Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=14380&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:20:49+00:00

Document:
This is the third case filed in the Signal International cases.
On May 21, 2013, 33 Indian guestworkers filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, for harm suffered as a result of an allegedly fraudulent and coercive employment recruitment scheme. The case was filed after District Judge Jay Zainey denied class certification on Jan. 3, 2012 in the related case David v. Signal International. Plaintiffs were represented by private law firms.
Plaintiffs were brought to the United States to provide labor and services to defendant Signal International, a Mississippi company in the business of providing repairs to offshore oil rigs, including rigs in the Gulf Coast region. The complaint alleged that plaintiffs paid Signal's recruiters as much as $25,000 each for travel, visa, and recruitment fees, but upon arrival in the United States found out they would not receive the green cards promised to them. Instead, plaintiffs were allegedly forced to pay additional fees ($1050 per month) to live in racially segregated labor camps, and were subject to squalid living conditions and threats of both legal and physical harm if they complained about the conditions or decided not to provide labor.
In Oct. 2013, the Court (Chief U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr.) consolidated this case and Chakkiyattil v. Signal International, Krishnakutty v. Signal International, and Devassy v. Signal International, and then transferred the consolidated case to the Eastern District of Louisiana. Achari was the lead case.
The second amended complaint of Mar. 3, 2014, filed on behalf of 47 guestworkers, alleged violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §1589 (forced labor) and 18 U.S.C. §1590 (trafficking)) and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. §1981), as well as claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. With consolidation, additional defendants were added, including attorneys, labor brokers, and recruiters involved in the trafficking scheme.
In Apr. 2014, the Court also consolidated Singh v. Signal International into Achari.
On Aug. 13-14, 2014, the Court (District Judge Susie Morgan) denied defendants' motions for partial dismissal, finding that plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded factual allegations to support their claims.
On Oct. 14, 2014, Judge Morgan ordered Signal to refine its subpoena for bank records of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argued that the request was not reasonably tailored so as to result in the discovery of admissible evidence, but the court disagreed since the plaintiffs were alleging financial coercion. However, the court found that since the litigation was in a late stage, Signal should be required to narrow its request from all affected persons to the named plaintiffs in the consolidated cases.
Also on Oct. 14, 2014, Judge Morgan denied Signal's motion for interlocutory appeal of the Court's prohibition of discovery on plaintiffs' post-Signal information including immigration status, or alternatively to stay pending application for mandamus relief. Judge Morgan found that the criteria for interlocutory appeal were not present and that a discretionary stay pending the outcome of a petition for mandamus relief was not warranted. 37 F. Supp. 3d 836.
The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On Jan. 6, 2015, Judge Morgan denied Signal's motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for relief under TVPA. 2015 WL 75276.
On June 4, 2015, Judge Morgan issued an opinion determining the choice of law governing plaintiffs' common law claims. She found that the law of India governed plaintiffs' claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and the law of Mississippi governed their claims of breach of contract and agency.
A one-month jury trial was scheduled for July 2015, but the parties began settlement talks instead. By this time, the only remaining defendants were Signal, Burnett (immigration lawyer), and Dewan (recruiters). The other co-defendants were in bankruptcy proceedings, which stayed judgment against them.
During the end of 2015, the parties entered into settlement negotiations, and on Oct. 2, 2015, the Achari (plaintiff), Chakkiyattil (plaintiff), and Burnett (defendant) parties filed a joint motion for dismissal contingent on their reaching a final agreement. In Dec. 2015, the Achari (plaintiff) and Dewan (defendant) parties filed another joint motion for conditional dismissal, and the court vacated the scheduled pre-trial and trial dates for all of the parties.
Also in Dec. 2015, in the related EEOC case, the EEOC announced that the parties had reached a settlement for all cases, approved by the bankruptcy court. Signal would pay $5 million to 476 guestworkers through a claims process. All aggrieved individuals included in the litigation could receive relief in spite of the bankruptcy proceedings. Signal's CEO also issued an apology for its conduct.
On Apr. 7, 2017 in the David case, the parties settled the matter of attorneys' fees. The same day in Achari, Judge Morgan dismissed the Dewan (recruiters) and Burnett (lawyer) defendants without prejudice, though the plaintiffs could, by Aug. 1, 2018, reopen the action if the settlement was not consummated. On Apr. 18, 2017 in both David and Achari Judge Morgan entered a sealed stipulated judgment as to the Dewan defendants, though this document is not publicly available.
The Court closed Achari on May 26, 2017, without prejudice. The Court shall retain jurisdiction. Any party may reopen the case if any of the unlocated plaintiffs are located so that they may be paid pursuant to the settlement agreement.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1589
 §1590
 §1981
 v.