University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name David v. Signal International, LLC IM-LA-0010
Docket / Court 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK ( E.D. La. )
State/Territory Louisiana
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Immigration
Special Collection Signal International Guest Worker Cases
Attorney Organization ACLU National (all projects)
Southern Poverty Law Center
Case Summary
On March 7, 2008, Indian guestworkers recruited for work in the United States in exchange for green cards filed this class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs were recruited to provide labor and services to defendant Signal ... read more >
On March 7, 2008, Indian guestworkers recruited for work in the United States in exchange for green cards filed this class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs were recruited to provide labor and services to defendant Signal International, a company, based in Mississippi with operations in the Gulf Coast region, which is in the business of providing repairs to offshore oil rigs. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant ran a fraudulent and coercive employment recruitment scheme. Plaintiffs also named Malvern C. Burnett and Sachin Dewan, a New Orleans lawyer and India-based recruiter, respectively, as co-defendants for their involvement in the scheme.

The plaintiffs asserted class action claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §1589 (forced labor) and 18 U.S.C. §1590 (trafficking)), the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. §1962), the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. §1981), and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. §1985). The plaintiffs also asserted collective action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and claims for damages under a theory of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Several plaintiffs also brought individual claims of false imprisonment, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs were represented by the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Louisiana Justice Institute, and attorneys from several large private law firms.

The plaintiffs alleged that they paid recruiters as much as $25,000 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, the plaintiffs were allegedly forced to pay additional fees of $1,050 per month to live in racially segregated labor camps with security guards and oppressive rules, and were subject to squalid living conditions, more dangerous and less desirable work assignments than those given to American workers, and threats of both legal and physical harm if they complained about the conditions or decided not to provide labor. Defendant Signal filed a third party complaint alleging that it did not misrepresent the immigration incentives to any of the plaintiffs, and that it was relying on the recruiters and their lawyers to lawfully provide foreign workers.

During discovery, Magistrate Judge Daniel Knowles granted a protective order in April 2009 prohibiting inquiries into current immigration status, current address of any plaintiff, or employers of any plaintiff after they left Signal. Judge Knowles held that the damage and prejudice that would result from discovery into current immigration status outweighs its probative value, and noted the order was necessary since undocumented litigants would likely drop out of the suit if forced to produce immigration documents. In August 2010, Magistrate Judge Knowles denied a motion by Signal to compel production of T- and U-visa applications, since it would necessarily result in an inquiry into the plaintiffs' current immigration status.

On November 10, 2010, the district court (Judge Jay Zainey) granted Signal's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for class certification for injunctive relief, and the plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion to certify the class for claims under the TVPA, Civil Rights Act, RICO Act, and KKK Act. Discovery continued for two more years.

On January 3, 2012, Judge Zainey again denied class certification because not all of the questions of law or fact common to the class members predominated over any questions affecting only individual members. Because claims under the TVPA necessarily involve the victim's perspective, the court concluded these claims were not proper for certification. A determination on forced labor requires the jury to consider an individual's consent or lack thereof and whether the victim was coerced subjectively to provide labor based on the defendant's threats. Even if there were characteristics common to the class, such as immigration status or payment of exorbitant fees, the court found that these characteristics did not substitute for the subjective aspects of why each plaintiff would stay at Signal. Additionally, part of the harms claimed were financial and reputational harms--factors that were uniquely individual in nature.

The plaintiffs' §1981 claim for discriminatory employment practices on the basis of race, national origin, and immigration status was also found to be inappropriate for certification. The plaintiffs acknowledged they would need to forgo emotional distress claims in order to be granted certification. The court noted that the recruitment refunds the plaintiffs sought were not attributable to the workplace discrimination allegedly carried out by Signal. The court was also concerned that plaintiffs' willingness to forgo emotional distress recovery threatened the rights of the class members, since the complaint alleged a significant amount of emotional harm. Given that each individual plaintiff in this case had the potential for a large recovery, the court did not find that class certification would be superior to individual trials.

The court found that the plaintiffs' RICO claims were inappropriate for certification because the predicate acts that need to be proven require individualized proof. The plaintiffs would also be unable to show causation for their RICO injuries without resorting to individual proof of reliance. Finally, the court found the plaintiffs' KKK Act claims to be inappropriate for certification because the kind of coercion needed to show a violation of the 13th Amendment--physical or legal coercion that require the victim to work by law--are not at issue in this case.

Once class certification was denied, it was decided that this case would proceed with the twelve named plaintiffs. Judge Zainey determined the initial trial would consist of five of the named plaintiffs; the plaintiffs would select three and Signal would select two.

On August 12, 2014, District Judge Susie Morgan denied Signal's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under the FLSA for recruitment fees. The court granted Signal's motion to dismiss claims for inbound travel and visa expenses under the FLSA, presumably because the plaintiffs did not plead that these expenses were for the benefit of Signal.

On January 27, 2015, Judge Morgan issued an order pertaining to briefing she had required the parties to submit on issues of law under the TVPA. She found that punitive damages were allowed under the TVPA, while the affirmative defense of in pari delicto (arguing that two parties are equally at fault) is not, as it is squarely at odds with the policy behind the TVPA. She also found that psychological and reputational harm were included in the definition of "serious harm" under the TVPA.

A 24-day jury trial concluded on February 18, 2015; the jury awarded the plaintiffs $14,100,000 in damages. The jury decided in favor of the plaintiffs regarding their claims of discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment, and in favor of the defendants regarding RICO and fraud (these being subsumed under the other claims).

The jury decided the breach of contract claim in favor of Burnett and Dewan but awarded damages to the plaintiffs against Signal, Burnett Law Offices, and Dewan Consultants. The TVPA claim was divided similarly, with the jury finding in favor of Burnett and Dewan but against Signal, Burnett Law Offices, and Dewan Consultants. The TVPA findings for Burnett and Dewan were reversed by the Court on September 9, 2015.

Post-trial, the parties contested whether the Court should enter a final judgment for the five trial plaintiffs despite the pending claims from the other seven plaintiffs or whether the second trial should take place first. On March 20, 2015, the Court entered final judgment, reasoning that the plaintiffs had “been waiting since the George W. Bush Administration for their day in court,” and that there was no “just reason” to delay a final determination.

Litigation remains ongoing for the remaining seven plaintiffs, and a trial date has yet to be determined. In addition, on August 14, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to receive attorneys’ fees, and on September 23, 2015, Dewan and Burnett filed for appeal. Their motions were referred to the USCA Fifth Circuit. As of January 11, 2016, all of these motions are still pending.

Related cases, also ongoing, include Kambala v. Signal International, LLC; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal International, LLC; Krishnakutty v. Signal International, LLC; Devassy v. Signal International, LLC; Singh v. Signal International, LLC; Samuel v. Signal International, LLC; Joseph v. Signal International, LLC; Meganathan v. Signal International, LLC; Marimuthu v. Signal International, LLC; Chakkiyattil v. Signal International, LLC; and Achari v. Signal International, LLC.

Anna Dimon - 04/09/2015
Allison Hight - 01/11/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Discrimination-area
Discipline
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Pay / Benefits
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
National origin discrimination
Race discrimination
General
Bathing and hygiene
Disparate Treatment
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Housing
Loss or damage to property
Racial segregation
Sanitation / living conditions
Totality of conditions
Immigration
Employer sanctions
Employment
Immigration lawyers
Temporary foreign workers program
U.S. citizenship - acquiring
National Origin/Ethnicity
Indian
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Asian/Pacific Islander
Type of Facility
Non-government for profit
Causes of Action State law
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq.
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219
42 U.S.C. § 1981
42 U.S.C. § 1985
Defendant(s) J & M Marine & Industrial LLC
Dewan Consultants
Global Resources, Inc.
Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center
Indo-Amerisoft, L.L.C.
J&M Associates of Mississippi, Inc.
Kurella Rao
Law Offices of Malvern C. Burnett
Malvern C. Burnett
Michael Pol
Michael Wilks
Sachin Dewan
Signal International, Inc.
Plaintiff Description 500+ Indian guestworkers recruited for work in the United States in exchange for green cards.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU National (all projects)
Southern Poverty Law Center
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-LA-0011 : Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal International, LLC (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0012 : Achari v. Signal International, LLC (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0013 : Chakkiyattil v. Signal International, LLC (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0014 : Krishnakutty v. Signal International LLC (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0015 : Devassy v. Signal International, LLC (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0016 : Singh v. Signal International, LLC (E.D. La.)
IM-TX-0035 : Samuel v. Signal International, LLC (E.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0036 : Joseph v. Signal International, LLC (E.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0037 : Meganathan v. Signal International, LLC (E.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0038 : Kambala v. Signal International, LLC (E.D. Tex.)
IM-TX-0039 : Marimuthu v. Signal International, LLC (E.D. Tex.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Insurer Must Pay $100.5 Million in Redlining Case
The New York Times
Written: Oct. 27, 1998
By: Joseph B. Treaster
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Nationwide Settles Virginia Redlining Suit
Property Casualty 360
Written: May. 06, 2000
By: Amanda Levin
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Threats to the Future of the Immigration Class Action
Washington University Journal of Law and Policy
By: Jill E. Family (Widener University School of Law)
Citation: 27 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 71 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK (E.D. La.) 02/24/2015
IM-LA-0010-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 03/07/2008
IM-LA-0010-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
RICO Case Statement 04/28/2008
IM-LA-0010-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons 09/11/2008 (2008 WL 4266214) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0004 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons 04/02/2009 (257 F.R.D. 114) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0007 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (re: Rao's Attorney-Client Privilege) 12/28/2009 (2010 WL 5215326) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0008 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 07/06/2010 (2010 WL 2723180) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0009 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Protective Order 07/29/2010 (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0010 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (re: Signal’s Motion to Compel Production of T-Visa Applications) 08/26/2010 (735 F.Supp.2d 440) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0011 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 11/05/2010 (2010 WL 4667972) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0012 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 01/19/2011 (2011 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 158451) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0013 PDF | LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 01/28/2011 (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0014 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons 03/14/2011 (2012 WL 940058) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0015 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons 01/03/2012 (2012 WL 10759668) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0016 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons 06/03/2013 (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0017 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons 06/11/2013 (2013 WL 2631427) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0034 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons 07/15/2013 (2013 WL 3776670) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0018 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 08/07/2013 (2013 WL 4039460) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0019 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons 08/19/2013 (2013 WL 4446833) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0020 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Sixth Amended Complaint 08/05/2014
IM-LA-0010-0021 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons (re: 12(b)(6) and 12(c) motions) 08/12/2014 (2014 WL 5489359) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0022 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons 10/14/2014 (37 F.Supp.3d 836) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0023 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (re: Signal’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claim for Relief under the TVPA) 01/06/2015 (2015 WL 75276) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0025 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (re: Signal’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice of Law) 01/06/2015 (2015 WL 105747) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0026 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 01/09/2015 (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0027 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 01/18/2015 (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0028 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Trial Memorandum Regarding Forced Labor and Trafficking For Forced Labor Claims 01/26/2015
IM-LA-0010-0029 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 01/27/2015 (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0030 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Trial Brief Regarding In Public Pari Delicto 02/03/2015
IM-LA-0010-0031 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Trial Brief on Rico Jury Charge Regarding Third Party Reliance 02/07/2015
IM-LA-0010-0032 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Jury Verdict Form 02/18/2015
IM-LA-0010-0033 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons 03/20/2015 (2015 WL 1281018) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0035 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Judgment 05/11/2015 (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0036 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment 05/11/2015
IM-LA-0010-0037 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment 05/11/2015 (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0038 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons 09/09/2015 (2015 WL 5254625) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0039 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Judges Knowles, Daniel E. III (E.D. La.) [Magistrate]
IM-LA-0010-0007 | IM-LA-0010-0008 | IM-LA-0010-0009 | IM-LA-0010-0010 | IM-LA-0010-0011 | IM-LA-0010-0012
Morgan, Donna Sue (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0017 | IM-LA-0010-0018 | IM-LA-0010-0019 | IM-LA-0010-0020 | IM-LA-0010-0022 | IM-LA-0010-0023 | IM-LA-0010-0025 | IM-LA-0010-0026 | IM-LA-0010-0027 | IM-LA-0010-0028 | IM-LA-0010-0030 | IM-LA-0010-0034 | IM-LA-0010-0035 | IM-LA-0010-0036 | IM-LA-0010-0037 | IM-LA-0010-0038 | IM-LA-0010-0039 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Zainey, Jay C. (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0004 | IM-LA-0010-0013 | IM-LA-0010-0014 | IM-LA-0010-0015 | IM-LA-0010-0016
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Ahmed, Sameer (New York)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Bauer, Mary C. (Georgia)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Bhatnagar, Chandra S. (New York)
IM-LA-0010-0021 | IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Bjarnson, Joseph (New York)
IM-LA-0010-0021 | IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Bouhabib, Melia Amal (New York)
IM-LA-0010-0021 | IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Davitt, Vincent (California)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Dees, Morris S. Jr. (Alabama)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Ferris, Ashleigh (Georgia)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Gorman, Sean (Texas)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Graunke, Kristi L. (Georgia)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-0021 | IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Howard, Alan B. (New York)
IM-LA-0010-0021 | IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Jain, Anita (California)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Kim, Dahsong (New York)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Lin, Shirley (New York)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Nair, Anjali (Alabama)
IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Rosenbaum, Jennifer J. (Alabama)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Sandler, Hugh (New York)
IM-LA-0010-0021 | IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Sheth, Tushar J. (New York)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Stewart, Meredith B. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Stewart, Jennifer (New York)
IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Suriyopas, Ivy O. (New York)
IM-LA-0010-0021 | IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Suzuki, Chieni D. (New York)
IM-LA-0010-0021 | IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Tsu, Naomi Ruth (Georgia)
IM-LA-0010-0021 | IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Warf, Samuel Justin (Texas)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Washington, Tracie L. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-0021 | IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Werner, Daniel (Georgia)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-0021 | IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Wynne, Robert P. (Texas)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Adams, Glenn B. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Aiyegbusi, Denia Sylve (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Alexis, Ralph R. III (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Binion, Mack B. (Alabama)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Bollman, Patricia Anne F. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Buckley, Elliot Ross Jr. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Buras, Daniel Edwin Jr. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Cerniglia, Timothy W. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Cornblatt, James L. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Curenton, James G. Jr. (Alabama)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Douglas, Donald C. Jr. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Gianna, Dominic Joseph (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Gipson, Kevin Kennedy (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Hangartner, Erin Casey (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Hardin, Emily Stevens (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Harowski, Christie C. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Hasenkampf, Mitchell P. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Johnson, Patrick Jr. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Kupperman, Stephen H. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Madere, Michael J. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
McMullan, Johanna Malbrough (Mississippi)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Miles, Stephen L. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Miller, Margaret M. (Alabama)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Mirabile, Paul John (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Person, John Christopher (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Rabbani, Elham (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Roux, Brian C. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Rydberg, Lance R. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Shapiro, Stephen H. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Ungar, Hal D. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Weinberger, Alan Dean (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-0002 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Whitehead, Michael E. (Mississippi)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Wyatt, Brent C. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -