UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

NARCISO JOSE ALEJANDRO 

CASTELLANOS, on behalf of 

himself 

and others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

 v.

WORLD WIDE DISTRIBUTION 

SYSTEMS USA, LLC d/b/a 

SYSTEMS USA, RAJAT MOHAN, 

JESSICA RODRIGUEZ 

Defendants, 

) 

) 

) 

) Case No. 2:14-cv-12609 

) 

) 

) Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1098 Page 1 of 28
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Plaintiff’s Counter Statement Of Disputed Facts And Additional Facts . . . 1 

I. Defendants, acting wholly within the United State caused a

domestic injury to class members’ property namely their jobs,

income and money. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

Class members had a contractual and statutory right to be paid the 

salary promised to them in the offer letters and TN letters sent which 

were not a mere “expectancy.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

i. The loss of promised income is not an intangible harm, it is a

loss of property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

ii. Not paying an employee a promised salary is not the mere loss

of an “expectancy”, it is a loss of property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

iii. RICO does not require victims to have relied upon a fraudulent

statement for liability to attach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

iv. Class members’ harm were caused by Defendants’ conduct. . 18

II. Plaintiff has adequately pled the SUSA was an enterprise which

Defendants conducted through a pattern of racketeering activity. . 19

III. The intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine cannot be used to defeat

RICO claims in light of the case law finding employees, owners and

corporations to be distinct legal entities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

IV. Defendants argument with respect to the fraud claim fails as it

requires the Court to decide disputed facts to resolve. . . . . . . . . . . . .23 

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

i

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1099 Page 2 of 28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001) . . .19, 20 , 21

Heinold v. Perlstein, 651 F. Supp.1410 (E.D. Pa. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

McLaughlin v. Am. Tobacco Co., 522 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . 15

RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016) . . . . . 11

Sergeants Benevolent Ass’n Health & Welfare Fund v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. 

LLP, 806 F.3d 71 (2d Cir, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Strates Shows, Inc. v. Amusements of Am., Inc., 379 F. Supp. 2d 817 

(E.D.N.C. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-17

United States v. Del Valle, 674 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 16 

United States v. Sorich, 523 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 16 

ii

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1100 Page 3 of 28
PLAINTIFF’S COUNTER STATEMENT OF 

DISPUTED FACTS AND ADDITIONAL FACTS 

1. Plaintiff disputes the contention at Docket 57 ¶ 2 that Rajat Mohan was

acting within the ―scope of his employment.‖ The exhibit cited by Defendants 

(Docket 57-1 ¶ ¶ 2, 8), states that Mohan is an officer and member of SUSA but 

not an employee and therefore could not be acting within the scope of his 

―employment‖. 

2. Plaintiff disputes the contention at Docket 57 ¶ 3 that Jessica Rodriguez was

acting within the ―scope of her employment.‖ Committing fraud, and recruiting 

workers with no intent to pay for their time until they are placed with a third party 

(Docket 60-1 Corrected exhibit Jessica Rodriguez Deposition pp. 44-45). while 

obligating them to show up for work daily (Docket 60-1p.45) cannot be within the 

scope of an employee‘s work. 

3. Plaintiff disputes the contention at Docket 57 ¶ 8, that Rodriguez told

Castellanos that ―SUSA would provide support  ̳once Castellanos is confirmed for 

a project‘‖ because it is vague. Plaintiff disputes this assertion to the extent it 

implies that Plaintiff would not be paid the salary promised in its offer letter and 

TN visa letter until SUSA found a placement for him – which Defendants do not 

assert here. 

Plaintiff also objects to and disputes the statement ―Castellanos stated that he 

1

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1101 Page 4 of 28
understood, and that ―there was no problem for [him] to work by projects‖, to the 

extent it implies that Castellanos was aware that this meant he might wait months 

to get paid by SUSA and acquiesced to this. When Mr. Castellanos asked of 

Jessica Rodriguez in a Skype conversation, whether he should report to SUSA‘s 

offices in Michigan, or to an assignment somewhere else, Jessica Rodriguez 

replied that he would come to Michigan first, and that he would answer calls from 

prospective clients until he was able to get a Social Security card and open a bank 

account. (Docket 59-4 pp. 8-10; Docket 59-6 pp. 5-6 (Bates 103-104)). 

Furthermore, Castellanos testified at deposition that Shortly after arriving in the 

United States, Plaintiff learned from other class members that Defendants did not, 

in fact, have a job available for him, would not employ him until they found a third 

party employer who would approve his hire, and would not pay him a salary 

until then. (Docket 59-4 pp.12-13)

4. Plaintiff disputes the contention at Docket 57 ¶ 9, to the extent implied that

Castellanos understood and/or agreed to not be paid his promised salary even if the 

placements were ―not continuous.‖ Castellanos was never told this directly. 

(Docket 59-4 pp. 8-10; Docket 59-6 pp. 5-6 (Bates 103-104)). (Docket 59-4 pp.12-

13)

5. Plaintiff disputes the contention at Docket 57 ¶ 10, to the extent implied that

Castellanos understood and/or agreed to not be paid his promised salary for 

2

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1102 Page 5 of 28
months. Castellanos was never told this directly and setting up a bank account and 

obtaining a social security card does not take months. (Docket 59-4 pp. 8-10, 12-

13; Docket 59-6 pp. 5-6 (Bates 103-104)). Additionally, workers need not have a 

Social Security Card in hand to be employable, the Social Security Administration 

(SSA) has offered guidance stating that employees can work once they have 

applied for a card and show proof to the employer: https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN05-10107.pdf Finally, Plaintiff disputes any implication that knowing that he

needed to be interviewed by a client meant that he knew, understood, or agreed 

that would not get paid while he was daily going to SUSA‘s offices. (Docket 59-4 

pp. 8-10, 12-13; Docket 59-6 pp. 5-6 (Bates 103-104); Docket 57-10 ) 

6. Plaintiff objects that Defendants‘ contention at Docket 57 ¶ 12 is irrelevant.

Despite what Defendants told class members, the fact that SUSA drafted and sent 

TN visa letters to recruits to submit to the United States Embassy, means that class 

members suffered harm from these statements that were not directed at them, but 

constituted visa fraud and fraud in foreign labor contracting and were essential to 

depriving them of their right to pay. Further, Plaintiff disputes the contention at 

Docket 57 ¶ 12 that he was told by Defendants that he would not get paid until he 

was placed with a client. (Docket 59-4 pp. 8-10, 12-13; Docket 59-6 pp. 5-6 (Bates 

103-104); Docket 57-10 stating ―[t]his offer of employment at will is contingent

upon the following: Your execution of this letter/attached employment agreement; 

3

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1103 Page 6 of 28
Approval of TN Visa; [and] proof of employment eligibility.‖))

7. Plaintiff notes that in the exhibit cited in support of Docket 57 ¶ 13,

Rodriguez states: ―Also I am sending you a format for your resume, all progress 

developers we have modify their resumes, sometimes we need to add a project you 

worked here in the US ( if you don't have one), because that attracts clients.‖ 

Rodriguez disclaimed any knowledge of asking people to falsify their resumes at 

deposition. (Docket 60-1 pp. 11-13) 

8. Plaintiff disputes the contention at Docket 57 ¶ 14 to the extent it implies

that it did not have to pay Castellanos until approved or hired by a third party and 

that not being paid is somehow his fault. (Docket 59-4 pp. 8-10, 12-13; Docket 59-

6 pp. 5-6 (Bates 103-104); Docket 57-10) 

9. Plaintiff notes that the employment contract that Defendants sent to

Castellanos and used to support Defendant‘s contention at Docket 57 ¶ 15, says 

nothing about needing to be placed with a client, nor approved by said client to 

begin getting paid. Nor do the TN visa letters say anything about this either. 

(Docket 59-2 pp. 1-2 (Castellanos‘ TN letter) and 59-2 generally for other class 

members). 

10. Plaintiff disputes the contention at Docket 57 ¶ 17, that suggests or implies

that the TN visa letter apprised Castellanos or the United States Embassy that 

SUSA had no intention of paying its recruits until they were actually working for a 

4

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1104 Page 7 of 28
third party. The letter also states: ―Mr. Castellanos will be working with Systems 

USA as a Computer Systems Analyst from 3/28/2013‖, and ―we require Mr. 

Castellanos [sic] services temporarily for three years starting 3/28/2013 and ending 

no later than 3/27/2016.‖ (Docket 59-1 p. 15, also Docket 57-10) Plaintiff further 

disputes any implication that the word ―temporarily‖ conveys to anyone that Mr. 

Castellanos would not be paid while he showed up daily for work – for months. 

11. Plaintiff disputes the contention at Docket 57 ¶ 12 to the extent it implies

that the conversation suggested that it would take months to be paid. Also notably, 

Rodriguez says nothing about not being paid a salary when Castellanos arrives. 

Castellanos understood this to mean that there would be short wait to get a Social 

Security card and bank account before he was placed in a project. (Docket 59-4 pp. 

9-10, 12; Docket 59-6 pp. 5-6 (Bates 103-104) )

12. Plaintiff disputes the contention at Docket 57 ¶ 24 (―despite his earlier

communications with Ms. Rodriguez...‖) that implies that Rodriguez told 

Castellanos he would not get paid until he was placed in a project. (Docket 59-4 

pp. 9-10, 12; Docket 59-1 p.15; Docket 57-10) Notably, Defendants have not 

pointed to any communication that states this in any clear or explicit manner. 

13. Plaintiff disputes the contention at Docket 57 ¶ 25 in that Castellanos also

stated that he stayed in Michigan after two months because, ―all of the people, 

Jessica and the mates at the apartment, asked me to hold on, that something good 

5

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1105 Page 8 of 28
had to come. And when a coworker -- when a mate was -- an apartment mate was 

placed in an assignment, that that apartment mate would pull me to work in the 

project as well.‖ (Docket 59-4 p. 16) 

14. Plaintiff disputes the contention at Docket 57 ¶ 12, because the paragraph is

written in the past tense and the declaration supporting it (Docket 57-2 is written in 

the present tense. By shifting tenses in the statement of facts, Defendants attempt 

to establish that Rodriguez followed the process in all cases for all class members. 

At deposition, Rodriguez testified otherwise. Prior to working for SUSA she had 

never done any sort of recruitment work, nor worked in H.R. or technical fields. 

(Docket 60-1 p. 38). 

15. Rodriguez was asked directly if she told potential recruits whether it might

take months to find them a project. Rodriguez‘ response suggests that she avoids 

answering questions about how much time it will take to get placed: 

Q. Do you tell people it might take months to find them a project?

A. It depends on the developer. I can't say --

Q: So you tell some of the developers that it might 

take them months to find a project? 

A. I don't want to discourage them, but at the same

time it depends on them. It's a question I get

all the time to tell you the truth. How long am

I going to stay there? It depends on you. It

depends on your communication skills. It depends

on your command of the technology. It depends on

your performance, your personality, if you're

introverted, all those things depend, and luck.

(Docket 60-1 pp. 30-31) 

6

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1106 Page 9 of 28
Furthermore, Rodriguez admitted that initially she did not know how long it would 

take to place recruits into projects: 

Q. You tell them that, it might be a month?

A. Yes. I'm very honest when I --

Q. From the very beginning you told them that?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you know it would take up to two months when you

first started?

A. What do you mean after?

Q. I asked if you told people this from the very first person that

you recruited. How would you know how long it would take to

find a project if you had never done it before?

A. What you mean I've never done it before?

Q. You have one person. You said it was Peggy was your first

client, right? So when Peggy asked -- do you remember if Peggy

asked you how long it was going to take to put her in a project?

A. That was a long time ago. Maybe she did.

Q. So you don't know whether she asked you or not?

A. For sure she asked me, because they all ask. It's very important.

Q. Do you have any idea what your response to her was?

A. Maybe I said it depends on you. You can take -- when I said the

two months is the experience I got from other developers. Of course

I'm not going to say that to the first person, because he was my first

person, right? So for what I was told to say, I was trained, you know,

one week, two weeks, three weeks, one month. It depends on you

more than us.

(Docket 60-1 pp. 31-32)

Notably absent from Ms. Rodriguez‘ Declaration (Docket 57-2) is any assertion 

that developers are told directly that although they will be obligated to be present 

in the United States and at the offices of SUSA on a daily basis (Docket 60-1 p. 44 

ll. 4-20) will not be paid the promised salary for a period of up to several weeks or

months. 

7

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1107 Page 10 of 28
I. Defendants acting wholly within the United State caused a domestic

injury to class members’ property namely their jobs, income and

money.

Defendants‘ argue, without merit, that class members suffered no ―concrete 

domestic injury.‖ The cases and situations cited veer far from the facts at hand in 

this case. In the present case, Defendants committed wire fraud, visa fraud and 

fraud in foreign Labor contracting. All of the actions taken by Defendants took 

place in the United States. 

Jessica Rodriguez, sitting in an office in suburban Detroit testified that she 

placed ads seeking to recruit Mexican nationals to work for clients. (Docket 60-1 

p.28) Then once she identified recruits who fit the specifications they sought she

then explained to them the process and sent them materials via email for the 

recruits to use to obtain their TN visas. This process included a sending a sample 

resume for recruits to follow to add American work experience where it was 

lacking (Docket 57-7 ―sometimes we need to add a project you worked here in the 

US(if you don‘t have one), because that attracts clients ...‖ Rodriguez also sent 

the TN letter to be used to the recruits. Except for the names, addresses, salaries 

and job descriptions the TN letters were identical (Docket 57-2) The letter were 

likely prepared by Rajat Mohan or an attorney for SUSA. (Docket 60-1 pp. 18-19) 

Upon completing the TN process, recruits were told to come to Michigan where 

they would then be placed. By definition class members could not suffer any 

8

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1108 Page 11 of 28
foreign losses once they were here nor could they have been victimized had they 

remained in Mexico. Transport to the U.S. was a necessary part of the enterprise to 

injure class members‘ business or property. Jobs are property for purposes of mail 

fraud. United States v. Sorich, 523 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, whether 

or not jobs are "property", the money paid for the job (that is, the salary) is 

"money." United States v. Del Valle, 674 F.3d 696, 704 (7th Cir. 2012). 

Defendants‘ argument about class members not having suffered a domestic 

injury to their property falls apart completely. Defendants can only sustain their 

argument by ignoring factual allegations in Plaintiff‘s Complaint. Defendants 

assert: 

Plaintiffs allege injury from money spent ―to arrange for travel to the

United States‖ and from leaving ―employment in [their] home 

country.‖ (Dkt. #1, PgID 11-12, ¶ 65). They also claim the out-ofpocket cost of obtaining Visas. (Id., ¶ 32; Ex. 15, Ans. to Interrog. No. 

5) 

But Defendants wholly ignore the assertions in Paragraph 61 and 65 of Plaintiff‘s 

Complaint which states additionally, ―they have not received the $52,000 of 

annualized income promised to them.‖ At the time, the Complaint was drafted 

Plaintiff did not know that class members were in some cases offered different 

salaries. But the point still stands: the Complaint alleged domestic harms to class 

members‘ property and/or business (whether jobs or cash). 

9

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1109 Page 12 of 28
Defendants also claim erroneously, in a footnote that showing that ―Proof of 

where Castellanos suffered his injury does not prove the location of injuries on a 

class-wide basis.‖ (Docket 57 p.9 footnote) This too ignores the fact that 

Defendants conceded that class members were not paid on the date of their arrival 

in the United States and prepared a chart showing the dates, class members arrived 

in the United States and when they were first paid by SUSA. Plaintiff prepared two 

charts to support class certification. The first shows the class members‘ names, 

dates of arrival, and dates of first paycheck. (Docket 21-1 pp.18-20) The second 

then counts the days they were no paid as promised. Docket 21-1 pp. 22-23). 

Defendants provided the names and information upon which the charts are based. 

While Defendants objected to the inclusion of various members for various reasons 

(Docket 24 pp. 8-9), they made no contention that the information they provided as 

to arrival and start/pay dates was inaccurate or incorrect. 

To argue, as Defendants now do, that Castellanos has not proven the 

domestic site of harms to class members borders on the frivolous. The charts and 

Defendants‘ admissions as to the accuracy of the dates provided prove, without 

dispute, that class members suffered a domestic injury in their property and/or 

business -- whether it be the jobs they weren‘t really given (for varying amounts of 

time, if at all), or the money they would have earned had they been paid as the 

offer letters and TN letters said they would. 

10

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1110 Page 13 of 28
The cases Defendants cite are all inapposite. Defendants either misread or 

misapply the Supreme Court‘s holding in the case they assert is controlling over 

this issue. Although it‘s true that the Supreme Court stated ―[a] private RICO 

plaintiff ... must allege and prove a domestic injury to its business or property‖

this is hardly the end of the story or argument as it were. In RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. 

European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016). 

The Court explained: 

We therefore conclude that RICO applies to some foreign 

racketeering activity. A violation of § 1962 may be based on a pattern 

of racketeering that includes predicate offenses committed abroad, 

provided that each of those offenses violates a predicate statute that is 

itself extraterritorial. This fact is determinative as to § 1962(b) and § 

1962(c), both of which prohibit the employment of a pattern of 

racketeering. Although they differ as to the end for which the pattern 

is employed—to acquire or maintain control of an enterprise under 

subsection (b), or to conduct an enterprise‘s affairs under subsection 

(c)—this difference is immaterial for extraterritoriality purposes. 

136 S. Ct. at 2103. 

Here, Plaintiff has brought claims under § 1962(b) and § 1962(c). As demonstrated 

above, class members have demonstrated a concrete, calculable, and wholly 

domestic harm they suffered, and could only have suffered, when they were 

brought over by SUSA using fraudulent TN visa letters stating that they intended 

to hire and pay class members on certain dates (Docket 59-2) with no intent of 

doing so. Despite requiring class members‘ presence in the United States and 

11

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1111 Page 14 of 28
despite requiring class members‘ presence (Docket 60-1 pp.44-45) Mohan testified 

that he did not consider them to be SUSA employees unless they were coding: 

Q. You called Mr. Castellanos an employee; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What made him Systems USA's employee?

A. He becomes an employee of Systems USA once we -- so the

definition of an employee from our perspective is that the person who

comes in necessarily has to start doing work for us. Anybody that we

hire has to start doing work for one of our projects.

Q. So is he your employee before he starts doing work with the

projects or after?

A. Is he an employee before he starts working on the project or after?

Q. Yes.

A. The way we have identified it within the company is for -- we

could have an employee, but if he's not doing any development --

essentially within

our company the person has to -- its software development. The

person has to develop code to be an employee of the company.

Q. Does Jessica Rodriguez develop code?

A. Her role is different. She's not on the software development side.

Q. So for only for the software developers they have to be developing

code to be employees?

A. That's correct.

Mr. Mohan wants the best of both worlds here, he wants a stable of 

programmers at his disposal to bid on and place into jobs, but he does not want to 

pay them while he requires their presence in the United States and SUSA‘s offices, 

answering phones and basically looking for their own jobs. It‘s as if a law firm 

told its associates, ―we‘ll only pay you when you‘re actually doing legal research 

and writing‖ – if the firm lacks work could it stop paying its associates yet still 

require them to be present every day? Of course not. This situation is no different. 

12

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1112 Page 15 of 28
Mohan clearly intended to deny pay to all class members until he placed them into 

projects and sees nothing wrong with it. 

Defendants cite a number of cases in a further attempt to bolster its lack of 

―domestic injury‖ argument. And while the Supreme Court left the term undefined 

in RJR Nabisco, Defendants cannot expect to claim that being denied a promised 

salary while present and working in the United States is not a domestic harm. 

There is nothing about this transaction that occurs outside of the U.S. The only 

thing ―foreign‖ are the class members who would not even be present to be harmed 

but for Defendants‘ scheme.

II. Class members had a contractual and statutory right to be paid the

salary promised to them in the offer letters and TN letters sent which

were not a mere “expectancy”

Defendants next attempt to defend their actions by arguing that class

members‘ injuries are not the type of ―cognizable under RICO or were not caused 

by reason of the alleged RICO violation. (Docket 57 p.12) All Defendants‘

arguments in this vein are similarly unavailing. 

i. The loss of promised income is not an intangible harm, it is a loss of

property

Defendants cite numerous readily distinguished cases to argue that class 

members‘ deprivation of income was a mere loss of an ―expectancy.‖ (Docket 57 

p. 12) Plaintiffs did not have a mere expectancy of employment they were offered

employment by SUSA through the offer letters and TN letters. SUSA represented 

13

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1113 Page 16 of 28
to the Department of Motor Vehicles and the bank that Castellanos was a ―full time 

employee‖. (Docket 59-1 pp. 14-15) The TN visa program allows employers who 

offer applicants a job in the United States to sponsor them and obtain a visa to 

work for the employer in the U.S. The TN visa regulations require documentation 

which may be in the form of a letter from the prospective employer: ― the

documentation shall fully affirm: (A) The Appendix 1603.D.1 profession of the 

applicant; (B) A description of the professional activities, including a brief 

summary of daily job duties, if appropriate, in which the applicant will engage in 

for the United States employer/entity; (C) The anticipated length of stay; (D) The 

educational qualifications or appropriate credentials which demonstrate that the 

Canadian or Mexican citizen has professional level status; and (E) The 

arrangements for remuneration for services to be rendered 8 CFR § 214.6(d)(3) 

Defendants cannot on the one hand argue that they ―told‖ (whether orally or in 

writing or via Skype) class members that they would not be paid until and unless 

they were placed with a third party and then omit this material information from 

the offer letter and TN visa letter and expect these alleged representations to 

somehow bind class members to an agreement they did not make. Parole evidence 

can only be admitted where a contact is ambiguous neither the offer letter nor the 

TN letters are ambiguous. 

14

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1114 Page 17 of 28
 Omitting this material information suggests strongly that the purpose of the 

omission was to cause visas to issue, where they would not have issued had the TN 

letters supplied by SUSA included this information. Both Rodriguez and Mohan 

claim not to know what would have happened had they submitted the letters and 

told the US Embassy that the offers of employment contained therein were 

contingent on class members being hired or approved by third parties. (Docket 60-

1 pp. 22, 34, 36, 38;Docket 59-5 pp. 86, 88) 

Contrary to assertions by Defendants (Docket 57 p. 13) the conduct engaged 

in is long-term and criminal. Since at least 2012 and continuing to the present, 

Defendants have made material misrepresentations to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico 

to secure TN visas for class members, and others. The damages claimed are lost 

promised wages and redily distinguishable from those sought in the cases cited by 

Defendants. 

ii. Not paying an employee a promised salary is not the mere loss of an

“expectancy” it is a loss of property.

In McLaughlin v. Am. Tobacco Co., 522 F.3d 215(2d Cir. 2008), the Court 

considered a case where smokers brought a RICO case where they alleged a ―loss 

of value‖ because they were induced to buy light cigarettes and lost value of 77.7% 

because the cigarettes were not more healthful as purported to be. In the present 

case the loss of income is not speculative and readily determined in each case. 

15

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1115 Page 18 of 28
In Heinold v. Perlstein, 651 F. Supp.1410 (E.D. Pa. 1987), it‘s not clear 

whether the Plaintiff in the case pled an enterprise, which was used to conduct a 

pattern of racketeering or even what any single predicate act might be. The buyer 

of a diamond ring sued under RICO to recover profits lost because he believed the 

ring to be more valuable than what was represented to him. These facts come 

nowhere near the facts here where class members were promised jobs and signed 

contracts entitling them to the salaries when they fulfilled the three contingencies –

signing the offer letter, being approved for a TN visa and proof of employment 

eligibility. (Docket 59-1 p.16) 

This is an enforceable and valid contract and is property – the loss of which 

triggers standing to sue under RICO. Jobs are property and the money paid for the 

job (that is, the salary) is "money." United States v. Sorich, 523 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 

2008); United States v. Del Valle, 674 F.3d 696, 704 (7th Cir. 2012). Contrary to 

Defendants‘ hopeful assertions at Docket 57 p. 14 this was not a ―mere 

expectancy.‖ 

Defendants seem to misapprehend Plaintiff‘s claim when they argue that the 

expectation interest would not have existed but for the alleged RICO violation. 

There was a valid contract and not a mere expectation. The contract was not the 

RICO violation – wire fraud, visa fraud and fraud in foreign labor contracting were 

the predicate acts which triggered RICO liability. In Strates Shows, Inc. 

16

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1116 Page 19 of 28
v.Amusements of Am., Inc., 379 F. Supp. 2d 817, 827 (E.D.N.C. 2005) cited by

Defendants at Docket 57 p.14, a contractor sued because he alleged that he was 

denied a contract he bid upon due to an alleged RICO scheme. In Strates there was 

no existing contract, unlike in the present case (Docket 59-1 p. 16) just a bid to get 

one. 

iii. RICO does not require victims to have relied upon a fraudulent

statement for liability to attach.

Defendants, at Docket 57 p.16, attempt to argue that detrimental reliance is 

necessary to establish liability under RICO, however the Supreme Court has made 

clear that this is not necessary. In Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 

639, 649-650 (2008) the Supreme Court explained: 

―Reliance is not a general limitation on civil recovery in tort; it „is a 

specialized condition that happens to have grown up with common law 

fraud.‖ Anza, 547 U.S., at 477, 126 S.Ct. 1991 (THOMAS, J., concurring in 

part and dissenting in part) (quoting Systems Management, 303 F.3d, at 

104). That ―specialized condition,‖ whether characterized as an element of 

the claim or as a prerequisite to establishing proximate causation, simply has 

no place in a remedial scheme keyed to the commission of mail fraud, a 

statutory offense that is distinct from common-law fraud and that does not 

require proof of reliance. 

Defendants also seem to argue at Docket 57 pp. 16-17 that class members‘ 

injuries were not proximately caused by Defendants‘ acts because their alleged 

knowledge of the scheme not to pay them broke ―the chain of causation between 

the alleged RICO violation (the allegedly misleading offer letter) and Castellanos‘

17

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1117 Page 20 of 28
alleged injuries...‖ This ignores the fact that Plaintiff has also pled visa fraud and 

fraud in labor contracting as acts committed by Defendants. 

RICO provides a private right of action for treble damages to ―[a]ny person 

injured in his business or property by reason of a violation‖ of the Act‘s criminal 

prohibitions. §1964(c). Here, whatever was said to class members, in the offer 

letters or not, is immaterial, in part, because detrimental reliance need not be 

shown to bring a RICO claim. But what was said to class members is irrelevant 

also because Plaintiff has alleged visa fraud, and fraud in foreign labor contracting 

as predicate acts which were violated by Defendants. In those cases, the fraud is 

not perpetrated against an individual, but against the state. 

This fraud against the state is relevant to the proximate cause argument 

made by Defendants at Docket 57 p. 17, in that no plaintiff will be able to say that 

he was directly injured by a fraud upon the state, much less that he ―relied‖ on the 

fraud – how could he? 

iv. Class members’ harm were caused by Defendants’ conduct

Defendants‘ citation to Sergeants Benevolent Ass’n Health & Welfare Fund 

v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLP, 806 F.3d 71(2d Cir, 2015) to support their proximate

cause argument fails in that Sanofi-Aventis is another mail fraud case. The 

misrepresentations under Plaintiff‘s theory are not the cause of their injury, the 

cause is the manipulation of the TN visa system (visa fraud and fraud in foreign 

18

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1118 Page 21 of 28
labor contracting) which allowed Defendants to bring class members from Mexico 

and not pay them even as Defendants required them to be present on a daily basis 

at SUSA offices. The misrepresentations can have no effect if Defendants cannot 

acquire TN visas and bring class members to the U.S. As to whether the visa fraud 

and fraud in foreign labor contracting are the proximate cause of class members‘ 

injuries, the chain of causation is quite direct class members could not have 

suffered a loss of property had they not been present to be victimized by 

Defendants. 

Furthermore, all of Defendants arguments regarding reliance and lack of 

liability require the Court to find that Defendants informed all class members that 

they would not be paid for weeks or months while a job was found for them with a 

third party. Castellanos has vigorously disputed this and as argued above such 

reliance is not necessary for class members to prove their Section 1962(c) claims. 

III. Plaintiff has adequately pled the SUSA was an enterprise which

Defendants conducted through a pattern of racketeering activity.

Defendants at Docket 57 p.18, fail to read Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd.

v.King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001), all the way through to find that it stands for precisely

the opposite of the proposition they promote. The Supreme Court explained: 

While accepting the "distinctness" principle, we nonetheless disagree 

with the appellate court's application of that principle to the present 

circumstances—circumstances in which a corporate employee, "acting 

within the scope of his authority," 219 F. 3d, at 117, allegedly 

conducts the corporation's affairs in a RICO-forbidden way. The 

19

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1119 Page 22 of 28
corporate owner/employee, a natural person, is distinct from the 

corporation itself, a legally different entity with different rights and 

responsibilities due to its different legal status. And we can find 

nothing in the statute that requires more "separateness" than that. Cf. 

McCullough v. Suter, 757 F. 2d 142, 144 (CA7 1985) (finding either 

formal or practical separateness sufficient to be distinct under § 

1962(c)). 

 533 US at 163 (emphasis supplied) 

The Court went on: 

Linguistically speaking, an employee who conducts the affairs of a 

corporation through illegal acts comes within the terms of a statute 

that forbids any "person" unlawfully to conduct an "enterprise," 

particularly when the statute explicitly defines "person" to include 

"any individual . . . capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in 

property," and defines "enterprise" to include a "corporation." 18 U. S. 

C. §§ 1961(3), (4). And, linguistically speaking, the employee and the

corporation are different "persons," even where the employee is the

corporation's sole owner. After all, incorporation's basic purpose is to

create a distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and

privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created

it, who own it, or whom it employs. See United States v. Bestfoods,

524 U. S. 51, 61-62 (1998); Burnet v. Clark, 287 U. S. 410, 415

(1932); 1 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations

§§ 7, 14 (rev. ed. 1999). Id.

Defendants argue at Docket 57 p.25, that ―Plaintiffs cannot evade the 

person-enterprise distinction by relying on the bare allegation that the enterprise 

consisted of SUSA, Systems USA, Inc. and Systems Consulting LLC. Here, as in 

Kushner, the only entity needed to establish a RICO enterprise is SUSA. In 

addition to serving as a tech labor contractor, the TN letter stated that ―Systems 

USA is a leading distributor of IT and Consumer products with headquarters in 

Michigan, USA and offices in Singapore and India.‖ (Docket 59-1 p. 2) Therefore, 

20

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1120 Page 23 of 28
apart from the actions of Mohan and Rodriguez it is a corporation with presumably 

legal and legitimate ends. 

By undertaking the TN visa fraud recruiting scheme, Mohan and Rodriguez 

began to operate the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity – many 

more than ten TN visa letters were provided by Defendants (Docket 59-2) to class 

members to fraudulently bring them to the U.S. by omitting any mention of the 

peculiar compensation agreement they had in mind. 

As in Kushner, here too Mohan is an owner and member of the LLC, but is 

legally distinct from SUSA. Rodriguez, as an employee and not an owner also is a 

different and distinct person from the enterprise which is SUSA. ―A corporate 

employee who conducts the corporation's affairs through an unlawful RICO 

"pattern . . . of activity," § 1962(c), uses that corporation as a "vehicle" whether he 

is, or is not, its sole owner.‖ Kushner, 533 US at 164-5. The Court explained 

further: 

an enterprise is "`operated,' " within § 1962(c)'s meaning, "not just by 

upper management but also by lower rung participants in the 

enterprise who are under the direction of upper management " 

(emphasis added)). It would immunize from RICO liability many of 

those at whom this Court has said RICO directly aims—e. g., highranking individuals in an illegitimate criminal enterprise, who, 

seeking to further the purposes of that enterprise, act within the scope 

of their authority. Id. 

The Court concluded, ―we hold simply that the need for two distinct entities is 

satisfied; hence, the RICO provision before us applies when a corporate employee 

21

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1121 Page 24 of 28
unlawfully conducts the affairs of the corporation of which he is the sole owner—

whether he conducts those affairs within the scope, or beyond the scope, of 

corporate authority.‖ In the present case where Mohan is an owner/member of the 

LLC, SUSA is a distinct entity and so is Rodriguez, the need for at least two 

distinct entities is satisfied as well.1

 

IV. The intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine cannot be used to defeat RICO

claims in light of the case law finding employees, owners and

corporations to be distinct legal entities.

Defendants cites cases, mostly from the 1980s and 1990s to assert that the

intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine bars Plaintiff‘s claims under Section 1962(d). 

Given the foregoing discussion of Kushner, it seems unlikely that the Court would 

agree with these older precedents. However, Rodriguez‘ deposition testimony 

suggests that there are in fact two corporations participating in the scheme. 

Although not alleged in the Complaint (because it was unknown at the time), the 

fact that Rodriguez continues to be paid by SUSA (Docket 60-1 pp. 17-18), while 

conducting largely the same scheme for Precedency Solutions, makes Precedency a 

potential Defendant as well. Precedency is a distinct entity from SUSA and 

although Rodriguez performs services for it she cannot be said to be its employee 

1 Although not alleged in the Complaint (because it was unknown at the time), the fact that 

Rodriguez continues to be paid by SUSA (Docket 60-1 pp. 17-18) while conducting largely the 

same scheme for Precedency Solutions, makes Precedency a potential Defendant as well either 

through an alter-ego theory, veil piercing theory (because by paying Rodriguez out of SUSA 

funds for performing Work for Precedency is a comingling of assets) or under RICO section 

1962(a).

22

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1122 Page 25 of 28
as she is paid by SUSA. Precedency may also be subject to a claim under Section 

1962(a) as it receives the benefit of Rodriguez‘ work which is paid by funds 

acquired through a RICO scheme. That Defendants have continued to withhold 

material information as to the nature of the offered ―employment‖ from the United 

States Embassy in the TN letters sent to sponsor recruits by Mohan and Rodriguez 

through Precedency Solutions, speaks volumes about the impunity with which they 

expect to be treated. (Docket 59-1 pp. 22, 36) 

V. Defendants argument with respect to the fraud claim fails as it requires

the Court to decide disputed facts to resolve.

Defendants argue in Section IV of their brief (Docket 57 pp. 21-24) that

Castellanos did not reasonably rely on the offer letters and other correspondence. 

This entire section relies on facts that are disputed by Plaintiff as set out in the 

Statement of Disputed Facts at pages 2-7 above. Any cursory reading of the 

communications between Rodriguez reveals an astounding lack of candor and 

attempts to dissemble when asked specific questions. (Docket 57-5, 57-6, 57-13) 

As to the argument that the offer letter referred to another employment agreement 

that was ―attached‖, no such attachment was included nor has it ever been 

presented. One interpretation of the ―attached‖ language was that the offer letter 

itself was an attachment to an email. Because Defendants arguments to rule in 

their favor on Plaintiff‘s fraud claims require the Court to read the facts in the light 

most favorable to Defendants and to make inferences in their favor, the Court 

23

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1123 Page 26 of 28
should deny Defendants the benefit afforded to non-moving parties and deny 

Defendants‘ motion.

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff, has shown that he and all class members were injured in their 

property, namely the jobs they contracted to fill in the United States and for which 

they were denied compensation even as Defendants required class members to be 

present on a daily basis in their offices. Defendants run SUSA (and Precedency 

too) as a corrupt enterprise by engaging in a pattern of wire fraud, visa fraud and 

labor contracting fraud and these acts were both the cause in fact and proximate 

cause of class members‘ losses. Plaintiff also has made out the elements of a RICO 

conspiracy. As to the claims for fraud, Plaintiff recognizes that there are disputes 

of material facts which preclude Summary Judgment.

For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny 

Defendants‘ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in its entirety.

By: /s Jorge Sánchez 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Lopez & Sanchez 

77 W. Washington St. 

Suite 1313 

Chicago, IL 60602 

(312) 420-6784

24

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1124 Page 27 of 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jorge Sanchez, an attorney, certify that on July 15, 2017 I electronically filed the 

foregoing PLAINTIFF‘S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS‘ MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT with the Clerk of the Court of the

United States Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Division, using the 

CM/ECF System, which will send an electronic notification to the following 

counsel of record:

Michael C. Simoni

Miller Canfield

840 West Long Lake Road, Suite 150

Troy, Michigan 48098 (USA)

T +1.313.496.7583

simoni@millercanfield.com

and

Nicole Marshall

Marshall Law, PLLC

Attorneys for Defendants

189 W. Clarkson Rd. Ste.

Lake Orion, MI 48362

P (248) 429-9529

nicole@marshalllawmi.com

s/ Jorge Sánchez

Case 2:14-cv-12609-SJM-RSW ECF No. 67 filed 08/11/17 PageID.1125 Page 28 of 28