indian workers by conflating the H-2B visa and permanent resident status immigration processes in presentations to Indian workers during the recruitment process.
- 25 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 26 of 82 PageID #: 852
125. In addition, Burnett filed with the Texas Workforce Commission completed ETA 750 forms and attachments seeking permission to import and hire 590 foreign guest workers (including Plaintiffs) under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)15(H)(ii)(b). In the applications to Texas, Burnett, on behalf of Signal, stated that Signal would employ workers from October 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007. Burnett knew that material representations—including those about the length of time the workers intended to stay in the United States—were false. Burnett’s statements in the applications contradicted Defendants’ representations that he would assist Plaintiffs in obtaining permanent legal residence in the United States.
126. Despite acting as Plaintiffs’ attorney, Burnett concealed his true loyalties from Plaintiffs by failing to disclose that he had attorney-client and business relationships with Signal and other Defendants, and was actively working to promote Defendants’ interest over those of Plaintiffs.
127. Specifically, by mid-2006, Burnett had entered into an attorney-client relationship with Signal for the broad purpose of applying for and obtaining lawful status for Indian workers to come to the United States. In 2007, Signal and Burnett entered into a Retainer Agreement memorializing the arrangement—namely, that Burnett would represent Signal at zero cost because the fees for his work were to be paid by the Indian workers, including Plaintiffs. Burnett failed to disclose his attorney-client relationship or the payment arrangement with Signal to the Indian workers, including Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not waive any conflict of interest caused by Burnett’s relationship with Signal.
128. Similarly, Burnett failed to disclose to Plaintiffs his attorney-client relationship with Dewan and Pol, which began no later than mid-2006. Plaintiffs did not waive any conflicts of interest relating to this relationship.
- 26 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 27 of 82 PageID #: 853
129. Burnett also failed to disclose that he had a “Multilateral Business Agreement” with Dewan and Pol for the broad purpose of recruiting Indian workers to come to the United States. Plaintiffs did not waive any conflicts of interest relating to this relationship.
130. At all relevant times, Burnett preferred Defendants to his Indian clients even though he owed them the same duty of loyalty.
131. For example, in a clear violation of his professional obligations, Burnett forwarded e-mails he received from his Indian clients to third parties without the clients’ permission.
132. Further, even though the attorney-client relationship between Burnett and Plaintiffs continued after Plaintiffs arrived in Texas, Plaintiffs were not generally allowed to speak or meet with Burnett in Texas. On one occasion, Signal representatives informed Plaintiff Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu that he could not meet with Burnett because it would “violate company policy.” When Plaintiff Muruganandam Arumugam attempted to speak with Burnett, his calls went unreturned.
133. Upon information and belief, on another occasion, an Indian worker made a call to Burnett from the public telephone at the Texas Labor Camp to schedule a meeting. The receptionist at Burnett’s office told the person that any Signal employees who attended such a meeting would have to pay $100 each to meet with Burnett.
134. Moreover, when questioned by certain Indian workers about the possibility of obtaining trafficking visas, Burnett represented to Indian workers that he did not know of anyone who had ever received a trafficking visa, and, thus, that the Indian workers would not be able to procure a trafficking visa. Upon information and belief, Burnett attempted to dissuade certain Indian clients from applying for these visas in order to benefit Signal.
- 27 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 28 of 82 PageID #: 854
135. In contrast to his reluctance to communicate with Plaintiffs and other Indian workers, and in contrast to his failure to provide Plaintiffs accurate information regarding their immigration status, Burnett actively engaged with Defendants and continued to represent Signal in connection with the Indian workers. Upon information and belief, Burnett continued to advise Signal on issues regarding the Indian workers and attended meetings with certain of the Indian workers at Signal’s request.
136. Burnett displayed a contemptuous attitude toward his Indian clients, which was demonstrated by the multitude of derogatory comments Burnett made about them. For example, on one occasion, Burnett described his Indian clients’ communication style as a “bamboo phone.”
137. On another occasion, when his Indian clients requested original documents rather than copies of those documents, Burnett referred to the clients as “dolts,” asking, “What can’t you make the dolts understand?” and signing the email as “[c]onfused and pissed.” (David v. Signal International, LLC, No. 08-1220, ECF No. 994-9 at 7.)
138. Outside of his representation of Plaintiffs, Defendants Pol and Burnett played and compared scores achieved on the video game “Border Patrol,” a game hosted on a well-known white supremacist website where the object is for the player to kill undocumented immigrants, including children. (David v. Signal International, LLC, No. 08-1220, ECF No. 994-10 at 26.)
139. Burnett (and the other Defendants) viewed the Indian workers as an exploitable source of fees. This was poignantly displayed in an email Burnett sent to Dewan and Pol on December 16, 2006, regarding a Signal worker and client of Burnett. The worker/client had stopped payment on a check to Burnett, and Burnett told Dewan and Pol to ensure that “the idiot” restores the payment and threatened to have the worker/client’s visa “mysteriously”
- 28 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 29 of 82 PageID #: 855
revoked if he did not pay. Later in the email, Burnett referred to all the Indian workers, who were his clients, as “the idiots” and speculated about whether he should threaten them with “immediate deportation” in order to prevent them from stopping payment on future checks.
140. Likewise, Burnett recommended to the Agents that they refuse to provide an Indian applicant with a refund despite the fact that his father was dying with cancer, stating “[w]e did the work; we need to get paid.” (David v. Signal International, LLC, No. 08-1220, ECF No. 994-10 at 29.)
141. To be sure, Burnett continued to engage in conduct that was tortious, perpetuate Defendants’ fraudulent scheme, and violate the obligations owed to Plaintiffs after they arrived in Texas.
142. As discussed above, Burnett continued to have an attorney-client relationship with Plaintiffs and other Indian workers, but failed to disclose and obtain waivers for his attorneyclient relationship with other Defendants. Indeed, Burnett actively promoted the interests of Defendants over those of Plaintiffs.
143. Further, once Plaintiffs were in Texas, Burnett failed to process Plaintiffs for green cards, failed to disclose that Signal was not going to process them for green cards, failed to provide them with critical information regarding their immigration status, and failed to refund any of the fees Plaintiffs paid him.
144. Finally, upon information and belief, Burnett participated in meetings with Signal and certain Indian workers in Texas during which the Texas workers were threatened with deportation if they engaged in organizing efforts similar to the Indian workers in Mississippi. During that meeting, Signal again represented that it would file for green cards on the workers’ behalf.
- 29 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 30 of 82 PageID #: 856
145. Ultimately, Plaintiffs suffered the injury from Burnett’s conduct in Texas. Signal Subjected Plaintiffs to Degrading and Discriminatory Conditions at the Texas Labor
Camp 146. Signal assigned Plaintiffs to work at its facility in Orange, Texas, and reside at the Texas Labor Camp, a crowded “man camp” consisting of trailer-like bunkhouses surrounded by barbed-wire fences and accessible only by a guarded entrance. When Plaintiffs Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Muruganandam Arumugam, and Muralidharan Arumugam first saw the Texas Labor Camp, they thought it was a prison. 147. Signal’s lack of regard for the Indian workers was demonstrated in internal emails that ridiculed aspects of Indian culture and relayed anti-immigrant sentiments. For example, Signal (a) referred to an Indian worker as a “f*****g Keralite,” (b) stated that it intended to go on a “rat hunt” to expose Indian workers who spoke out against Signal, (c) called Indian workers “chronic ‘Whiners,’” and (d) joked about setting up an arena and taking bets on fights between Indian workers. (David v. Signal International, LLC, No. 08-1220, ECF Nos. 994-15 at 32, 99414 at 37, 994-10 at 75, and 994-15 at 43-44.)
Isolated Living Conditions 148. The Texas Labor Camp was located miles away from shopping, places of worship, public transportation, or residential communities. This remote location was chosen purposefully by Signal to keep the Plaintiffs and other foreign workers segregated from the rest of Orange, Texas. In fact, Signal’s workers and management went so far as to refer to the Texas Labor Camp as a “reservation.” 149. The Texas Labor Camp gates were monitored by security guards retained by Signal. Signal’s security guards required Plaintiffs to show employee identification badges and
- 30 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 31 of 82 PageID #: 857
recorded the time when Plaintiffs entered and exited the Texas Labor Camp. Signal’s security guards also searched Plaintiffs’ packages and bags when they entered the Texas Labor Camp.
150. The Indian workers were not permitted to receive visitors in the Texas Labor Camp.
151. Signal did not require any of its non-Indian employees to live in the segregated “man camps.”
Overcrowded and Unsanitary Bunkhouses 152. Signal packed up to 24 men into each bunkhouse, in two-tiered bunk beds. The bunkhouse was so congested that it was difficult for workers to move about or even to sit up in bed, and any semblance of privacy was impossible. 153. Each of the bunkhouses contained workers who worked both day and night shifts, so Plaintiffs had difficulty sleeping due to the constant noise and the comings and goings of workers from different shifts. 154. The bunkhouses contained insufficient toilets and bathing facilities. Each bunkhouse contained only one or two toilets, so Plaintiffs had to endure long lines, unsanitary conditions, and plumbing problems. 155. These conditions failed to meet basic requirements of habitability and, not surprisingly, illness and disease were common.
Rotten Food
- 31 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 32 of 82 PageID #: 858
156. Food at the Texas Labor Camp was not readily available. Plaintiffs had to eat at Signal’s mess halls, which were only open during limited hours. If the Indian workers arrived late for a meal, they were often denied food.
157. What food the Indian workers received was often rotten and came from kitchens that were not hygienic. As a result, the Indian workers frequently became ill and sometimes required hospitalization. Plaintiff Rajendran Sappani, for example, suffered from regular stomach ailments as a result of the poor food that required medicine to treat.
158. Further, Signal refused to accommodate religiously-based dietary restrictions. For example, Plaintiff Moorthy Madhamuni is a vegetarian by religion. He explained to Signal’s representatives the fact that his religion required him to eat vegetarian, but they refused to provide vegetarian food. Likewise, Plaintiff Murganandam Arumugam was forced to choose between eating food he was allergic to (lamb and goat), eating food which violated his religious beliefs (beef and pork), or going hungry.
159. When Indian workers complained about not having enough clean plates on which to eat dinner, Signal responded, “Give them a paper plate that is firm enough to support the curry but flimsy enough to make them have to work at it and bitch.”
Signal Charged Plaintiffs $1,050 per Month For These “Accommodations” 160. For the “privilege” of living in these deplorable conditions, Signal charged the Indian workers, including Plaintiffs, $35 per day (approximately $1,050 per month). Signal failed to inform most or all of the Plaintiffs of these fees during the recruitment process. 161. From this amount, $21 was allocated towards rent, and $14 towards food. The fee was deducted from Plaintiffs’ paychecks automatically with no ability to opt out.
- 32 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 33 of 82 PageID #: 859
162. Upon information and belief, Signal paid Indian workers a lower amount than Signal paid its non-Indian workers.
163. Some of the Indian workers complained of the disgusting living conditions and requested to move out of the Texas Labor Camp. Initially, Signal simply refused. Eventually, Signal told workers that if they tried to live outside the Texas Labor Camp, Signal would still deduct the $35 per-day labor camp fees from their wages. Given their already substantial debts, Plaintiffs had no reasonable choice but to continue living in the Texas Labor Camp. While Plaintiffs were forced to pay these exorbitant fees because they had no reasonable financial alternative, Signal made over $730,000 in profit from the Mississippi and Texas man camps in just one year.
164. Upon information and belief, Signal charged Plaintiffs’ room and board in order to recoup the cost of building the man camps. So anxious was Signal to recoup those expenses, that it even charged Plaintiff Muruganandam Arumugam for room and board while he was in the hospital recovering from an emergency surgery. Signal did not require non-Indian workers to live at the Texas Labor Camp or to pay similar room and board expenses.
Continuous, Abusive, and Discriminatory Supervision 165. Plaintiffs felt compelled to remain at the Texas Labor Camp, in part, because Signal created an environment of fear through constant, abusive, and discriminatory supervision. 166. Signal’s personnel and/or security guards deprived Plaintiffs of any sense of privacy by conducting surprise searches of the bunkhouse, searching worker’s personal belongings, and even occasionally requiring that the Indian workers turn out their pockets. Upon information and belief, non-Indian workers were not subject to similar treatment.
- 33 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 34 of 82 PageID #: 860
167. As stated above, Signal’s security guards monitored Plaintiffs and required them to show identification whenever they entered and exited the Texas Labor Camp and tracked Plaintiff’s movements in and out of the camp. Upon information and belief, non-Indian workers were not subject to similar treatment.
168. Plaintiffs were subjected to “no visitors” and “no alcohol” policies at the Texas Labor Camp. Violation subjected the workers to fines and suspension of work. Upon information and belief, non-Indian workers were not subject to similar policies.
169. As stated above, Signal required Plaintiffs and other Indian workers to set up direct deposit bank accounts upon arrival to the Texas Labor Camp, to which Signal maintained access. Plaintiffs reasonably believed Signal could exert influence over Plaintiff’s financial arrangements. Upon information and belief, non-Indian workers were not subject to similar requirements.
170. The Indian workers, including Plaintiffs, were often given more difficult and dangerous jobs than the other non-Indian Signal workers. They were required to clean their equipment after work hours, while non-Indian workers were permitted to clean their equipment during the last 30 minutes of their shift. Indian workers were forced to take repeated “skills tests” that non-Indian workers were not required to take. And non-Indian workers were permitted to work more overtime hours than the Indian workers.
171. Signal’s personnel and supervisors frequently used offensive language while speaking with or referring to Plaintiffs and other Indian workers, including making anti-Indian comments.
172. Signal threatened Plaintiffs and other Indian workers with deportation or adverse employment actions if they did not continue working for Signal, did not work according to
- 34 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 35 of 82 PageID #: 861
Signal’s specifications, or complained about the working and living conditions. Upon information and belief, workers of non-Indian race, ethnicity, and alienage were not treated this way.
Defendants’ Continued Misrepresentations, Omissions, and Coercive Conduct 173. At meetings with Signal personnel, Indian workers voiced complaints regarding the discriminatory treatment to which they were being subjected. When Signal did not respond to the workers complaints, Indian workers at the Mississippi Labor Camp began meeting to discuss how to persuade Signal to improve conditions at the camp, and began meeting with third parties to discuss how to address their concerns. 174. Upon information and belief, Signal became aware of these meetings and contacted the Agents to express concern about worker organizing efforts. Upon information and belief, Defendants met and decided on a course of action regarding steps to be taken to quell further worker organization efforts. The decided course of action was intended to have a deterrent effect on other Indian workers that might attempt to exercise their rights. 175. Consistent with Defendants’ plan, on March 8, 2007, Signal management met with Indian workers at the Mississippi Labor Camp and informed them that it would fight back against any “organizing” efforts, and that Signal would not extend any of the workers’ H-2B visas if a single worker took legal action against Signal. 176. On March 9, 2007, Signal’s agents took five of the more vocal Indian workers at the Mississippi Labor Camp into “custody,” fired them, and informed them that they would be deported. Distraught at what that meant for him and his family, one of the workers attempted to commit suicide. Demonstrative of Defendants’ disregard for the Indian workers, in a media
- 35 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 36 of 82 PageID #: 862
interview, Signal’s CEO referred to the suicide attempt as “theatrics, a bunch of nonsense.” (David v. Signal International, LLC, No. 08-1220, ECF No. 994-8 at 12.)
177. Later that same day, Plaintiffs learned about the events at the Mississippi Labor Camp. Plaintiffs and other Indian workers became frightened by these activities, particularly when word spread that Signal had imprisoned Indian workers in Mississippi who had complained about the working conditions and that one worker attempted suicide rather than be deported and face the debts that he had incurred in India in order to come to Signal.
178. Plaintiffs reasonably feared that if they tried to leave Signal’s employ or oppose the conditions at the Texas Labor Camp, including by consulting with counsel, Plaintiffs would face forced deportation, physical restraint and detention, or other serious harms and/or abuses of the legal process at the hands of Signal.
179. In addition, throughout the spring and summer of 2007, Signal representatives held meetings with Plaintiffs and other workers to discuss the status of Plaintiffs and other Indian workers’ visas. Through its agents, Signal continued to represent that it would arrange for H-2B visa extensions. At no point during these meetings—indeed, at no point prior to termination— were Plaintiffs informed that they would not be receiving green cards.
180. Signal was, in fact, evaluating the workers, including Plaintiffs, and had no intention of applying for visa extensions for all of the workers or applying for green cards for the workers.
181. At various times, Signal refused to confirm whether it had obtained visa extensions for Plaintiffs. As a result, Plaintiffs felt further compelled to continue to work for Signal and live at the Texas Labor Camp. Upon information and belief, Signal prevented or
- 36 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 37 of 82 PageID #: 863

attempted to prevent Indian workers, including Plaintiffs, from consulting with lawyers about

their situations.

182. Despite many promises to do so, Defendants never provided the green cards or

permanent residency. In fact, no Defendant ever even applied for a green card for any Plaintiff.

And, despite contractual provisions that clearly require them to do so, Defendants have failed to

refund any of the money Plaintiffs paid to them for green card and visa processing.

Plaintiffs Relied on Defendants’ Representations

Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu

183.

In or around September 2006, while working as a fitter in Singapore, Satheesh

Kannan Marimuthu (“Satheesh”) learned of an opportunity to work in the United States.

Specifically, Satheesh saw advertisements in three newspapers, Dinamalar, Dhinathanthi and

The Hindu, stating that fitters and welders were needed in the United States. The advertisements

further stated that applicants would be eligible for a visa and a green card and instructed

interested parties to contact Dewan.

184. In or around December 2006, Satheesh called Dewan, who confirmed that he was

assisting in the hiring of fitters and welders for positions in the United States. During this call

Dewan explained that Satheesh would need to take a test at De Silva Engineering and that if he

passed, he would get in an interview and that Dewan would begin processing his H-2B visa and

green card. Dewan also said there would be a service charge of eight lakhs (approximately

$18,000).

185. Satheesh called Dewan twice in January 2007 to confirm that there was a job

vacancy for him and that he would get a green card. Satheesh explained that he had a stable

well-paying job in Singapore that he was unwilling to relinquish unless he had a job and a green

- 37 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 38 of 82 PageID #: 864
card lined up. Dewan told Satheesh that it was one hundred percent certain that Satheesh would receive a green card and that Satheesh should not pass up the rare opportunity to move to the United States with his family. Dewan stated that Pol and Burnett would work to ensure Satheesh received a green card.
186. Only after Dewan promised a green card and the fitter job in the United States did Satheesh resign his fitter job in Singapore.
187. In January 2007, Satheesh returned to India to take the test at De Silva Engineering. At this time, Dewan stated that Satheesh needed to pay the eight-lakh service charge and make two demand drafts of $5,000 each—one payable to Michael Pol and the other payable to Malvern Burnett. Dewan stated that the demand drafts were to cover attorneys’ fees and that this payment would ensure Satheesh received a green card.
188. After Satheesh passed the test at De Silva Engineering, Dewan and his employee, Salimon, informed Satheesh that he also needed to pay $1,000 for visa stamping at the embassy and an additional $400 for “medical fees” before he could begin working in the United States. Satheesh was instructed to contact Salimon only after he had compiled the necessary funds.
189. To compile the funds demanded by Dewan, Satheesh was forced to pawn family jewelry, borrow $10,000 at a high interest rate from private lenders, and withdraw his life savings of $4,000.
190. After Satheesh notified Salimon that he had funds sufficient to pay the recruiting fees, Salimon instructed Satheesh to come to his office in Chennai, India to make the first payment of $1,000, which Satheesh did. Salimon accepted the money on behalf of Dewan and again confirmed that Satheesh would receive a green card in exchange for the payment. Satheesh requested a receipt for his payment, which Salimon refused to provide.
- 38 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 39 of 82 PageID #: 865
191. After receiving the payment from Satheesh, Salimon filled out the paperwork Salimon stated was necessary for visa processing and notified Satheesh that he was scheduled for an interview at the United States Consulate in Chennai about three days later. Salimon called Satheesh two days after the interview to inform him that Satheesh’s visa had been approved and that Salimon was holding Satheesh’s passport.
192. Salimon eventually notified Satheesh that his flight to the United States would leave from Mumbai on February 15, 2007. Satheesh was instructed to bring funds for the remaining recruitment fees to Dewan’s office. When he arrived, Dewan took Satheesh’s payment, but again refused to provide receipts. Only after taking the payment did Dewan return Satheesh’s passport.
193. Satheesh departed India for the United States on February 15, 2007. A Signal employee picked Satheesh and others up from the airport in Houston, Texas and brought them directly to the Texas Labor Camp. Satheesh thought the labor camp was a prison the first time he saw it.
194. Prior to receiving Satheesh’s payments, Dewan and Salimon represented that Satheesh would be living in an apartment with two to three other workers when he arrived in the United States. Dewan and Salimon represented that Satheesh’s living conditions in the United States would be as good as, or better than, his living conditions in Singapore. As discussed above, the living conditions were far from what was promised.
195. In addition, Signal supervisors regularly made racial and ridiculing comments about the Indian workers, including Satheesh, and gave the most difficult and dangerous jobs to Indian workers.
- 39 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 40 of 82 PageID #: 866
196. Signal employees further threatened that if Satheesh left the labor camp he would be fired and that Signal would stop processing his immigration status. Because of these statements, and his debt in India, Satheesh felt trapped, that could leave the Texas Labor Camp, and that he could not leave Signal’s employ.
197. In March 2007, Signal held a meeting at which Satheesh and other workers were told that they had to stay in the labor camp and that they could only eat the food cooked at the camp. Signal representatives stated that anyone who did not comply with these rules would lose their job and be deported.
198. In April 2007, Signal held another meeting, during which they notified Satheesh and others that only some of the workers would have their visas renewed. Signal stated that those workers whose visas had not been renewed would be deported.
199. Because Signal and Dewan frequently represented that Michael Pol and Malvern Burnett were Satheesh’s lawyers for immigration matters, Satheesh requested to speak with and/or meet with Michael Pol and Malvern Burnett. Signal employees refused, stating that Satheesh’s request would violate company policy.
200. Defendants have never returned any of the “recruitment fees” incurred by Satheesh and never provided a green card for Satheesh or his family.
201. Satheesh relied upon Defendants’ promises of permanent residency, long-term employment, and good working conditions. He would not have incurred substantial debt, relinquished prior employment, or agreed to work for Signal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal would attempt to deport him, his fear of mistreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to
- 40 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 41 of 82 PageID #: 867
pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Satheesh felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Balamurugan Marimuthu 202. Balagmurgan Marimuthu (“Marimuthu”) is from Trichy, India. In or around August 2006, he saw an advertisement for a job opportunity for welders and fitters in the newspaper Dinamalar. 203. Interested in the possibility of additional income, Marimuthu traveled to Chennai, India to interview for the position. At the interview, Pol and Dewan told Marimuthu he must pay 20,000 rupees (approximately $450) as an interview fee and for a medical examination. Marimuthu declined to pay the fee. 204. Shortly after the interview, however, Marimuthu saw a second advertisement in Dinamalar. The advertisement promised employment in the United States and green cards for the workers and their families. Marimuthu was extremely interested in the possibility of working in the United States and receiving green cards for himself and his family. 205. The advertisement indicated that interested applicants should appear on November 8, 9, or 10 at De Silva Engineering in Chennai, India for an interview. Marimuthu again travelled to Chennai and interviewed on November 8, 2006. 206. At the interview, Marimuthu learned that the job opportunity was with Signal International. Pol, Dewan, Burnett, and representatives from Signal attended this interview session, along with 40 to 50 potential workers. 207. During the interview, Pol and Burnett asked Marimuthu about his previous work experience. Marimuthu explained his prior work experience in Singapore, and described the accommodations, food, and benefits that were provided by the employer. Pol and Burnett
- 41 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 42 of 82 PageID #: 868
promised that Signal would provide the same type of accommodations, food, and benefits. Consistent with the advertisement, Pol and Burnett also promised that Signal would provide green cards for Marimuthu, his wife, and his daughter.
208. Subsequently, one of Signal’s representatives administered a test to Marimuthu to determine his capabilities as a fitter, which Marimuthu passed.
209. After he passed the test, Dewan and his employee, Salimon, informed Marimuthu and the other workers who passed the test that they would enter the United States on an H-2B visa and would be processed for a green card once they arrived in the United States.
210. Dewan then told the workers that this opportunity would cost 8 lakhs (approximately $18,000) and represented that this fee would be used for processing of the workers’ green cards.
211. Dewan told Marimuthu he would have to make an initial deposit of 35,000 rupees (approximately $787), and then pay Pol and Burnett $5,373 each by demand draft. Marimuthu understood that Burnett was an American lawyer that was assisting him with obtaining his green card, among other things.
212. Based on the representations from Dewan, Pol, and Burnett, including the representations about receiving a green card for himself and his family, Marimuthu was willing to pay the required recruitment fees. To that end, on November 14, 2006, Marimuthu paid approximately 35,000 rupees he had saved from his work in Singapore.
213. Marimuthu knew he would need to interview at the United States Consulate to work for Signal. He asked Dewan when his interview with the Consulate would be, but he was told he first had to pay an additional two lakhs (approximately $4,500).
- 42 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 43 of 82 PageID #: 869
214. Marimuthu did not have enough money to pay the additional fee and believed it would take him about three years to earn one lakh in India. As a result, he borrowed money from his father and a Tamil Nadu society. As collateral for the latter loan, Marimuthu provided his wife’s jewelry (despite deep sentimental and cultural value).
215. Marimuthu also borrowed four lakhs (approximately $9,000) from his uncle at a significant monthly interest rate. As collateral, Marimuthu offered title to his house. Marimuthu only agreed to these terms because he believed he would be able to pay his uncle back quickly once Marimuthu arrived in the United States.
216. Pol and Burnett scheduled Marimuthu’s interview at the Consulate for December 4, 2006 in Chennai.
217. Prior to the interview, on December 3, 2006, Salimon meet with Marimuthu and coached him on what to say during the interview.
218. Marimuthu attended the Consulate interview on December 4 and was approved for a visa. The Consulate informed Marimuthu that his passport would be sent to his home by courier and gave Marimuthu a courier receipt.
219. After the interview, Marimuthu met Salimon at a hotel in Chennai. Salimon took Marimuthu’s paperwork, including the courier receipt for the passport. Salimon told Marimuthu he would keep Marimuthu’s passport, and that he would call when the visa in the passport was stamped. Salimon did not return Marimuthu’s passport after it was stamped with the visa.
220. On December 8, 2006, Salimon instructed Marimuthu to take out demand drafts for Pol and Burnett. Salimon also informed Marimuthu his flight to the United States was booked for December 13, 2006.
- 43 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 44 of 82 PageID #: 870
221. Believing that he would receive a green card for himself and his family, Marimuthu obtained two demand drafts payable to Pol and Burnett, each in the amount of $5,373.00 (upon information and belief, these demand drafts were required to be paid in United States dollars). Marimuthu wrote in the memo line of the drafts “green card fees.” He paid an additional six lakhs (approximately $13,500) to Dewan in cash.
222. Two days before leaving for Chennai, Salimon contacted Marimuthu and told him he would need to arrange and pay for his travel from Trichy to Chennai, as well as pay for medical testing. Marimuthu had not been previously informed that he would be responsible for these travel and medical fees, which totaled about 15,000 rupees (approximately $337). Marimuthu told Salimon he did not believe he should have to pay these fees. Salimon told Marimuthu that if he did not, Signal would cancel his flight to the United States and Marimuthu would forfeit the payments he had already made. Marimuthu felt threatened, and he worried that he might lose his money and the opportunity to work in the United States on a green card. As a result, he received a last-minute loan from a distant relative for the additional 15,000 rupees.
223. On December 12, 2006, Marimuthu travelled to Chennai. From there, Salimon gave Marimuthu a plane ticket to Mumbai.
224. When he arrived at Dewan’s office in Mumbai, Marimuthu attempted to negotiate with Dewan about reducing his recruitment fees, instead of charging the full eight lakhs. Dewan threatened to cancel Marimuthu’s plane ticket if he did not pay the full amount.
225. Fearful that he would forfeit the money he had already paid and the opportunity to receive a green card, Marimuthu made the final payments. He also paid an additional fee of 2,500 rupees (approximately $56) for a medical certificate that Signal said he would need to
- 44 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 45 of 82 PageID #: 871
enter the United States. After these payments, Marimuthu was forced to sign several forms, which were in English, without adequate time to read and understand the forms.
226. On December 13, 2006, Marimuthu traveled from Mumbai to Houston, Texas. Upon arriving in Houston, a Signal representative drove Marimuthu to the Texas Labor Camp. As described above, the conditions at the labor camp were horrid. Marimuthu was shocked because he had been promised that the living conditions while working for Signal would be the same as those he described in Singapore.
227. Marimuthu felt compelled to remain at the Texas Labor Camp and work for Signal because of the debt he had incurred to pay the recruiting fees and because he believed that, if he did so, Signal would obtain a green card for him and his family.
228. Marimuthu also felt compelled to remain at the Texas Labor Camp and work for Signal, because Signal’s employees and representatives threatened to deport workers if they did not do their jobs properly or if they tried to leave Signal.
229. In September 2007, Signal held a meeting for the workers. Signal told the workers that they were going to apply for one more H-2B visa extension, but that they would not be receiving the promised green cards. This was the first time that Signal ever informed Marimuthu that it was not providing the promised green cards.
230. True to form, neither Signal nor any of the other Defendants ever provided or applied for a green card for Marimuthu or his family. Nor did they ever return any of the recruitment fees incurred by Marimuthu.
231. Marimuthu relied upon Defendants’ promises of permanent residency, long-term employment, and good working conditions. He would not have incurred substantial debt, relinquished prior employment, or agreed to work for Signal in the absence of such false
- 45 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 46 of 82 PageID #: 872
promises. Because of his fear that Signal would attempt to deport him, his fear of mistreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Marimuthu felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Muruganandam Arumugam 232. In or around May 2006, Muruganandam Arumugam (“Muruganandam”) learned of advertisements in two newspapers, Dinathandhi and The Hindu, stating that fitters and welders were being recruited to work in the United States. The advertisements instructed interested parties to contact Sachin Dewan and his company Dewan Consultants. 233. Muruganandam was working as a welder in Singapore, but he was excited about the opportunity to live and work in the United States. He contacted Dewan. Dewan informed him that welding jobs were available in the United States and that Dewan could help him secure such a position. Dewan told Muruganandam that he would need to pass a welding test at De Silva Institute before he would be considered for any positions. 234. Muruganandam traveled over 800 kilometers on four separate occasions to participate in the welder recruitment process. During one of these trips, Muruganandam met with Pol, Burnett and Dewan. At this meeting, Muruganandam was informed that, if he was selected, he would definitely receive a green card after he was hired for the welding job in the United States. He was also repeatedly assured that his family would eventually be able to join him in the United States and that his living conditions in the United States would be better than in Singapore, where Muruganandam lived in a private apartment with his wife and kids. 235. Dewan also told Muruganandam that he would have to pay a service charge of eight lakhs (approximately $18,000) to Dewan Consultants to secure a green card and the
- 46 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 47 of 82 PageID #: 873
welding job in the United States. Of this amount, 35,000 rupees was due as a deposit before Dewan would arrange the necessary interview with the United States Consulate in Chennai.
236. After Muruganandam passed his welding tests, he was instructed to wait two to three months for a phone call from Dewan, which would inform him that it was time to interview at the U.S. Consulate. During this time Muruganandam returned to his stable welding job in Singapore which paid 750 Singapore dollars per week (approximately $540).
237. Eventually, Muruganandam was informed that it was time to return to India to participate in the Consulate interview. Muruganandam was instructed to bring the initial deposit of 35,000 rupees—nearly his entire life savings—to Chennai. As instructed, Muruganandam paid the money to Dewan, Burnett, and Pol.
238. After that meeting, Dewan’s employee, Salimon, provided Muruganandam with paperwork to bring to the Consulate for the interview he arranged. During the interview, Muruganandam was informed that he could not get a visa through the Consulate in India because he was a permanent resident of Singapore. Muruganandam relayed this information to Dewan, who informed him that he would need to make an additional deposit of 165,000 rupees ($3,712) in order to continue the process.
239. To compile the funds demanded by Dewan, Muruganandam had to borrow 165,000 rupees from his mother-in-law. In late November 2006, Muruganandam paid this money to Salimon in Chennai. Salimon provided additional documentation to Muruganandam and instructed him to attend an interview at the U.S. Consulate in Singapore, which eventually granted Muruganandam a visa.
240. Because Muruganandam could not complete the welding tests, meet with Dewan and Signal’s agents, and attend interviews at consulates in India and Singapore while also
- 47 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 48 of 82 PageID #: 874
working a full time job, he was forced to relinquish a stable, well-paying job in Singapore to pursue the position with Signal.
241. Salimon instructed Muruganandam to gather the remaining 600,000 rupees. To do so, Muruganandam was forced to borrow the additional funds from his mother-in-law.
242. When Muruganandam notified Salimon that he had the 600,000 rupees, Salimon instructed him to get on a plane from Chennai to Mumbai, which was leaving in a matter of hours, and to report to Dewan’s office.
243. Once in Mumbai, Muruganandam went to Dewan’s office as instructed. While in a small room, surrounded by several intimidating people who worked for Dewan, Muruganandam paid the additional rupees to Dewan. He also signed various documents written in English that he did not understand.
244. Only after Muruganandam paid the 600,000 rupees did Dewan give Muruganandam’s passport back to him. Dewan then provided Muruganandam with a plane ticket to the United States which was scheduled to leave in a matter of hours.
245. Murganandam departed India for the United States on February 1, 2007. A Signal employee drove Murganandam and others from the airport in Houston, Texas directly to the Texas Labor Camp. The first time he saw it, Murganandam thought the labor camp was a prison.
246. Dewan had represented that Murganandam’s living conditions in the United States would be as good as, or better than, his living conditions in Singapore. As described above, however, the living conditions were reprehensible, and Murganandam was forced to live in one of the labor camp’s crowded trailers.
247. As Signal was using two or three trailers in the Labor Camp for storage, Murganandam and other workers asked if the equipment could be moved to allow the workers to
- 48 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 49 of 82 PageID #: 875
spread out and have more sanitary living conditions. Signal refused to move the equipment and locked the trailer doors to prevent the workers from using the additional bathrooms and beds in the storage trailers.
248. Because Signal often served spoiled food, or ran out of fish or chicken options, Murganandam was forced to choose between eating food he was allergic to (lamb and goat), eating food which violated his religious beliefs (beef and pork), or going hungry.
249. Signal supervisors also treated Indian workers, including Murganandam, far worse than the non-Indian workers. For instance, the foreman regularly allowed the non-Indian workers to clean their equipment during the final thirty minutes the workers were scheduled to work each day. Conversely, the Indian workers were required to clean their tools every day after their shift had ended, which amounted to approximately thirty minutes of unpaid work each day. Similarly, the foreman allowed the non-Indian workers to work overtime far more frequently than the Indian workers.
250. Signal employees threatened that if Murganandam left the labor camp on his own he would be fired and that Signal would stop processing his immigration status. Based on these statements and his debt in India, Murganandam felt trapped. He felt that he could leave the Texas Labor Camp or Signal’s employ.
251. Signal informed Murganandam that he could live outside of the Labor Camp, but that he would still be responsible for paying for the housing and food provided at the Labor Camp. Murganandam was never informed that Signal would charge him for food or housing before he left India.
252. Signal only provided infrequent meetings for employees to express their grievances. Nevertheless, Murganandam could not attend these meetings because they were
- 49 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 50 of 82 PageID #: 876
always conducted at 5:00 p.m., during Murganandam’s work shift. Moreover, the meetings were ineffectual for workers like Murganandam, because they were conducted in English and no translator was provided.
253. When Murganandam and a friend inquired about the status of their visas and green cards, a Signal representative declined to discuss their status. When Muruganandam called Burnett to discuss the status of his visa and green card, Burnett refused to return his calls.
254. Defendants have never returned any of the “recruitment fees” incurred by Murganandam and have never provided a green card for Murganandam or his family.
255. Murganandam relied upon Defendants’ promises of permanent residency, longterm employment, and good working conditions. He would not have incurred substantial debt, relinquished prior employment, or agreed to work for Signal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal would attempt to deport him, his fear of mistreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Murganandam felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Muralidharan Arumugam 256. In or around March 2006, Muralidharan Arumugam (“Muralidharan”) saw advertisements in two local newspapers for welding and fitting jobs in the United States. The advertisements indicated that interested parties should contact Dewan Consultants. 257. Around July 2006, Muralidharan attended a meeting at Dewan Consultants. Sachin Dewan ran the meeting with the assistance of Salimon, Pol and Burnett. During this meeting Muralidharan and the other attendees were advised that Signal had fitting and welding jobs available in the United States. The attendees were advised that whoever secured a job
- 50 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 51 of 82 PageID #: 877
would earn $18 per hour for 50 hours of work per week, that food and lodging would be provided, and that each worker would get a green card. To be considered for these positions, Muralidharan and the other attendees would need to pass performance tests and pay approximately six lakhs (approximately $13,500).
258. Encouraged by the prospect of working in the United States, Muralidharan took and passed the requisite tests right after the initial meeting at Dewan Consultants.
259. Sachin Dewan said he would schedule a visa interview for Muralidharan at the U.S. Consulate as soon as Muralidharan paid 1.5 lakhs (approximately $3,375).
260. In order to meet Dewan’s demand, Muralidharan mortgaged his family’s agricultural land against his father’s wishes. Muralidharan used the money he raised to pay 1.5 lakhs to Dewan for his Consulate interview.
261. Muralidharan successfully completed his Consulate interview around November 2006. Muralidharan promptly notified Dewan that he had passed and that he was ready to continue with the process.
262. In or around December 2006, Muralidharan attended a second meeting with Dewan Consultants. During this meeting Muralidharan learned that the cost to work in the United States had increased to eight lakhs (approximately $18,000), rather than the six lakhs he was originally quoted.
263. At the same meeting, Dewan told Muralidharan that he needed to pay a second deposit of $10,746 towards this amount in the form of two $5,373 demand drafts—one payable to Pol and the other payable to Burnett. Dewan represented that these payments would ensure that Muralidharan received a green card, which would enable him to permanently live and work
- 51 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 52 of 82 PageID #: 878
in the United States. After receiving a letter that confirmed he would receive a green card, Muralidharan paid the second deposit of $10,476 on December 9, 2006.
264. To compile the funds demanded by Dewan, including the second deposit and the remaining amounts owed on the eight lakhs, Muralidharan mortgaged his father’s house, pawned his wife’s jewelry and took out private loans.
265. As soon as Muralidharan compiled the necessary funds, he traveled to Mumbai and paid the remaining portion of the eight lakhs charged by Dewan. After Muralidharan paid, Dewan returned his passport and provided him with plane tickets for a flight to the United States that departed the next day.
266. Muralidharan departed India for the United States on or about December 11, 2006. A Signal employee drove Muralidharan and others from the airport in Houston, Texas directly to the Texas Labor Camp. The first time he saw it, Muralidharan thought the camp was a prison.
267. Prior to receiving his first paycheck, Muralidharan was not aware that Signal would deduct money for room and board.
268. As described above, the living conditions at the camp were reprehensible. As a result of over-crowding, unsanitary conditions, and spoiled food, numerous workers, including Muralidharan, became ill seriously while living in Signal’s Texas Labor Camp.
269. Muralidharan contracted an intestinal virus or infection while living at Signal’s Texas Labor Camp and had to have emergency surgery. Muralidharan remained bedridden in the hospital for four days following the surgery. Muralidharan departed from the hospital early because he could not afford to stay as long as he was advised to stay. Mulihandharan’s hospitalization resulted in charges exceeding $30,000.
- 52 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 53 of 82 PageID #: 879
270. Nonetheless, Signal continued to charge Muralidharan for food and accommodations while he was in the hospital, unable to work.
271. As a result of the debt he had incurred to pay the recruiting fees and the fees for his hospitalization, as well as the promise of a green card, Muralidharan felt compelled to remain at Signal.
272. Defendants have never returned any of the “recruitment fees” incurred by Muralidharan and have never provided a green card for Muralidharan or his family.
273. Muralidharan relied upon Defendants’ promises of permanent residency, longterm employment, and good working conditions. He would not have incurred substantial debt, mortgaged his family’s land, or agreed to work for Signal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal would attempt to deport him, his fear of mistreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Muralidharan felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Satyanarayana Ellapu 274. In or around June 2006, while working as a structural welder in Andhra Pradesh, India, Satyanarayana Ellapu (“Satya”) saw an advertisement in the local newspaper, Eenadu, for potential employment in the United States. The advertisement stated that a “leading marine and fabrication company in Mississippi and Texas” was hiring welders and pipefitters for its facilities in the United States and was conducting tests on June 25, 26, and 28, 2006, for the positions. 275. The advertisement also stated that the positions may include “permanent employment visas” and a “2 years [sic] contract.”
- 53 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 54 of 82 PageID #: 880
276. Satya was hopeful that the job opportunity would better enable him to provide for his family, for whom he was the sole breadwinner.
277. On June 26, 2006, Satya traveled an hour from his village to a training center to take a test to determine his eligibility for hire at Signal. Sachin Dewan and other Signal representatives were present at this meeting, along with 20 to 30 other welders and pipefitters. Satya passed the test and was instructed to return in three days.
278. Three days later, Satya returned to the training center an attended an informational meeting with approximately 50 other workers. Dewan and Burnett led the meeting. Dewan informed the workers that the opportunities were for positions in Signal’s facilities in Mississippi or Texas. Dewan further informed the workers that they would receive an H-2B visa for the first 9 months of their employment with Signal, but that they would then be provided a green card. Dewan indicated that the process would take four to six months and would cost six lakhs (approximately $13,500), of which one lakh (approximately $2,250) had to be paid up front.
279. Satya complained about the cost to Dewan and Burnett. They informed Satya that he had no choice—“If you want the job, you have to pay.” However, they also promised that the money would be “easily recovered” once Satya began working in the United States.
280. In response to the workers’ concern about the size of the up-front payment, Dewan and Burnett stated that the workers could pay 20,000 rupees (approximately $450) within 20 days and pay the balance later. If the men paid the 20,000 rupees, they would be guaranteed the job.
281. Dewan and Burnett then distributed applications explaining that the worker had to pay the recruiting fees in installments by demand drafts and cash.
- 54 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 55 of 82 PageID #: 881
282. After the meeting, Satya returned to his village to discuss the opportunity with his family. His family did not have enough money cover the recruiting fees, but they nonetheless encouraged him to apply—believing that a green card would assist Satya in providing for them.
283. Because Satya’s life savings totaled one lakh, he borrowed four and a half lakhs (approximately $10,125) from a lender with interest. As collateral, Satya pledged his father’s ancestral land and his home, which the lender threatened to repossess if Satya missed any payments.
284. On July 20, 2006, Satya met with an employee of Dewan to make his first payment of 20,000 rupees. The employee gave Satya four forms to sign. The first form was for Global and explained the payment schedule and amounts. The second form was for Burnett and explained the attorneys’ fees for legal services, employment agreements, and labor certifications. The third form explained Dewan’s services. The fourth form was an employment agreement with Signal. Satya signed the four forms, trusting that Dewan had accurately translated them.
285. Subsequently, Satya had several meetings with Dewan’s employees in which he was asked to make additional payments, including fees for visa processing, bank drafts, and travel and accommodation in Chennai, where he interviewed with the United States Consulate.
286. Prior to Satya’s interview with the Consulate on November 3, 2006, Dewan contacted him and requested that he bring documents evidencing his land or inheritance, which Dewan claimed was necessary for the visa application. Satya traveled to Chennai and met with Dewan two days before his interview with the Consulate. During this meeting, Dewan instructed Satya regarding what to say during the Consulate interview.
- 55 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 56 of 82 PageID #: 882
287. After the Consulate granted Satya’s visa, Dewan contacted Satya and informed him that he could leave for the United States as soon as he made a final payment of six lakhs (approximately $13,500). Satya also had to borrow the funds necessary to make that payment.
288. On December 12, 2006, Satya traveled to Mumbai to pick up his passport and plane ticket from Dewan’s office. After collecting Satya’s fee payments, Dewan gave Satya a series of forms in English to sign. Satya asked for a translation, but Dewan refused, citing the workers’ imminent plane departure. Satya believed he had no choice but to sign the forms even though he could not read them.
289. After he signed the forms, Satya was given his plane ticket and passport. Satya’s plane left Mumbai shortly thereafter and arrived in Houston, Texas on or about December 13, 2006. A Signal representative met Satya and other workers at the airport and drove them to the Texas Labor Camp.
290. The morning following his arrival, Signal hosted an orientation for the new workers. During that meeting, Satya learned for the first time that he would need to pay an additional $170 for his tools. Satya was also forced to sign several more forms in English. When Satya asked Signal’s representatives to explain what the forms said, they refused.
291. As a result of the conditions at the Texas Labor Camp, Satya felt isolated, lonely, and anxious. At one point, he was hospitalized with an eye injury resulting from the conditions in which he was forced to weld. Satya did not complain, however, because he was fearful Signal would terminate his employment if he did. His fear was based in part upon news that (1) Signal had threatened to deport a worker who refused to do a particular job; and (2) another worker missed two days of work and was forcibly deported by Signal. Satya felt further compelled to
- 56 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 57 of 82 PageID #: 883
stay at Signal, because he could not repay the debts he incurred for the recruitment fees if he left and believed he would receive a green card if he stayed.
292. Defendants have never returned any of the “recruitment fees” incurred by Satya and never received provided a green card for Satya or his family.
293. Satya relied upon Defendants’ promises of permanent residency, long-term employment, and good working conditions. He would not have incurred substantial debt, relinquished prior employment, or agreed to work for Signal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal would attempt to deport him, his fear of mistreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Satya felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Moorthy Nadhamuni 294. In November 2006, while Moorthy Nadhamuni (“Moorthy”) was working as a fitter in Dubai, he learned of a job opportunity in the United States through an advertisement in the Indian newspaper, Dinathandy. The advertisement was placed by Dewan Consultants, stated Dewan was seeking to fill permanent job vacancies, and promised employment in the United States along with permanent residency through a green card. 295. As a result of the advertisement, Moorthy took an emergency leave from his position in Dubai and travelled to Chennai, India to attend an informational meeting about the opportunity. 296. Pol, Dewan, his employee Salimon, and others were present at the meeting. During the meeting, Dewan told Moorthy that he had to pass a test, which cost 500 rupees
- 57 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 58 of 82 PageID #: 884
(approximately $11), to be eligible for potential employment. Moorthy paid the 500 rupees and passed the test. Salimon contacted Moorthy three days later and instructed him to attend an upcoming meeting.
297. Approximately one week later, Moorthy attended a general meeting led by Dewan. Several other workers were present. Dewan informed the workers that they had been selected to work for Signal International in the United States at either a Texas or Mississippi facility, that workers would be paid $14-18/hour, and that the workers would receive green cards.
298. Dewan informed the workers that they would first have to attend an interview with the United States Consulate in Chennai. If the interview went well, the workers would be given H-2B visa and would receive a green card approximately 18 months after working in the United States. Dewan also promised the workers that, after they received their green cards, their families could join them in the United States.
299. Dewan stated the green card processing would cost the workers eight lakhs (approximately $18,000) in three installments. First the workers had to pay Dewan 35,000 rupees (approximately $787). Second, the workers would have to pay $3,871 to Pol and $3,871 to Burnett in cashier’s check by late January. Finally, the workers would have to pay the remainder of the eight lakhs to Dewan. Dewan further stated that the workers’ green cards would be processed and their families could join them in the United States, but only if the workers paid these fees.
300. Moorthy made the initial payment to Dewan with money he had saved from his previous employment. To accumulate the remainder of the eight lakhs, Moorthy borrowed funds from a local lender, pledging his wife’s land as collateral, and pawned his wife’s jewelry.
- 58 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 59 of 82 PageID #: 885
301. After receiving Moorthy’s initial payment, Dewan informed Moorthy that his interview with the Consulate was scheduled for December 2, 2006. Dewan also informed Moorthy that he must bring an additional 4,600 rupees (approximately $103) for visa processing.
302. On December 2, 2006, Moorthy arrived in Chennai. He met with Dewan prior to his interview, during which Dewan coached Moorthy regarding the interview and provided him with documents for the Consulate.
303. Moorthy was subsequently approved for a visa. After the approval, Dewan instructed Moorthy to make the final payment of $3,871 to both Pol and Burnett.
304. On approximately February 13, 2007, Moorthy met Dewan in Chennai and received a ticket from Chennai to Mumbai. Dewan said that Moorthy would receive the remainder of his ticket to the United States in Mumbai.
305. On February 14, 2007, Moorthy travelled from Chennai to Dewan’s office in Mumbai. There, he and several other workers were called one by one to make their final payments to Pol, Burnett, and Dewan. Some workers were unable to make the payments and were informed by Dewan’s representatives that they would not receive plane tickets and would forfeit all prior payments if they did not make the final payment in full. Having witnessed this, Moorthy felt compelled to make his payments. After making that payment, Moorthy was required to sign several forms in English, which Dewan’s representatives refused to translate.
306. On February 15, 2007, Moorthy departed Mumbai for Houston, Texas. When he arrived in Houston, a Signal representative picked him up at the airport and brought Moorthy along with the other workers to the Texas Labor Camp.
307. Moorthy was appalled by the living conditions, which—as described above— were horrid. They were much worse than the living conditions he had experienced previously
- 59 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 60 of 82 PageID #: 886
when working in Dubai and Singapore. Signal refused to serve vegetarian food, even though Moorthy is a vegetarian for religious reasons. Meanwhile, Signal continued deducting fees from Moorthy’s paychecks for food and accommodations.
308. Moorthy felt trapped and believed that, because of the debt he had incurred, he had to continue working for Signal despite the reprehensible conditions. In addition, based on the promises made to him previously, Moorthy also believed that he would receive a green card if he continued to work for Signal and that his family could eventually join him in the United States. Accordingly, Moorthy continued to work for Signal without complaint.
309. Defendants have never returned any of the “recruitment fees” incurred by Moorthy and never provided a green card for Moorthy or his family.
310. Moorthy relied upon Defendants’ promises of permanent residency, long-term employment, and good working conditions. He would not have incurred substantial debt, relinquished prior employment, or agreed to work for Signal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal would attempt to deport him, his fear of mistreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Moorthy felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Rajendran Sappani 311. In 2006, Rajendran Sappani (“Sappani”) was working in Singapore when he learned about a newspaper advertisement placed by Dewan offering welders and fitters employment and permanent residency in the United States. 312. Sappani learned that Dewan Consultants was holding interviews for the positions in Chennai, India, and that the last date to interview was November 11, 2006.
- 60 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 61 of 82 PageID #: 887
313. On or around November 8, 2006, Sappani left his job in Singapore and returned to his hometown of Trichy, India, before travelling to Chennai for an interview and testing with Dewan.
314. Sappani interviewed with Dewan and passed a written pipe fitting test. After the test, Sappani he was required to pay eight lakh (approximately $18,000) for the employment opportunity, visa processing, and green card. He was also required to make an initial payment of 45,000 rupees to Dewan. Dewan also informed Sappani he would need to pass an interview with the Consulate and that, if the Consulate did not stamp his passport with a visa, Sappani would forfeit the 45,000 rupees payment.
315. To raise the funds necessary to pay the recruitment fees, Sappani borrowed money from lenders. To obtain one of the loans, the lender required Sappani to prove that the funds were for a green card. Sappani contacted Dewan who faxed a letter to Sappani confirming that Sappani would be receiving a green card. Sappani presented the letter to the bank and received the funds. Sappani also sold his wife’s jewelry—with the exception of her wedding band, which he used as collateral for a loan—and mortgaged his family’s house and land. As a result, his family now pays 1,000 rupees per month to live in the house.
316. Subsequently, Sappani attended an interview with the United States Consulate and was processed for a visa. In December 2006, prior to leaving for the United States, Sappani was instructed to travel to Dewan’s office in Mumbai, where he paid the final recruiting fees, including an additional 1,500-rupee fee for a medical certificate. Dewan withheld Sappani’s passport until the final payments were made. Sappani was then required to sign several papers quickly, without an opportunity to read them, before he received his ticket to travel to the United States.
- 61 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 62 of 82 PageID #: 888
317. On or about December 18, 2006, Sappani arrived at Signal’s Orange, Texas facility. Sappani was shocked by the conditions at the Texas Labor Camp, which were much worse than he had experienced in Singapore. But Sappani felt that he could not turn back because have no way of repaying the money he had borrowed. As a result, Sappani was afraid to do anything that might create problems for him at Signal.
318. Defendants have never returned any of the “recruitment fees” incurred by Sappani and never provided a green card for Sappani.
319. Sappani relied upon Defendants’ promises of permanent residency, long-term employment, and good working conditions. He would not have incurred substantial debt, relinquished prior employment, or agreed to work for Signal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal would attempt to deport him, his fear of mistreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Sappani felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Rajendran Subramani 320. Rajendran Subramani (“Rajendran”) is a welder and structural fitter from Tiruchirappali, India. Rajendran supports his mother and family financially. 321. In or about 2006, Rajendran was working as welder in Malaysia. His friend informed him about an advertisement in a Hindu newspaper offering the opportunity to live and work in the United States as welder or fitter and obtain a green card. Rajendran reviewed the advertisement and confirmed that it promised the opportunity to get a green card in the United States. To take advantage of this opportunity, Rajendran travelled to India to interview for a position.
- 62 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 63 of 82 PageID #: 889
322. On or about January 7, 2007, Rajendran interviewed with Salimon, an employee of Dewan. Rajendran understood that Dewan was recruiting workers on behalf of Signal. During this interview, Salimon represented to Rajendran that he would make $18.00 per hour in the United States, that there would be opportunities to receive overtime pay, and the job with Signal would last for at least two years. Salimon further represented Rajendran would initially receive a visa every six months, but that after two years Signal would get a green card for Rajendran and help him bring his family to the United Sates.
323. Despite the fact that Rajendran had a two-year contract for his job in Malaysia, he was very interested in obtaining a green card and earning an income that was higher than what he was making in Malaysia. Rajendran felt that this employment opportunity would permit him to make a better life for his family and to support his aging mother.
324. During the interview, Rajendran spoke with Salimon about his work arrangement in Malaysia and described the accommodations, food, and benefits that were provided by the employer. Salimon promised Rajendran that Signal would provide similar type of accommodations, food, and benefits, including that he would only have to share an apartment with a few men.
325. Salimon told Rajendran that it would cost him eight lahks for the opportunity to work for Signal and receive a green card. Based on the representations that Salimon made on behalf of Signal, including the representations about receiving a green card for himself and his family, Rajendran agreed to pay the money.
326. Rajendran had saved about 100,000 rupees during his time working in Malaysia, but still needed to borrow an additional 700,000 rupees to pay the recruitment fee. Rajendran’s mother used to work for a wealthy family, the Muthus, who agreed to loan Rajendran the
- 63 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 64 of 82 PageID #: 890
700,000 rupees at an interest rate of three percent (3%) per month, a total of thirty-six percent (36%) interest per year.
327. In or about January 2007, Rajendran paid 40,000 rupees ($900) to Salimon as an initial deposit in order to obtain an interview with the U.S. Consulate. Approximately four weeks later, Salimon called Rajendran and told him that his interview was scheduled for February 7, 2007. Rajendran met with Salimon in Madras in order to coach him for interview.
328. Rajendran met with the embassy on or about February 7, 2007, and after the meeting they told him that his passport would be sent to Salimon once it was stamped. Several days after the interview with the embassy Rajendran received a phone call from Dewan saying that they had his passport, but that he needed to come to Dewan’s office in Bombay to pay the remaining 760,000 rupees, which he did prior to departing for the United States.
329. On February 15, 2007, Rajendran traveled to the United States. A Signal employee picked up Rajendran and other Indian workers at the airport in Houston, Texas and drove them to the Texas Labor Camp.
330. Rajendran thought that the Texas Labor Camp resembled a prison—it was very isolated, it was surrounded by a fence, and guarded by security guards.
331. A Signal employee had Rajendran and other Indian workers complete paperwork when they arrived at the Texas Labor Camp. Signal did not, however, translate or explain the paperwork for the Indian workers.
332. At the Texas Labor Camp, Rajendran was required to share an overcrowded bunkhouse with more than twenty (20) men. The bunk beds were so tightly packed together that Rajendran and others were forced to sleep with their suitcases in their beds with them. The toilet and showering facilities were insufficient and unsanitary. Indeed, there was only bathroom and
- 64 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 65 of 82 PageID #: 891
one shower between the twenty men. There was no privacy at the bunkhouse and sleep was very difficult due to the close quarters, oppressive smells, and constant noise from the workers coming and going to their different shifts.
333. As described above, the food that Signal provided was deplorable. Rajendran often became ill from the food, which was frequently rotten and/or left out for long periods of time.
334. Signal deducted approximately $1,050 per month from Rajendran’s paychecks for room and board. Prior to arriving at the Texas Labor Camp, Rajendran had not been informed this amount would be withheld from his paychecks.
335. As a result of the conditions at the Texas Labor Camp, Rajendran asked Signal if he could live somewhere else, but he was told Signal would still deduct $1,050 per month from his paychecks if he moved. Because of the substantial debt Rajendran had incurred to pay the recruitment fees, he could not afford to pay for accommodations outside the Texas Labor Camp and still pay Signal $1,050 per month. Rajendran was, in effect, compelled to stay in the Texas Labor Camp.
336. Rajendran and other workers complained to Signal about the awful conditions at the Texas Labor Camp. In response, Signal threatened to send Rajendran and other workers back to India if they continued to complain or spoke to others about Signal’s actions. Faced with threats of deportation, and crushing debt in Indian, Rajendran felt compelled to continue his employment at Signal.
337. Notwithstanding the prior promises of employment for two years and a green card for Rajendran and his family, during a meeting in June 2007, Signal informed Rajendran and the others who voiced concern about the conditions at the Texas Labor Camp that they could not
- 65 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 66 of 82 PageID #: 892
work for Signal after July 30, 2007 and that Signal would not renew their visas. At that point, Rajendran realized that the promises about the length of his employment and Signal obtaining a green card for Rajendran and his family were lies.
338. Defendants have never returned any of the “recruitment fees” incurred by Rajendran and never provided a green card for Rajendran or his family.
339. Rajendran relied upon Defendants’ promises of permanent residency, long-term employment, and good working conditions. He would not have incurred substantial debt, relinquished prior employment, or agreed to work for Signal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal would attempt to deport him, his fear of mistreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Rajendran felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla 340. In or about May 2006, while working as a structural welder in Andhra Pradesh, India, Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla (“Talabathulla”) saw an advertisement in the local newspaper, Eenadu, for potential employment in the United States. The advertisement stated that an American company was hiring welders and pipefitters for its facilities in the United States. The advertisement gave certain dates for tests and interviews in Chennai, and provided the contact information for Dewan. 341. Talabathulla and three of his friends traveled to Chennai 16 hours by train to discuss the opportunity with Dewan. Dewan explained the job opportunity, represented that it was for long-term employment, that there was ample work, and that workers would be processed for green cards. Specifically, Dewan informed Talabathulla that he would work under an H-2B
- 66 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 67 of 82 PageID #: 893
visa for the initial nine months and then would be processed for and receive a green card. Dewan also explained that that Talabathulla would need to undergo a testing process that was being conducted over the next couple of days.
342. Dewan required that Talabathulla pay two lakhs (approximately $4,500), within 10 days to proceed. Talabathulla needed to go back home to Andhra Pradesh in order to obtain the money. Before leaving to obtain the money, Talabathulla took and passed the fitting test. During the test, Talabathulla met Pol, who informed him that the job opportunity was for Signal. Pol reiterated the promise of permanent residency in the United States.
343. Talabathulla paid two lakhs to Dewan in November 2006. In order to pay those funds, Talabathulla had to borrow money from his father, who in turn borrowed from lenders at an interest rate of 3% per month (43% per year).
344. After receiving Talabathulla’s payment, Dewan informed Talabathulla that he needed to pay an additional $5,373 to Malvern Burnett, $5,373 to Michael Pol, and another $3,680 to Dewan. Talabathulla ultimately paid these amounts. To do so, Talabathulla had to borrow more money from his father, who in turn borrowed the money from lenders, pledging his house as collateral for the loan.
345. In December 2006, Talabathulla traveled to Dewan’s office in Mumbai in order to receive his passport and airline ticket to the United States. Talabathulla arrived shortly before his plane was scheduled to depart for the United States. During this meeting, Dewan required that Talabathulla pay the remaining recruitment fees in order to receive his passport. Talabathulla felt that he had no choice but to follow Dewan’s directions. After receiving Talabathulla’s payment, Dewan gave Talabathulla his passport as well as an Offer of Employment letter from Signal that was in English and had not been translated. Dewan refused
- 67 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 68 of 82 PageID #: 894
to provide a receipt for the payment. Before leaving for the United States, Dewan continued to assure Talabathulla that he would receive a green card.
346. When Talabathulla arrived in the United States, Signal informed him that it going to deduct approximately $1,050 per month from his salary for room and board. He was also informed that he would be charged these amounts regardless of whether he lived at the Texas Labor Camp. This was the first time Talabathulla had heard that he would be charged for room and board. As described above, the conditions at the Texas Labor Camp were deplorable. Because Talabathulla could not afford to pay for living expenses twice and repay his loans, he felt compelled to remain at the Texas Labor Camp.
347. While he was at the Texas Labor Camp, Defendants continued to assure Talabathulla that he would receive a green card.
348. During the spring of 2007, Talabathulla he that Signal had threatened to deport other Indian workers back to India. Signal ultimately transferred Talabathulla to its facility in Pascagoula, Mississippi and reduced his wages. In doing so, however, Signal again reiterated its promise that there would be ample work at the Mississippi facility, which ultimately turned out not to be true. As a result of the threats of deportation and the debt he had incurred to pay the recruitment fees, Talabathulla felt compelled to remain at Signal, work at its Mississippi facility, and accept the lower wages.
349. Defendants have never returned any of the “recruitment fees” incurred by Talabathulla and never provided a green card for Talabathulla.
350. Talabathulla relied upon Defendants’ promises of permanent residency, long-term employment, and good working conditions. He would not have incurred substantial debt, relinquished prior employment, or agreed to work for Signal in the absence of such false
- 68 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 69 of 82 PageID #: 895
promises. Because of his fear that Signal would attempt to deport him, his fear of mistreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Talabathulla felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu 351. In or around 2005, while working as a welder in Abu Dhabi, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu (“Siluvaimuthu”) saw a newspaper advertisement placed by Dewan seeking fitters and welders. The advertisement offered the opportunity to work in the United States and obtain a green card. 352. Siluvaimuthu spoke with Dewan and was told to attend an upcoming informational meeting if he was interested in the job opportunity. During the call, Dewan promised Siluvaimuthu that he would receive a green card as part of the job opportunity. 353. Siluvaimuthu subsequently attended the informational meeting, along approximately 100 other Indian workers. Pol and Dewan were present at the meeting and explained the job opportunity. Among other things, they represented that the job opportunity was with Signal and that Signal would obtain permanent residency for the workers in the United States. 354. Pol and Dewan told Siluvaimuthu and the other workers that they had to pay recruitment fees for the job opportunity totaling the equivalent of six or seven lakhs. They explained that the workers could pay the recruitment fees in three installments, if they did not have enough money up front. 355. Siluvaimuthu did not believe he had enough money to pay the recruitment fees.
- 69 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 70 of 82 PageID #: 896
356. In or around November 2006, however, Siluvaimuthu learned that some of his friends were going to work for Signal through Dewan Consultants. Siluvaimuthu had dreamed of living in the United States, and decided to pursue the job opportunity with Signal. To that end, he met with Sachin Dewan in Chennai for testing. After passing the test, Dewan informed Siluvaimuthu that the recruitment fees had risen to 8.5 lakhs (approximately $19,125).
357. Siluvaimuthu was informed that he would have to pay 3.5 lakhs (approximately $7,875) up front. Siluvaimuthu paid the initial 3.5 lakhs by demand draft. To do so, Siluvaimuthu borrowed money from friends at an interest rate of 5 percent per month. Siluvaimuthu received a loan for the remainder of the 8.5 lakhs. As collateral for the loan, Siluvaimuthu pledged his house and his wife’s jewelry.
358. Subsequently, Siluvaimuthu met with Dewan to pay the remaining recruiting fees. During that meeting, Dewan represented to Siluvaimuthu that he would receive a green card in approximately 6 months and then could bring his family to join him in the United States. Dewan further represented that the employment with Signal would be long-term and the living conditions would be comfortable, safe, and sanitary.
359. On or around November 24, 2006, Siluvaimuthu received a visa from the United States Consulate in Chennai. Following Siluvaimuthu’s interview at the Consulate, Dewan kept Siluvaimuthu’s passport.
360. Shortly before he was to leave for the United States, Siluvaimuthu attended a meeting at Dewan’s office, during which he was forced to sign forms in English without a translation. Siluvaimuthu felt compelled to sign the forms because his plane to the United States was leaving shortly, he had paid the recruitment fees to Dewan, and Dewan still had his passport.
- 70 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 71 of 82 PageID #: 897
Dewan only returned Siluvaimuthu’s passport immediately before he boarded the flight to the United States.
361. When Siluvaimuthu arrived at the Texas Labor Camp, he was horrified by the conditions. Signal subsequently informed him, for the first time, that it would deduct approximately $1,050 per month from his wages for room and board, regardless of whether he lived at the Texas Labor Camp. Despite the conditions, Siluvaimuthu felt compelled to remain at the Texas Labor Camp and continue working because he could not afford to pay twice for room and board and also repay the debt he had incurred in India.
362. Defendants have never returned any of the “recruitment fees” incurred by Siluvaimuthu and never provided a green card for Siluvaimuthu.
363. Siluvaimuthu relied upon Defendants’ promises of permanent residency, longterm employment, and good working conditions. He would not have incurred substantial debt, relinquished prior employment, or agreed to work for Signal in the absence of such false promises. Because of his fear that Signal would attempt to deport him, his fear of mistreatment and abuse by Signal, and his need to repay the substantial debts he and his family had incurred to pay Defendants’ recruiting fees, Siluvaimuthu felt intimidated into acquiescence and compelled to continue working for Signal.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2003 Forced Labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589) (Trafficking with Respect to Peonage, Slavery, Involuntary
Servitude, or Forced Labor) (18 U.S.C. § 1590) All Defendants
364. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
- 71 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 72 of 82 PageID #: 898
365. 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.
366. Defendants attempted to and did subject Plaintiffs to forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589.
367. Defendants controlled Plaintiffs’ ability to meet their basic needs, including their housing, food, and access to medical care and legal counsel and threatened to withhold access to these necessities if Plaintiffs refused to continue working for Signal.
368. Defendants forced Plaintiffs to live in guarded and gated camps. 369. Defendants coerced Plaintiffs into paying substantial recruitment fees prior to hiring Plaintiffs and subsequently forced Plaintiffs to work at Signal to satisfy their outstanding debts. 370. 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, including financial ruin, if they left the employ of Signal. 371. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs for attempting to exercise their legal rights, 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. 372. Defendants knowingly attempted to and did provide or obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs by means of force, threats of force, and threats of physical restraint made to the Plaintiffs in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(1).
- 72 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 73 of 82 PageID #: 899
373. Defendants knowingly attempted to and did obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm to Plaintiffs in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(2). Further, Defendants knowingly attempted to and did obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs using a scheme, plan, or patter that, 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 Signal's employ, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(2).
374. Defendants knowingly attempted to and did provide or obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(3).
375. Defendants knowingly attempted to and did provide or obtain the labor and services of Plaintiffs by using a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause Plaintiffs to believe that, if they did not perform such labor or services, Plaintiffs would suffer serious harm or physical restraint, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(4).
376. Defendants knowingly recruited, transported, harbored, provided, and/or obtained the Plaintiffs for 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.
377. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590, and in addition to the violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1589 set forth above, the Defendants knowingly recruited, transported, harbored and/or obtained the Plaintiffs for labor or services in furtherance of 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 onboard an airliner,
train and passenger van, and to go to various locations throughout the United Arab
- 73 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 74 of 82 PageID #: 900
Emirates, India, and the United States, with the intent that they may be held in modernday slavery, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1583;
b. knowingly and willfully holding Plaintiffs to involuntary servitude, as
defined by 22 U.S.C. § 7102(5)(a) and (b), violating 18 U.S.C. § 1584;
c. removing, confiscating, or possessing Plaintiffs’ passports and other
immigration documents in the course of, or with the intent to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1583, 1584, 1589, and 1590, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1592(a); and
d. attempting to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 1583, 1584, 1589, and 1590, violating
18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). 378. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries to their persons, businesses, and property, and other damages. 379. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including attorneys’ fees.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Defendant Signal (Signal International, LLC, Signal International, Inc., Signal International
Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P.) 380. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 381. Plaintiffs assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for declaratory relief, and damages against Defendant Signal. 382. The actions of 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 Signal.
- 74 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 75 of 82 PageID #: 901
383. Specifically, Defendant Signal subjected Plaintiffs to discriminatory and offensive mandatory room and board arrangements at the Texas Labor Camp on the basis of Plaintiffs’ race and/or national origin.
384. Defendant Signal did not subject its non-Indian employees to the same or similar room and board arrangements.
385. 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 were not similarly subjected.
386. 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 workers, Signal maintained an objectively hostile and abusive work environment on account of Plaintiffs’ race and/or national origin.
387. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Signal’s discriminatory and offensive treatment of Plaintiffs was sufficiently severe that it created an objectively hostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
388. Plaintiffs reasonably perceived their work environment to be hostile, abusive, and discriminatory on the basis of their race and/or national origin.
389. Signal’s hostile, abusive, and discriminatory treatment of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated was unwelcome.
390. Signal knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and without justification acted to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights on the basis of Plaintiffs’ race and/or national origin.
391. As a result of Signal’s unlawful acts, Plaintiffs have suffered injury to their property and/or persons.
- 75 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 76 of 82 PageID #: 902
392. Plaintiffs seek all appropriate relief, including declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action, and damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN ACT OF 1871
42 U.S.C. § 1985 and the Thirteenth Amendment All Defendants
393. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
394. Plaintiffs assert this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for declaratory relief, and damages against the Defendants.
395. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants conspired, agreed, planned and coordinated for, and acted in furtherance of, 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.
396. As demonstrated above, Defendants were motivated by racial, anti-Indian, and/or anti-immigrant animus when they conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights and acted in furtherance of a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.
397. Defendants knowingly, willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and without justification planned and acted to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.
398. As a result of the unlawful acts of the Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.
- 76 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 77 of 82 PageID #: 903
399. Plaintiffs seek all appropriate relief, including declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action, and damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
All Defendants 400. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs. 401. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees, and/or representatives, knowingly and/or negligently made materially false and untrue statements and representations to Plaintiffs regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States. Among other things, Defendants and/or their respective agents represented to the Plaintiffs that: (1) they would be eligible for permanent residency through their employment with Signal; (2) Defendants would apply for permanent residency in the United States on behalf of Plaintiffs; (3) Defendants would extend Plaintiffs’ H-2B visas while they were being processed for permanent residency; and (4) Plaintiffs would have steady and ongoing work opportunities in the United States with Signal. Defendants and/or their respective agents also made false representations regarding the living conditions at the Texas Labor Camp. 402. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants knowingly and/or negligently failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs regarding the nature and terms and conditions of applications and opportunities for immigration status and employment in the United States.
- 77 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 78 of 82 PageID #: 904
403. Defendants intended, or should have known, that the false statements made by Defendants and/or their agents, employees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to pay the exorbitant fees demanded by the Pol, Dewan, and/or Burnett.
404. Defendants intended, or should have known, that the false statements made by Defendants and/or their agents, employees, and/or representatives would induce Plaintiffs to leave their homes and jobs in India, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates and travel to the United States to work for Defendant Signal.
405. Plaintiffs were entitled to rely on Defendants’ representations. 406. In reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money to Pol, Dewan and/or Burnett, which directly benefitted Defendant Signal in the form of cheap labor and increased profits. 407. In reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs incurred substantial interest-bearing debts in order to pay recruitment, immigration-related, and travel fees charged by Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives. 408. In reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs sold personal and real property and surrendered employment opportunities in India, Singapore, and/or the United Arab Emirates. 409. In reliance on Defendants’ false and/or negligent representations regarding green cards and employment opportunities, Plaintiffs left their homes and jobs and India and other countries and traveled to the United States to work for Defendant Signal. 410. At all times, Plaintiffs’ reliance was reasonable.
- 78 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 79 of 82 PageID #: 905
411. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ knowing, willing, intentional, and/or negligent actions, Plaintiffs have been injured.
412. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
413. This claim is recognized under the laws of Texas, Mississippi, and India. The Court has previously indicated that Plaintiffs need not choose which jurisdiction’s laws apply at this time (ECF No. 60 at 4-5; ECF No. 70). Plaintiffs reserve the right to pursue these claims under the laws of Texas, Mississippi, or India (directly or in the alternative).
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF BREACH OF CONTRACT All Defendants
414. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
415. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants, individually and/or 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 of the time when Plaintiffs entered into the United States, as well as to provide steady work opportunities in the United States with Defendant Signal in exchange for Plaintiffs’ payment of exorbitant fees to Defendants and their employees, agents and/or representatives.
416. Defendants also promised to return Plaintiffs’ money if Defendants were unable to secure permanent residency on Plaintiffs’ behalf.
417. Plaintiffs accepted Defendants’ offers and the parties entered into valid contracts.
- 79 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 80 of 82 PageID #: 906
418. Plaintiffs paid the agreed-upon fees, and performed the agreed-upon work, as required by the contracts.
419. Defendants breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with their binding promises regarding permanent residence and immigration status.
420. Defendants also breached their contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to comply with their binding promises to return Plaintiffs’ money if Defendants were unable to secure permanent residence for Plaintiffs.
421. In reliance on these agreements, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money and entered into substantial debts, surrendered other employment opportunities, and incurred other financial losses.
422. As a direct result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages. 423. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 424. This claim is recognized under the laws of Texas, Mississippi, and India. The Court has previously indicated that Plaintiffs need not choose which jurisdiction’s laws apply at this time (ECF No. 60 at 4-5; ECF No. 70). Plaintiffs reserve the right to pursue these claims under the laws of Texas, Mississippi, or India (directly or in the alternative).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief:
a. Declaratory relief; b. Compensatory damages; c. Punitive damages; d. An award of prevailing party costs, including attorney fees;
- 80 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 81 of 82 PageID #: 907
e. A finding of alter ego between Signal International Texas, G.P. and Signal International Texas, L.P., thus piercing the corporate veil;
f. A finding of alter ego between Signal International Texas, L.P. and Signal International, LLC, thus piercing the corporate veil;
g. A finding that Signal International, Inc. is the successor in interest to Signal International LLC, or in the alternative, a finding of alter ego between Signal International LLC and Signal International, Inc., thus piercing the corporate veil;
h. A finding of alter ego among Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., thus piercing the corporate veil;
i. A finding of alter ego between Global Resources, Inc. and Michael Pol, thus piercing the corporate veil;
j. A finding of alter ego between Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants Pvt., thus piercing the corporate veil; and
k. Such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this action of all issues so triable.

Date: September 16, 2014

By: /s/ Eric H. Findlay Eric H. Findlay State Bar No. 00789886 Michael Findlay State Bar No. 24077855 FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C. 102 N. College Ave., Suite 900 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 534-1100 (Office) Fax: (903) 534-1137 efindlay@findlaycraft.com mfindlay@findlaycraft.com

- 81 -

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 76 Filed 09/16/14 Page 82 of 82 PageID #: 908
Pro hac vice applications to be submitted for the following counsel: James E. Dorsey (MN#137893) Sten-Erik Hoidal (MN #35241X) Timothy M. O’Shea (MN #386437) Lousene Hoppe (MN #387171) Andrew F. Johnson (MN #390783) FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A. 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 492-7000 Fax: (612) 492-7077 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on September 16, 2014, all counsel of record were served with the foregoing document via the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Eric H. Findlay Eric H. Findlay
- 82 -

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 146 Filed 07/07/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 3648

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

SATHEESH KANNAN MARIMUTHU,

)

BALAMURUGAN MARIMUTHU,

)

MURUGANANDAM ARUMUGAM,

)

MURALIDHARAN ARUMUGAM,

) Civ. No. 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH

SATYANARAYANA ELLAPU, MOORTHY

)

NADHAMUNI, RAJENDRAN SAPPANI,

)

RAJENDRAN SUBRAMANI, VENKATA

)

SATYA SIVAGI RAO TALABATHULLA, and )

SAMMANASUNATHAN SILUVAIMUTHU,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, SIGNAL

)

INTERNATIONAL, INC., SIGNAL

)

INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, G.P., SIGNAL

)

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

BURNETT, GULF COAST IMMIGRATION

)

LAW CENTER, L.L.C., SACHIN DEWAN, and )

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

)

MEDTECH CONSULTANTS),

)

)

Defendants.

)

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE UPDATING THE COURT ON STATUS OF THE SIGNAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING AS OF JULY 7, 2017
The Plaintiffs in the above-referenced action (the “Plaintiffs”) submit this Notice Updating

the Court on Status of the Signal Bankruptcy Proceeding as of July 7, 2017.

As noted in Plaintiffs’ prior notices, the Signal Entities filed voluntary petitions for relief

under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code on July 12, 2015. In re Signal Int’l, Inc, et al., No. 15-11498 (Bankr. D. Del. July 12, 2015) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 146 Filed 07/07/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 3649
District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”).1 On November 24, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Confirming Debtors’ First Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code [ECF No. 555] (the “Confirmation Order”), confirming the Signal Entities’ plan of liquidation, which implemented the plan support agreement among the Plaintiffs, the Signal Entities and certain other parties, for the settlement of, inter alia, the Plaintiffs’ claims against the relevant Signal Entities. Pursuant to the Plan, a litigation trust (the “Signal Litigation Trust”) has been created for the distribution of the settlement proceeds. That process remains ongoing, as the Signal Litigation Trust distributed Trust Claim Forms in February and the Plaintiffs submitted their claim forms.
The Plan became effective on December 14, 2015. As of that date, pursuant to the Confirmation Order, “any suit, legal action, or other proceeding … in any forum in the United States that is released, stayed, or enjoined pursuant to Article XI of the Plan against or affecting any Released Party [the Signal Entities], shall be stayed, enjoined or otherwise prohibited from continuation as to any Released Party.” (Confirmation Order at 25.)
In light of the entry of the Confirmation Order and the Signal Entities’ ongoing bankruptcy cases, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the stay remain in effect for a further 120 days. Plaintiffs will file a further status update in 120 days.
1 The other entities are: Signal Ship Repair, LLC (Case No. 15-11499), Signal Int’l, LLC (Case No. 15-11500), Signal Int’l Texas GP, LLC (Case No. 15-11501), and Signal Int’l Texas, L.P. (Case No. 15-11502). By the Bankruptcy Court’s order, all five cases are being jointly administered with the Signal Int’l, Inc. case. In re Signal Int’l, Inc., No. 15-11498 (Bankr. D. Del. July 14, 2015), ECF No. 55.
2

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 146 Filed 07/07/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 3650

Date: July 7, 2017

By: /s/ Eric H. Findlay Eric H. Findlay State Bar. No. 00789886 Walter W. Lackey, Jr. State Bar No. 24050901 FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C. 102 N. College Ave., Suite 900 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 534-1100 (Office) Fax: (903) 534-1137

Admitted Pro Hac Vice: James E. Dorsey (MN#137893) Sten-Erik Hoidal (MN #35241X) Timothy M. O’Shea (MN #386437) Lousene M. Hoppe (MN #387171) Andrew Johnson (MN #390783) FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A. 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 492-7000 Fax: (612) 492-7077
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that all counsel of record was served with the foregoing document via
electronic mail by the Court’s CM/ECF filing system on July 7, 2017.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that U.S. Mail sent to the address of record for Global Resources,
Inc. has been returned undeliverable, therefore I am unable to serve a copy of these pleadings on
Global Resources, Inc. The last known address of Global Resources, Inc. is:
Global Resources, Inc. c/o Michael Pol 13 Herring Road Beaumont, MS 39423-2055

/s/ Eric H. Findlay Eric H. Findlay
3

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 147 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 3651

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

SATHEESH KANNAN MARIMUTHU,

)

BALAMURUGAN MARIMUTHU,

)

MURUGANANDAM ARUMUGAM,

)

MURALIDHARAN ARUMUGAM,

) Civ. No. 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH

SATYANARAYANA ELLAPU, MOORTHY

)

NADHAMUNI, RAJENDRAN SAPPANI,

)

RAJENDRAN SUBRAMANI, VENKATA

)

SATYA SIVAGI RAO TALABATHULLA, and )

SAMMANASUNATHAN SILUVAIMUTHU,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, SIGNAL

)

INTERNATIONAL, INC., SIGNAL

)

INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, G.P., SIGNAL

)

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

BURNETT, GULF COAST IMMIGRATION

)

LAW CENTER, L.L.C., SACHIN DEWAN, and )

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

)

MEDTECH CONSULTANTS),

)

)

Defendants.

)

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE UPDATING THE COURT ON STATUS OF THE SIGNAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING AS OF MARCH 8, 2017
The Plaintiffs in the above-referenced action (the “Plaintiffs”) submit this Notice Updating the Court on Status of the Signal Bankruptcy Proceeding as of November 7, 2017.
As noted in Plaintiffs’ prior notices, the Signal Entities filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code on July 12, 2015. In re Signal Int’l, Inc, et al., No. 15-11498 (Bankr. D. Del. July 12, 2015) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 147 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 3652
District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”).1 On November 24, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Confirming Debtors’ First Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code [ECF No. 555] (the “Confirmation Order”), confirming the Signal Entities’ plan of liquidation, which implemented the plan support agreement among the Plaintiffs, the Signal Entities and certain other parties, for the settlement of, inter alia, the Plaintiffs’ claims against the relevant Signal Entities. Pursuant to the Plan, a litigation trust (the “Signal Litigation Trust”) has been created for the distribution of the settlement proceeds. That process remains ongoing, as the Signal Litigation Trust distributed Trust Claim Forms in February and the Plaintiffs submitted their claim forms.
The Plan became effective on December 14, 2015. As of that date, pursuant to the Confirmation Order, “any suit, legal action, or other proceeding … in any forum in the United States that is released, stayed, or enjoined pursuant to Article XI of the Plan against or affecting any Released Party [the Signal Entities], shall be stayed, enjoined or otherwise prohibited from continuation as to any Released Party.” (Confirmation Order at 25.)
In light of the entry of the Confirmation Order and the Signal Entities’ ongoing bankruptcy cases, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the stay remain in effect for a further 120 days. Plaintiffs will file a further status update in 120 days.
1 The other entities are: Signal Ship Repair, LLC (Case No. 15-11499), Signal Int’l, LLC (Case No. 15-11500), Signal Int’l Texas GP, LLC (Case No. 15-11501), and Signal Int’l Texas, L.P. (Case No. 15-11502). By the Bankruptcy Court’s order, all five cases are being jointly administered with the Signal Int’l, Inc. case. In re Signal Int’l, Inc., No. 15-11498 (Bankr. D. Del. July 14, 2015), ECF No. 55.
2

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 147 Filed 11/06/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 3653

Date: November 6, 2017

By: /s/ Eric H. Findlay Eric H. Findlay State Bar. No. 00789886 Walter W. Lackey, Jr. State Bar No. 24050901 FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C. 102 N. College Ave., Suite 900 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 534-1100 (Office) Fax: (903) 534-1137

Admitted Pro Hac Vice: James E. Dorsey (MN#137893) Sten-Erik Hoidal (MN #35241X) Timothy M. O’Shea (MN #386437) Lousene M. Hoppe (MN #387171) Andrew Johnson (MN #390783) FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A. 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 492-7000 Fax: (612) 492-7077
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that all counsel of record was served with the foregoing document via
electronic mail by the Court’s CM/ECF filing system on November 6, 2017.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that U.S. Mail sent to the address of record for Global Resources,
Inc. has been returned undeliverable, therefore I am unable to serve a copy of these pleadings on
Global Resources, Inc. The last known address of Global Resources, Inc. is:
Global Resources, Inc. c/o Michael Pol 13 Herring Road Beaumont, MS 39423-2055

/s/ Eric H. Findlay Eric H. Findlay
3

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 155 Filed 07/03/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 3680

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

SATHEESH KANNAN MARIMUTHU,

)

BALAMURUGAN MARIMUTHU,

)

MURUGANANDAM ARUMUGAM,

)

MURALIDHARAN ARUMUGAM,

) Civ. No. 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH

SATYANARAYANA ELLAPU, MOORTHY

)

NADHAMUNI, RAJENDRAN SAPPANI,

)

RAJENDRAN SUBRAMANI, VENKATA

)

SATYA SIVAGI RAO TALABATHULLA, and )

SAMMANASUNATHAN SILUVAIMUTHU,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL LLC, SIGNAL

)

INTERNATIONAL, INC., SIGNAL

)

INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, G.P., SIGNAL

)

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

BURNETT, GULF COAST IMMIGRATION

)

LAW CENTER, L.L.C., SACHIN DEWAN, and )

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

)

MEDTECH CONSULTANTS),

)

)

Defendants.

)

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE UPDATING THE COURT ON STATUS OF THE SIGNAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING AS OF JULY 3, 2019
The Plaintiffs in the above-referenced action (the “Plaintiffs”) submit this Notice Updating the Court on Status of the Signal Bankruptcy Proceeding as of July 3, 2019.
As noted in Plaintiffs’ prior notices, the Signal Entities filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code on July 12, 2015. In re Signal Int’l, Inc, et al., No. 15-11498 (Bankr. D. Del. July 12, 2015) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 155 Filed 07/03/19 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 3681
District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”).1 On November 24, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Confirming Debtors’ First Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code [ECF No. 555] (the “Confirmation Order”), confirming the Signal Entities’ plan of liquidation, which implemented the plan support agreement among the Plaintiffs, the Signal Entities and certain other parties, for the settlement of, inter alia, the Plaintiffs’ claims against the relevant Signal Entities. Pursuant to the Plan, a litigation trust (the “Signal Litigation Trust”) has been created for the distribution of the settlement proceeds. That process remains ongoing, as the Signal Litigation Trust distributed Trust Claim Forms in February 2015 and the Plaintiffs received 60 days from the distribution date to submit their claim forms, which deadline was subsequently extended through June 15, 2016.2

1

The other entities are: Signal Ship Repair, LLC (Case No. 15-11499), Signal Int’l, LLC

(Case No. 15-11500), Signal Int’l Texas GP, LLC (Case No. 15-11501), and Signal Int’l Texas,

L.P. (Case No. 15-11502). By the Bankruptcy Court’s order, all five cases are being jointly

administered with the Signal Int’l, Inc. case. In re Signal Int’l, Inc., No. 15-11498 (Bankr. D. Del.

July 14, 2015), ECF No. 55.

2

With respect to the claims against the Burnett Defendants, nine of the ten Plaintiffs have

reached a settlement with the Burnett Defendants. The Burnett Defendants have satisfied their

obligations under the settlement agreement and the nine participating Plaintiffs expect to dismiss

their claims against the Burnett Defendants in the near future.

The lone Plaintiff that is not participating in the settlement with the Burnett Defendants is Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla. Plaintiffs’ counsel has been unable to locate Plaintiff Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla to obtain his consent to settle. In the related cases against Signal International, LLC, consolidated in the Eastern District of Louisiana under case number 2:14-cv-02911-SM-DEK, Samuel et al. v. Signal International, LLC et al., Judge Morgan entered an order on August 5, 2016, requiring Plaintiff Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla to communicate with counsel within sixty days of the order. Plaintiff Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla did not communicate with counsel and Judge Morgan entered a judgment on December 29, 2016, dismissing with prejudice all pending claims he had against the Dewan Defendants. Plaintiffs’ counsel intends to file a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Venkata Satya Sivagi Rao Talabathulla.

2

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 155 Filed 07/03/19 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3682
Counsel for the Plaintiffs has recently been informed by the Trustee that the party whose payments on a certain not were to fund the Trust, is in default, and that the Trustee intended to ask the bankruptcy court for permission to liquidate the note in a sale to one of three bidders. The Trustee has informed counsel that this proposed liquidation will likely result in payouts somewhat lower than originally anticipated, but to be made at an earlier date than if the note had been paid over its full term. On October 30, 2018, the Trustee filed its Rule 9019 Motion for Approval of a Compromise and Settlement with the Bankruptcy Court, seeking the entry of an order approving the compromise proposal. Objections, if any, to the compromise proposal were due by November 29, 2018, under an extension from the Court [Bankr. Docket No. 870]. A Certificate was filed by the Litigation Settlement Trustee certifying there were no objections to the Motion [Bankr. Docket No. 872]. Accordingly, a hearing was held in the Bankruptcy Court on December 4, 2018, and there being no objections to the motion, the Court entered its Order granting the motion for approval of the Compromise and Settlement [Bankr. Docket No. 873].
The Plan became effective on December 14, 2015. As of that date, pursuant to the Confirmation Order, “any suit, legal action, or other proceeding … in any forum in the United States that is released, stayed, or enjoined pursuant to Article XI of the Plan against or affecting any Released Party [the Signal Entities], shall be stayed, enjoined or otherwise prohibited from continuation as to any Released Party.” (Confirmation Order at 25.)
On February 5, 2019, the Signal bankruptcy proceeding was closed in accordance with the confirmed plan [Bankr. Docket No. 883]. Part of that confirmed plan is for the Signal Litigation Trust to distribute proceeds to the Plaintiffs in this action, and others similarly situated. Those proceeds have not yet been distributed. Because of the termination of the bankruptcy case, the automatic stay is no longer in effect. Counsel for the Plaintiffs will review the relevant settlement
3

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 155 Filed 07/03/19 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 3683

agreements and court orders and determine if the appropriate course in this action at this time is dismissal, or some other procedural step seeking to preserve the jurisdiction of the Court until the settlement proceeds are distributed.
With respect to the claims against Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., and Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (together, the “Burnett Defendants”), the Plaintiffs have reached a settlement with the Burnett Defendants. The Burnett Defendants have satisfied their obligations under the agreement and, after coordinating with the plaintiffs in the related actions, the Plaintiffs will be dismissing their claims against the Burnett Defendants in the near future.
With respect to the claims against Sachin Dewan and Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (a/k/a Medtech Consultants) (together, the “Dewan Defendants”), the Plaintiffs have reached a settlement with the Dewan Defendants. The Plaintiffs have been informed that the Dewan Defendants have satisfied their obligations under the agreement, and after coordinating with plaintiffs in related actions, the Plaintiffs expect to dismiss the claims against the Dewan Defendants in the near future.
In light of the delay in distribution from the Signal Litigation Trust and the coordination needed to dismiss the claims against the Burnett Defendants and Dewan Defendants, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the stay remain in effect for a further 120 days. The Plaintiffs will file a further status update in 120 days.

Date: July 3, 2019

By: /s/Eric H. Findlay___ Eric H. Findlay State Bar. No. 00789886 Walter W. Lackey, Jr. State Bar No. 24050901 FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C. 102 N. College Ave., Suite 900 Tyler, TX 75702
4

Case 1:13-cv-00499-MAC-ZJH Document 155 Filed 07/03/19 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 3684
Telephone: (903) 534-1100 Fax: (903) 534-1137 efindlay@findlaycraft.com wlackey@findlaycraft.com
Admitted Pro Hac Vice: James E. Dorsey (MN#137893) Sten-Erik Hoidal (MN #35241X) Timothy M. O’Shea (MN #386437) Lousene M. Hoppe (MN #387171) Andrew Johnson (MN #390783) FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A. 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 492-7000 Fax: (612) 492-7077 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that all counsel of record was served with the foregoing document via electronic mail by the Court’s CM/ECF filing system on July 3, 2019. I FURTHER CERTIFY that U.S. Mail sent to the address of record for Global Resources, Inc. has been returned undeliverable, therefore I am unable to serve a copy of these pleadings on Global Resources, Inc. The last known address of Global Resources, Inc. is:
Global Resources, Inc. c/o Michael Pol 13 Herring Road Beaumont, MS 39423-2055
/s/Eric H. Findlay Eric H. Findlay
5

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 1 of 31
CASREF,JURY,PROTECTIVE−ORDER,STAYED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of TEXAS [LIVE] (Beaumont) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−00499−MAC−ZJH

Marimuthu et al v. Signal International LLC et al Assigned to: Judge Marcia A. Crone Referred to: Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn Related Cases: 1:13−cv−00323−MAC−ZJH
1:13−cv−00324−RC−ZJH Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/07/2013 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu

represented by Michael Douglas Findlay Findlay Craft PC 102 N College Avenue Suite 900 Tyler, TX 75702 903/534−1100 Fax: 903/534−1137 Email: mfindlay@findlaycraft.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Francis Johnson Fredrikson & Byron PA 200 South Sixth St Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55042 612−492−7000 Fax: 612−492−7077 Email: ajohnson@fredlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James E Dorsey Fredrikson & Byron PA 200 South Sixth St Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55042 612.492.7079 Fax: 612.492.7077 Email: jdorsey@fredlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lousene Hoppe Fredrikson & Byron PA 200 South Sixth St Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55042 612−492−7402 Fax: 612−492−7077 Email: lhoppe@fredlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sten−Erik Hoidal Fredrikson & Byron PA 200 South Sixth St Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55042 612.492.7334 Fax: 612.492.7077 Email: shoidal@fredlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 2 of 31

Plaintiff Balamurugan Marimuthu

Thomas S Fraser Fredrikson & Byron PA 200 South Sixth St Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55042 612.492.7028 Fax: 612.492.7077 Email: tfraser@fredlaw.com TERMINATED: 07/14/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy O'Shea Fredrikson & Byron PA 200 South Sixth St Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55042 612−492−7373 Fax: 612−492−7077 Email: toshea@fredlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Walter Wayne Lackey , Jr. Findlay Craft PC 102 N College Avenue Suite 900 Tyler, TX 75702 903/534−1100 Fax: 903/534−1137 Email: wlackey@findlaycraft.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric Hugh Findlay Findlay Craft PC 102 N College Avenue Suite 900 Tyler, TX 75702 903/534−1100 Fax: 903/534−1137 Email: efindlay@findlaycraft.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Francis Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James E Dorsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lousene Hoppe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Douglas Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sten−Erik Hoidal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas S Fraser

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 3 of 31

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy O'Shea (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Walter Wayne Lackey , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Hugh Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Muruganandam Arumugam

represented by Andrew Francis Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James E Dorsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lousene Hoppe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Douglas Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sten−Erik Hoidal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas S Fraser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy O'Shea (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Walter Wayne Lackey , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Hugh Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Muralidharan Arumugam

represented by Andrew Francis Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James E Dorsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lousene Hoppe

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 4 of 31

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Douglas Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sten−Erik Hoidal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas S Fraser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy O'Shea (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Walter Wayne Lackey , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Hugh Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Satyanarayana Ellapu

represented by Andrew Francis Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James E Dorsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lousene Hoppe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Douglas Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sten−Erik Hoidal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas S Fraser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy O'Shea (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Walter Wayne Lackey , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Hugh Findlay (See above for address)

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 5 of 31

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Moorthy Nadhamuni

represented by Andrew Francis Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James E Dorsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lousene Hoppe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Douglas Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sten−Erik Hoidal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas S Fraser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy O'Shea (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Walter Wayne Lackey , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Hugh Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rajendran Sappani

represented by Andrew Francis Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James E Dorsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lousene Hoppe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Douglas Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sten−Erik Hoidal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas S Fraser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2014

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 6 of 31

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy O'Shea (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Walter Wayne Lackey , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Hugh Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rajendran Subramani

represented by Andrew Francis Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James E Dorsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lousene Hoppe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Douglas Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sten−Erik Hoidal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas S Fraser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy O'Shea (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Walter Wayne Lackey , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Hugh Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla

represented by Andrew Francis Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James E Dorsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lousene Hoppe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 7 of 31

Plaintiff Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu

Michael Douglas Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sten−Erik Hoidal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas S Fraser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy O'Shea (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Walter Wayne Lackey , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric Hugh Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Francis Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James E Dorsey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lousene Hoppe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Douglas Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sten−Erik Hoidal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas S Fraser (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/14/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy O'Shea (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Walter Wayne Lackey , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric Hugh Findlay (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 8 of 31

V. Defendant Signal International LLC

represented by Jonathan Marc Herman Herman Law Firm 1601 Elm Street Suite 2002 Dallas, TX 75201 214−624−9805 Fax: 469−383−3469 Email: jherman@herman−lawfirm.com TERMINATED: 04/04/2014 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 Email: aweinberger@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Christopher Roux Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504.522.5690 Fax: 504.522.5689 Email: broux@hanrylaw.com TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elham R Rabbani Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 (504) 522−5690 Fax: (504) 522−5689 Email: erabbani@hanrylaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Casey Hangartner Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 (504) 522−5690 Fax: (504) 522−5689 Email: ehangartner@hanrylaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hal D Ungar Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 (504) 522−5690 Fax: (504) 522−5689

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 9 of 31
Email: hungar@hanrylaw.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James L Cornblatt Patricia A Bollman, APLC 3636 S Interstate 10 Service Rd W Metarie, LA 70001 504.218.5887 Email: jcornblatt25@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Patrick Maney Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504.522.5690 Fax: 504.522.5689 Email: kmaney@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance R Rydberg Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504.522.5690 Fax: 504.522.5689 Email: lrydberg@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Masur Davis Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504.522.5690 Fax: 504.522.5689 Email: lmasur@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P Hasenkampf Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310 New Orleans, LA 70139 504.522.5690 Fax: 504.522.5689 Email: mhasenkampf@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Bollman Patricia A Bollman, APLC PO Box 13707 New Orleans, LA 70185 504.218.5887 Fax: 504.304.0890 Email: patricia@bollmanfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert L Keller , II Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell & Hart, LLC One Shell Square 701 Poydras Street, Suite 310

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 10 of 31

New Orleans, LA 70139 504.522.5690 Fax: 504.522.5689 Email: rkeller@hanrylaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Signal International, Inc.

represented by Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Christopher Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D Ungar (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L Cornblatt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin Patrick Maney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance R Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren Masur Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell P Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert L Keller , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 11 of 31

Defendant Signal International Texas, G.P.
Defendant Signal International Texas, L.P.

represented by Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Christopher Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hal D Ungar (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James L Cornblatt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Patrick Maney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance R Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Masur Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert L Keller , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 12 of 31

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Christopher Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D Ungar (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L Cornblatt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin Patrick Maney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance R Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren Masur Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mitchell P Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert L Keller , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Malvern C. Burnett

represented by Timothy W Cerniglia Timothy W. Cerniglia, PLC 1521 St Charles Ave New Orleans, LA 70130 504−586−0555 Fax: 504−586−0550 Email: tcerniglia@cerniglialaw.pro LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 13 of 31

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C.

represented by Timothy W Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.

represented by Timothy W Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Global Resources, Inc.

Defendant Sachin Dewan

represented by Stephen H Shapiro Stephen H Shapiro, Attorney at Law, LLC 700 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 504.309.8442 Fax: 504.934.2000 Email: steve@shapirolaw−nola.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dewan Consultants PVT, LTD also known as Medtech Consultants

represented by Stephen H Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant Signal International LLC

represented by Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Christopher Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hal D Ungar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 14 of 31

Cross Claimant Signal International Texas, G.P.

James L Cornblatt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Patrick Maney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance R Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Masur Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert L Keller , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Christopher Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hal D Ungar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James L Cornblatt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Patrick Maney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 15 of 31

Cross Claimant Signal International, Inc.

Lance R Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Masur Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert L Keller , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Christopher Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hal D Ungar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James L Cornblatt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Patrick Maney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance R Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Masur Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 16 of 31

Cross Claimant Signal International Texas, L.P.

Mitchell P Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert L Keller , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jonathan Marc Herman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/04/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan Dean Weinberger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Christopher Roux (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elham R Rabbani (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erin Casey Hangartner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hal D Ungar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James L Cornblatt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin Patrick Maney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance R Rydberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren Masur Davis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mitchell P Hasenkampf (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Bollman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 17 of 31

Robert L Keller , II (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Cross Defendant Malvern C. Burnett TERMINATED: 06/17/2015
Cross Defendant Sachin Dewan TERMINATED: 06/17/2015
Cross Defendant Dewan Consultants PVT, LTD TERMINATED: 06/17/2015
Cross Defendant Global Resources, Inc. TERMINATED: 06/17/2015
Cross Defendant Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. TERMINATED: 06/17/2015
Cross Defendant Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. TERMINATED: 06/17/2015

represented by Timothy W Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen H Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen H Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy W Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Timothy W Cerniglia (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/07/2013
08/07/2013
08/07/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0540−4255566.), filed by Rajendran Sappani, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Muruganandam Arumugam, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla, Rajendran Subramani, Muralidharan Arumugam, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Satyanarayana Ellapu. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
2 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
3 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Michael Douglas Findlay on behalf of Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 18 of 31

08/07/2013 08/08/2013
08/08/2013 08/13/2013
10/08/2013 10/08/2013 10/08/2013 10/08/2013 10/09/2013 10/17/2013 10/17/2013 10/17/2013 10/21/2013 10/22/2013 10/29/2013

Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla (Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
Case Assigned to Judge Marcia A. Crone. (rll, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 USC Section 636(c), you are hereby notified that a U.S. Magistrate Judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or non−jury trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. The form Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge is available on our website. All signed consent forms, excluding pro se parties, should be filed electronically using the event Notice of Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge. (rll, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
4 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn to conduct all pretrial proceedings. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 8/8/13. (mrp, ) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
5 SUMMONS Issued and electronically mailed to attorney Eric H. Findlay for service in case as to Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT, LTD, Global Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P. and Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Summons(es), # 2 Summons(es), # 3 Summons(es), # 4 Summons(es), # 5 Summons(es), # 6 Summons(es), # 7 Summons(es), # 8 Summons(es), # 9 Summons(es))(pkb, ) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Lousene Hoppe on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4351340. (Hoppe, Lousene) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Timothy O'Shea on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4351523. (O'Shea, Timothy) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
8 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by James E Dorsey on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4351566. (Dorsey, James) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
9 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Thomas S Fraser on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4351623. (Fraser, Thomas) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
10 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Sten−Erik Hoidal on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4352259. (Hoidal, Sten−Erik) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu. Signal International Texas, G.P. served on 10/1/2013, answer due 10/22/2013. (mrp, ) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Balamurugan Marimuthu. Signal International LLC served on 10/1/2013, answer due 10/22/2013. (mrp, ) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Balamurugan Marimuthu. Signal International Texas, L.P. served on 10/1/2013, answer due 10/22/2013. (mrp, ) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
14 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleadings by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Herman, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
ORAL ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 10/22/13. (zjh1) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
15 SUMMONS REISSUED as to Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT, LTD. with the raised court seal for international service. (Attachments: # 1 Dewan Summons)(mjc, ) (Entered: 10/30/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 19 of 31

11/06/2013
11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/18/2013 11/21/2013
11/21/2013 11/26/2013
11/26/2013 12/04/2013 12/06/2013

16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Rajendran Sappani, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Muruganandam Arumugam, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla, Rajendran Subramani, Muralidharan Arumugam, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Satyanarayana Ellapu. Global Resources, Inc. served on 10/17/2013, answer due 11/7/2013. (mjc, ) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
17 ORDER to Conduct Rule 26(f) Conference with a proposed Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 11/12/13. (mrp, ) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
18 ADVISORY ORDER. This case is assigned to Judge Marcia A. Crone, and is referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings. Judge Crone's procedures and rules of practice govern this action unless the parties consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 11/12/13. (mrp, ) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
19 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Balamurugan Marimuthu. Malvern C. Burnett served on 10/15/2013, answer due 11/5/2013. (mrp, ) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
20 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Balamurugan Marimuthu. Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. served on 10/15/2013, answer due 11/5/2013. (mrp, ) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
21 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Balamurugan Marimuthu. Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C. served on 10/15/2013, answer due 11/5/2013. (mrp, ) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
22 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Erin Casey Hangartner on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4408323. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
23 MOTION to Stay re 1 Complaint, , MOTION to Change Venue /Transfer Pursuant to First−Filed Rule by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − SPLC Press Release, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Consent to Sue, # 3 Exhibit 3− Minute Entry (Doc. 108), # 4 Text of Proposed Order re: motion to stay pendente lite, # 5 Text of Proposed Order re: motion to transfer)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
24 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
25 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 23 MOTION to Stay re 1 Complaint, MOTION to Change Venue /Transfer Pursuant to First−Filed Rule, 24 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
ORAL ORDER granting 25 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 11/26/13. (zjh1) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
26 Unopposed MOTION for Declaratory Relief or for Extension of Time for Service on Defendants Residing in a Foreign Country by Muralidharan Arumugam, et al., (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exh A)(Findlay, Michael) Modified on 12/5/2013 (mrp, ). (Entered: 12/04/2013)
ORAL ORDER denying 26 Motion. The undersigned finds Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 straightforward as it concerns the time limits to serve an individual and corporation in a foreign country. Thus, an order clarifying the court's interpretation of the rule is unnecessary. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 12−6−2013. (Hawthorn, Zack) (Entered: 12/06/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 20 of 31

12/16/2013
12/16/2013
12/16/2013 01/03/2014 01/06/2014 01/08/2014 01/30/2014 02/03/2014 02/03/2014 02/13/2014 02/18/2014
02/22/2014 02/22/2014 02/22/2014 03/05/2014

27 RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 MOTION to Stay re 1 Complaint, MOTION to Change Venue /Transfer Pursuant to First−Filed Rule filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
28 RESPONSE in Opposition re 24 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
29 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu. Signal International, Inc. served on 10/1/2013, by personal service. (mll, ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
30 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 01/03/2014)
NOTICE of Hearing: Scheduling Conference set for 1/28/2014 10:00 AM in Ctrm 4 (Beaumont) before Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn. (ttp, ) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
31 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 1/8/2014. (bjc) (Entered: 01/08/2014)
NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 2/13/2014 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn. (ttp, ) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
32 SUMMONS REISSUED and given to plaintiff's counsel for service as to Dewan Consultants PVT, LTD. (mrp, ) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
33 SUMMONS REISSUED and given to Plaintiff's counsel for service as to Sachin Dewan. (mrp, ) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
34 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn: Scheduling Conference held on 2/13/2014. (DCR Op: Piper, T.) (ttp, ) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
35 SCHEDULING ORDER: Docket call is set for 8/7/15 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom #3 before Judge Marcia A. Crone. The case will be set for Final Pretrial Conference and Trial at the docket call. Amended Pleadings due by 5/12/2014. Discovery due by 12/15/2014. Motions due by 1/15/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 2/18/14. (mrp, ) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
36 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 02/22/2014)
37 MOTION to Change Venue by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit David Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Order.S.D.MS, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 02/22/2014)
38 MOTION to Dismiss by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 02/22/2014)
39 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 37 MOTION to Change Venue , 38 MOTION to Dismiss , 36 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 03/05/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 21 of 31

03/06/2014 03/24/2014 03/27/2014 03/27/2014 03/27/2014
04/03/2014 04/04/2014 04/22/2014 04/22/2014 04/23/2014 05/23/2014 05/23/2014

ORAL ORDER granting 39 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 3/6/14. (zjh1) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
40 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Thomas S. Fraser by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
41 RESPONSE in Opposition re 37 MOTION to Change Venue filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
42 RESPONSE in Opposition re 38 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
43 RESPONSE in Opposition re 36 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Hoppe Declaration, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F)(Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
44 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Jonathan M. Herman and Middleberg Riddle Group by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Herman, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
ORAL ORDER granting 44 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jonathan Marc Herman terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 4/4/14. (zjh1) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
45 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Rajendran Sappani, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Muruganandam Arumugam, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla, Rajendran Subramani, Muralidharan Arumugam, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Satyanarayana Ellapu. Sachin Dewan waiver sent on 3/24/2014, answer due 5/23/2014. (mjc, ) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
46 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Rajendran Sappani, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Muruganandam Arumugam, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla, Rajendran Subramani, Muralidharan Arumugam, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Satyanarayana Ellapu. Dewan Consultants PVT, LTD waiver sent on 3/24/2014, answer due 5/23/2014. (mjc, ) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
47 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Brian Christopher Roux on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4624804. (Roux, Brian) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
48 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Alan Dean Weinberger on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4673559. (Weinberger, Alan) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
49 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Hal D Ungar on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4673586. (Ungar,

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 22 of 31

05/23/2014 05/23/2014 06/10/2014
06/11/2014 07/11/2014 07/11/2014 07/11/2014 07/14/2014 07/15/2014 07/16/2014 07/17/2014 07/17/2014
07/18/2014 07/29/2014

Hal) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
50 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Elham R Rabbani on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4673625. (Rabbani, Elham) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
51 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Patricia Bollman on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4673656. (Bollman, Patricia) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
52 Unopposed MOTION for Entry of Consent Orders Regarding Discovery by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Regarding Use of Discovery from Related Cases, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Clawback, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Supplemental Protective Order, # 4 Text of Proposed Order Regarding Protocols for the Production of Electronically Stored Information, # 5 Schedules A − E)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
ORAL ORDER granting 52 Motion. The oral order granting this motion will operate as a signature of the proposed orders. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 6−11−2014. (Hawthorn, Zack) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
53 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Lance R Rydberg on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4740885. (Rydberg, Lance) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
54 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT, LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
55 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT, LTD.(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
ORAL ORDER granting 40 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Thomas S Fraser terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 7/14/14. (zjh1) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
56 ADVISORY ORDER Concerning Page Limitations for Appeals of Magistrate Judge Decisions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 7/15/14. (mrp, ) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
58 ORDER denying 37 Defendants' Motion to Change Venue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 7/16/14. (mrp, ) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
57 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
***Document # 23 Motion to Transfer Venue has been terminated. Motion was not terminated at the time Order # 58 was entered. Order # 58 terminated Motions 23 and 37 .***
(mrp, ) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
ORAL ORDER granting 54 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 7/18/14. (zjh1) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
59 MOTION for Reconsideration re 58 Order by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 7/30/2014 (mrp, ). (Entered: 07/29/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 23 of 31

07/30/2014 08/01/2014 08/04/2014 08/12/2014 08/12/2014
08/26/2014 08/26/2014 08/29/2014 09/09/2014 09/09/2014

60 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DENYING 24 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 7/30/14. (mrp, ) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
61 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE that the 36 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, et al., should be denied because the court has specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendants given the number of alleged tortious acts committed by the Defendants that injured the Plaintiffs within Texas. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 8/1/14. (mrp, ) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
62 RESPONSE to 57 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, 59 Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
63 OBJECTION to 61 Report and Recommendations by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
64 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING IN PART THE BURNETT DEFENDANTS' 38 MOTION to Dismiss. The motion should be granted in part as to the Plaintiffs' Ku Klux Klan Act claim because the Plaintiffs failed to allege Burnett was motivated by racial animus. The motion to dismiss should also be granted as to the state law claims on the grounds that the complaint fails to adequately allege the conduct underlying those claims occurred in Texas. However, the Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend their complaint as to the KKKA and state law claims. Burnett's motion should be denied in every other respect because the Plaintiffs sufficiently stated a TVPA claim upon which relief can be granted, and a motion for summary judgment is the proper vehicle to prove the Plaintiffs state law claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 8/12/14. (mrp, ) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
65 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Andrew Francis Johnson on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4806594. (Johnson, Andrew) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
66 OBJECTION to 64 Report and Recommendations by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
67 RESPONSE to 63 Objection to Report and Recommendations filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
68 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE # 61 that 36 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Malvern C. Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. is denied. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 9/9/14. (mrp, ) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
69 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE # 64 that the 38 Motion to Dismiss filed by Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Malvern C. Burnett, et al., is granted as to the Plaintiff's Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 claim and claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of contract. The Plaintiff are given leave to amend. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 9/9/14. (mrp, ) (Entered: 09/09/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 24 of 31

09/09/2014 09/12/2014 09/12/2014 09/12/2014 09/15/2014 09/15/2014 09/16/2014
09/29/2014 09/30/2014 10/17/2014
10/20/2014 10/20/2014 10/22/2014

70 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE # 60 that the 24 Motion to Dismiss filed by Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc. is denied. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 9/9/14. (mrp, ) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
71 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Kevin Patrick Maney on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4832494. (Maney, Kevin) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
72 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Robert L Keller, II on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4832965. (Keller, Robert) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
73 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by James L Cornblatt on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4832987. (Cornblatt, James) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
74 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Mitchell P Hasenkampf on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4834386. (Hasenkampf, Mitchell) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
75 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance − Pro Hac Vice by Lauren Masur Davis on behalf of Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0540−4835142. (Davis, Lauren) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
76 AMENDED COMPLAINT (First) against Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT, LTD, Global Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc., filed by Rajendran Sappani, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Muruganandam Arumugam, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla, Rajendran Subramani, Muralidharan Arumugam, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Satyanarayana Ellapu.(Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
77 MOTION to Dismiss by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
78 ANSWER to 76 Amended Complaint,, by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT, LTD.(Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
79 RESPONSE in Opposition re 77 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A)(Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 10/17/2014)
80 ORDERED that Burnett's 57 Appeal of Magistrate Judge's order, or alternatively objection to Magistrate's report and recommendation to deny motion to transfer venue is denied. Burnett's alternative request for an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is also denied. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 10/20/2014. (bjc) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
81 ORDER denying 59 MOTION for Reconsideration of Magistrate's Decision by Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International LLC, Signal International, Inc.. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 10/16/2014. (bjc) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
82 ANSWER to 76 Amended Complaint,, , CROSSCLAIM against Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT, LTD, Global Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. by

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 25 of 31

10/23/2014
10/23/2014 11/05/2014 11/06/2014 11/06/2014 12/05/2014 12/17/2014 12/31/2014
01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015

Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, L.P..(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
83 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery for the Parties to Designate Expert Witnesses and Provide Expert Reports by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
ORAL ORDER granting 83 Motion for Extension of Time to Designate Expert Witnesses and Provide Expert Reports. Plaintiffs shall designate expert witnesses by November 4, 2014, and Defendants shall designate expert witnesses by December 5, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 10−23−2014. (zjh1). (Entered: 10/23/2014)
84 NOTICE by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla of Rule 26 Expert Witness Disclosures (Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
85 ANSWER to 76 Amended Complaint,, by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C..(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
86 ANSWER to 82 Answer to Amended Complaint, Crossclaim,, by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C..(Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
87 NOTICE by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. of Expert Witness Disclosure (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
88 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Extend Discovery Deadlines and the Motion Cut−Off) by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
89 RESPONSE in Opposition re 88 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Extend Discovery Deadlines and the Motion Cut−Off) filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Hoidal Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 1)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
90 MOTION to Exclude Kevin Fox Gotham as Expert by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Hoidal, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
91 MOTION to Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Virginia Miles by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of O'Shea, # 3 Exhibit A)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
92 MOTION to Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Dr. Louise Shelley by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 26 of 31

01/15/2015 01/15/2015
01/15/2015
01/15/2015
01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/16/2015 01/16/2015 01/26/2015

Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Hoidal, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
93 MOTION to Limit the Testimony of Enrique Gonzalez, III by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Hoidal, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
94 MOTION to Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Donald H. Strobel by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of O'Shea, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
95 MOTION to Exclude Ronald L. Signorino as Expert by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Hoidal, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
96 MOTION to Exclude Ron McAlear as Expert by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Hoidal, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
97 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Opinion Testimony of Clyde Payne by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
98 MOTION in Limine to Exclude/Limit the Testimony of Florence Burke by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
99 MOTION in Limine to Exclude/Limit the Testimony of Amy Mowl by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
100 Opposed MOTION for Leave to File To File Reply Out of Time by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
101 REPLY to Response to Motion re 88 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Extend Discovery Deadlines and the Motion Cut−Off) filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
102 SUR−REPLY to Reply to Response to Motion re 88 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Extend Discovery Deadlines and the Motion Cut−Off) filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 01/26/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 27 of 31

01/29/2015 01/29/2015
01/29/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015

103 RESPONSE in Opposition re 96 MOTION to Exclude Ron McAlear as Expert filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
104 RESPONSE in Opposition re 93 MOTION to Limit the Testimony of Enrique Gonzalez, III filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Expert Report of Gonzalez, # 2 Exhibit B − relevant portions of Gonzalez depo, # 3 Exhibit C − Speaking Engagements of Gonzalez)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
105 RESPONSE in Opposition re 95 MOTION to Exclude Ronald L. Signorino as Expert filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
106 ORDER granting 88 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and granting 100 Motion for Leave to File Reply Out of Time. Discovery shall be completed by 4/1/15 and Motion cut−off is 4/15/15.Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 1/30/15. (mrp, ) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
107 ORDER TO DESIGNATE FIVE PLAINTIFFS FOR THE FIRST TRIAL. The Plaintiffs for the first trial will be designated by the parties as follows: the Plaintiffs shall choose two, Signal one, Burnett one, and Dewan one. The parties are to submit their designations to the court within 7 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 1/30/15. (mrp, ) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
108 ***FILED IN ERROR WITH INCORRECT EXHIBITS; SEE CORRECTED DOC # 109 ***

01/30/2015 02/02/2015 02/02/2015 02/02/2015

RESPONSE in Opposition re 90 MOTION to Exclude Kevin Fox Gotham as Expert filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Relevant portions of depo of Richard Marler, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Relevant portions of depo of Lisa Spears, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Info considered by Kevin Gotham, # 4 Exhibit 4 − CV of Kevin Gotham, # 5 Exhibit 5 Revelant portions of depo of KevinGotham)(Hangartner, Erin) Modified on 2/3/2015 (mrp, ). (Entered: 01/30/2015)
109 RESPONSE in Opposition re 90 MOTION to Exclude Kevin Fox Gotham as Expert filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1− David, 08−1220 Order Doc. 2197, # 2 Exhibit 2 − 6−15−2014 Depo of Richard Marler, p. 76−78, # 3 Exhibit 3 − 6−13−14 depo of Lisa Spears, p. 426−428)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
110 RESPONSE in Opposition re 99 MOTION in Limine to Exclude/Limit the Testimony of Amy Mowl filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Hoidal Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 1)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
111 RESPONSE in Opposition re 98 MOTION in Limine to Exclude/Limit the Testimony of Florence Burke filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of O'Shea, # 3 Exhibit A)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
112 RESPONSE in Opposition re 97 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Opinion Testimony of Clyde Payne filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Johnson Declaration, # 3 Exhibit to

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 28 of 31

02/02/2015
02/04/2015 02/06/2015 02/09/2015
02/09/2015 02/09/2015 02/10/2015 02/11/2015
02/12/2015 02/12/2015 02/12/2015 02/13/2015

Johnson Declaration)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
113 RESPONSE in Opposition re 92 MOTION to Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Dr. Louise Shelley filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
114 Consent MOTION to Withdraw Expert Witnesses Virginia Miles and Donald Strobel by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
115 NOTICE by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla re 107 Order, PLAINTIFFS' DESIGNATION FOR THE FIRST TRIAL (Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
116 REPLY to Response to Motion re 93 MOTION to Limit the Testimony of Enrique Gonzalez, III filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
117 NOTICE by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. re 107 Order, to Designate Five Plaintiffs for the First Trial (Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
118 REPLY to Response to Motion re 96 MOTION to Exclude Ron McAlear as Expert filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
119 REPLY to Response to Motion re 95 MOTION to Exclude Ronald L. Signorino as Expert filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
120 REPLY to Response to Motion re 90 MOTION to Exclude Kevin Fox Gotham as Expert filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Hoidal Declaration, # 2 Exhibit D)(Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
121 REPLY to Response to Motion re 99 MOTION in Limine to Exclude/Limit the Testimony of Amy Mowl filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
122 REPLY to Response to Motion re 98 MOTION in Limine to Exclude/Limit the Testimony of Florence Burke filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
123 REPLY to Response to Motion re 97 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Opinion Testimony of Clyde Payne filed by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
124 REPLY to Response to Motion re 92 MOTION to Exclude Testimony and Strike the Expert Report of Dr. Louise Shelley filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani,

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 29 of 31

02/13/2015 02/27/2015 03/03/2015 03/06/2015 03/10/2015 03/23/2015 04/10/2015
04/15/2015 06/17/2015
06/26/2015
06/30/2015 07/01/2015

Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Findlay, Michael) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
125 ORDER denying as moot 91 and 94 Motions to Withdraw Expert Report and Testimony and granting 114 Motion to Withdraw the Expert Report and Testimony of Donald Strobel and Virginia Miles. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 2/13/15. (mrp, ) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
126 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION on Burnett's 77 MOTION to Dismiss. Burnett has pointed to no new or different information persuading the undersigned that a determination on tolling can be made without considering extrinsic evidence. Accordingly, such an issue is still better addressed in a motion for summary judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 2/27/15. (mrp, ) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
127 NOTICE. Burnett and Dewan shall have 7 days from the date of this order to designate one Plaintiff for each trial. In the event that either Burnett or Dewan fails to designate a Plaintiff, they will forfeit their ability to do so. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 3/3/15. (mrp, ) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
128 NOTICE by Malvern C. Burnett, Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. Plaintiff Designation for Trial (Cerniglia, Timothy) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
129 NOTICE by Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants PVT, LTD of Designation of Trial Plaintiff (Shapiro, Stephen) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
130 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE that the 77 Motion to Dismiss is denied. No objections were filed to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 3/23/15. (mrp, ) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
131 Joint MOTION for Proposed Order Regarding Discovery Dispute by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
132 ORDER denying 131 Parties' Joint Motion for Order Regarding Discovery Dispute. At this time, the parties have not submitted an actual controversy for the undersigned to decide, and as such, there is no need for the undersigned to enter an order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 4/15/15. (mrp, ) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
133 Order Severing and Transferring Signal's Cross−Claims against Malvern C. Burnett, Sachin Dewan, Dewan Consultants Pvt., Ltd., Global Resources, Inc., Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C., Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C. and Michael Pol. The Clerk of Court shall transfer these claims to the Eastern District of Louisiana. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 6/17/15. (mrp, ) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
134 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON THE PARTIES' MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY granting in part 90 Motion ; granting in part 92 Motion ; granting 93 Motion ; granting 95 Motion ; granting in part 96 Motion ; granting 97 Motion in Limine; granting in part 98 Motion in Limine; denying 99 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 6/26/15. (mrp, ) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
Case transferred from Texas Eastern has been opened in the Eastern District of Louisiana as case 2:15cv2295 filed on 6/23/15. (mrp, ) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
135 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A − Dorris Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B − Werner Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C − Hoidal Declaration, # 5 Exhibit D − Birnbaum Declaration)(Lackey, Walter) (Entered: 07/01/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 30 of 31

07/02/2015 07/13/2015 07/14/2015 07/31/2015 11/12/2015
03/11/2016
07/11/2016
11/08/2016
11/16/2016 11/29/2016 03/08/2017 07/07/2017 11/06/2017

136 ORDER granting 135 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Docket call is set for 12/4/15 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom #3 before Judge Marcia A. Crone. The case will be set for Final Pretrial Conference and Trial at the docket call. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 7/2/15. (mrp, ) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
137 NOTICE by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Suggestion of Bankruptcy) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−1, # 2 Exhibit A−2, # 3 Exhibit A−3, # 4 Exhibit A−4, # 5 Exhibit A−5)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
138 ORDER STAYING CASE PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY. It is ordered that the parties shall file a notice every 120 days, informing the court of the status of the bankruptcy proceedings. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 7/14/15. (mrp, ) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
139 RESPONSE to 138 Order Staying Case filed by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
140 NOTICE by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla UPDATING THE COURT ON STATUS OF THE SIGNAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING AS OF NOVEMBER 11, 2015 (Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
141 NOTICE by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla SECOND STATUS REPORT UPDATING THE COURT ON STATUS OF THE SIGNAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING AS OF MARCH 11, 2016 (Findlay, Eric) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
142 NOTICE Updating the Court on Status of the Signal Bankruptcy Proceeding as of July 11, 2016 by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla (Findlay, Eric) Modified on 7/12/2016 (tkd, ). (Entered: 07/11/2016)
143 NOTICE by Muralidharan Arumugam, Muruganandam Arumugam, Satyanarayana Ellapu, Balamurugan Marimuthu, Satheesh Kannan Marimuthu, Moorthy Nadhamuni, Rajendran Sappani, Sammanasunathan Siluvaimuthu, Rajendran Subramani, Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla PLAINTIFFS NOTICE UPDATING THE COURT ON STATUS OF THE SIGNAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING AS OF NOVEMBER 8, 2016 (Lackey, Walter) (Entered: 11/08/2016)
144 Ex Parte MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Brian C. Roux by Signal International LLC, Signal International Texas, G.P., Signal International Texas, L.P., Signal International, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hangartner, Erin) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
ORAL ORDER granting 144 Defendants' Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Brian Christopher Roux terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 11/29/2016. (zjh1) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
145 Plaintiffs' Notice Updating the Court on Status of the Signal Bankruptcy Proceeding as of March 8, 2017. (Lackey, Walter) Modified on 3/9/2017 (mrp, ). (Entered: 03/08/2017)
146 Plaintiffs' Notice Updating the Court on the Status of the Signal Bankruptcy Proceeding as of July 7, 2017 (Findlay, Eric) Modified on 7/10/2017 (mrp, ). (Entered: 07/07/2017)
147 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE UPDATING THE COURT ON STATUS OF THE SIGNAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING AS OF MARCH 8, 2017 (Findlay, Eric) Modified

Case: 1:13-cv-499 As of: 05/09/2019 02:51 PM CDT 31 of 31

03/06/2018 07/05/2018 07/17/2018
08/16/2018 08/24/2018
08/30/2018 09/13/2018

on 11/7/2017 (mrp, ). (Entered: 11/06/2017)
148 NOTICE by plaintiffs updating the court on status of the Signal Bankruptcy Proceeding as of March 6, 2018. (Findlay, Eric) Modified on 3/7/2018 (mrp, ). (Entered: 03/06/2018)
149 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney FOR PLAINTIFF VENKATA SATYA SIVAGI RAO TALABATHULLA by Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Sten−Erik Hoidal)(Lackey, Walter) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
150 ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TALABATHULLA TO RESPOND. It is ordered that Mr. Talabathulla must notify the court whether he does or does not consent to the motion to withdraw within 30 days of this order. It is ordered that if Mr. Talabathulla does not notify the court within 30 days of this order, the will, without further notice, order dismissal of his claims without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 7/17/18. (mrp, ) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
151 NOTICE by Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla OF COMPLIANCE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Kinsella Declaration)(Lackey, Walter) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
152 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING PLAINTIFF TALABATHULLA. It is ordered that Plaintiffs' counsel shall mail this Report to Mr. Talabathulla at his last know address and email it to his last known email address within 7 days of this order. Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a notice with the court when they have completed this task. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 8/24/18. (mrp, ) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
153 NOTICE by Venkata Satya Sivagi Ra Talabathulla of Compliance (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lackey, Walter) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
154 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING PLAINTIFF TALABATHULLA. Plaintiff Talabuthulla's claims are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 9/13/18. (mrp, ) (Entered: 09/13/2018)