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. )
Additional Docket(s) 15−30464  [ 15-30464 ]
15-30862  [ 15-30862 ]
State/Territory Louisiana
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection Signal International Guest Worker Cases
Attorney Organization ACLU National (all projects)
Asian American Legal Defense & Educ. Fund (AALDF)
Southern Poverty Law Center
Case Summary
This is the first case filed in the Signal International cases.

On Mar. 7, 2008, twelve Indian guestworkers recruited for work in the United States in exchange for green cards filed this class-action ... read more >
This is the first case filed in the Signal International cases.

On Mar. 7, 2008, twelve Indian guestworkers recruited for work in the United States in exchange for green cards filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, 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 was in the business of providing repairs to offshore oil rigs. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant ran a fraudulent and coercive employment recruitment scheme.

Plaintiffs also named the following agents as co-defendants for their involvement in the scheme: Malvern C. Burnett, his law offices, and his Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center (New Orleans lawyers); Global Resources and Michael Pol (Mississippi-based recruiters); Dewan Consultants and Sachin Dewan (India-based recruiters); Indo-Amerisoft and Kurella Rao (New Orleans labor brokers); and J&M Associates (Mississippi-based labor brokers). Plaintiffs later added others, including Billy Wilks of J&M.

Plaintiffs asserted class action claims, on behalf of a class of over 500 workers, under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) (18 U.S.C. § 1589 (forced labor) and 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (trafficking)), the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) 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). Plaintiffs also asserted collective action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 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. 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.

Plaintiffs alleged that they paid recruiters as much as $20,000 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 of $1,050 per month to live in racially segregated labor camps in Mississippi and Texas 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 Apr. 2009 prohibiting inquiries into current immigration status, current address of any plaintiff, or employers of any plaintiff after they left Signal. Magistrate Judge Knowles held that the damage and prejudice that would result from discovery into current immigration status outweighed 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 Aug. 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 Nov. 10, 2010, the District Court (Judge Jay Zainey) granted Signal's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for class certification for injunctive relief, and 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 Jan. 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.

Plaintiffs' § 1981 claim for discriminatory employment practices on the basis of race, national origin, and immigration status was also found to be inappropriate for class status. Plaintiffs acknowledged they would need to forgo emotional distress claims in order to be granted class certification. The Court noted that the recruitment refunds 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 plaintiffs' RICO claims were inappropriate for certification because the predicate acts that need to be proven require individualized proof. Plaintiffs would also be unable to show causation for their RICO injuries without resorting to individual proof of reliance. Finally, the Court found 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 requires the victim to work by law -- was 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 July 12, 2014, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied Signal's motion to transfer all of the cases pending against it to the Eastern District of Louisiana.

On Aug. 5, 2014, plaintiffs filed their final Sixth Amended Complaint.

On Aug. 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, because plaintiffs did not plead that these expenses were primarily for the benefit of Signal.

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.

On Jan. 6, 2015, Judge Morgan determined that the law of India would govern the claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation, while the law of Mississippi would govern the claims of breach of contract, quasi-contract, and agency.

On Jan. 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.

By the time of trial, the only remaining defendants were Signal, Burnett, and Dewan. (Co-defendants J&M, Rao, and Pol were all in bankruptcy proceedings, which stayed judgment against them.)

A 24-day jury trial concluded on Feb. 18, 2015; the jury awarded plaintiffs $14,100,000 in damages. The jury decided in favor of 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 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 Sept. 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 Mar. 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.

On Aug. 14, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to receive attorneys’ fees (for over $5 million). After the District Court enjoined the Burnett defendants from transferring money out of their bank account, on Aug. 28, Dewan and Burnett both appealed plaintiffs' motion on Sept. 23, 2015. However, parties appear to have settled the matter, including dismissing the appeal. We do not have information on the terms of this specific settlement of attorneys' fees.

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. 18, 2017 in David, the District Court entered a sealed stipulated judgment as to Dewan. The same day, the Court dismissed Burnett as a defendant, with prejudice. On Apr. 26 the Court also dismissed Dewan as a defendant, without prejudice. The court ruled plaintiffs had the right to reopen the action against Dewan if the settlement was not carried out by Aug. 1, 2018. On Aug. 2, 2018 the plaintiffs and defendants submitted a Joint Motion to extend the time period Dewan had to complete the settlement until October 1, 2018, with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement against Dewan.

As of the writing of this summary (on October 17, 2018), there has been no indication that the defendants completed the settlement. It is unclear whether litigation remains ongoing for the remaining seven plaintiffs, as a trial date has yet to be determined; or whether their claims have been settled.

The many related cases are listed below.

Anna Dimon - 04/09/2015
Allison Hight - 01/11/2016
Ava Morgenstern - 11/30/2017
Anna Brito - 10/17/2018


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/Border
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
Special Case Type
Multi-District Litigation (MDL)
Type of Facility
Non-government for profit
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1981
42 U.S.C. § 1985
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq.
State law
Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. § 1589
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)
Asian American Legal Defense & Educ. Fund (AALDF)
Southern Poverty Law Center
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Damages
Source of Relief Litigation
Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Filing Year 2008
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
  Settlements End Multiple H-2B Human-Trafficking Suits
www.law360.com
Date: Apr. 7, 2017
By: Knaub, Kelly
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Signal International Lawsuits
www.splcenter.org
Date: Feb. 28, 2015
By: Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  David, et al. v. Signal International, LLC, et al.
www.aclu.org
Date: May 29, 2013
By: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/12/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint [ECF# 1]
IM-LA-0010-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/07/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
RICO Case Statement [ECF# 45]
IM-LA-0010-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/28/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons [ECF# 156] (2008 WL 4266214) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 09/11/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons [ECF# 367] (257 F.R.D. 114) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/02/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (re: Rao's Attorney-Client Privilege) [ECF# 617] (2009 WL 5215326) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0008.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 12/28/2009
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 747] (2010 WL 2723180) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0009.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 07/06/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Protective Order [ECF# 797] (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/29/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (re: Signal’s Motion to Compel Production of T-Visa Applications) [ECF# 854] (735 F.Supp.2d 440) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0011.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/26/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 912] (2010 WL 4667972) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0012.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 11/05/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 982] (2011 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 158451) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0013.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/19/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 991] (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/28/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons [ECF# 1043] (2012 WL 940058) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0015.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 03/14/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons [ECF# 1117] (2012 WL 10759668) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0016.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/03/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons [ECF# 1347] (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0017.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/03/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons [ECF# 1349] (2013 WL 2631427) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0034.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/11/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons [ECF# 1359] (2013 WL 3776670) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0018.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 07/15/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 1366] (2013 WL 4039460) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0019.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/07/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons [ECF# 1373] (2013 WL 4446833) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0020.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 08/19/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Sixth Amended Complaint [ECF# 1706]
IM-LA-0010-0021.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/05/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons (re: 12(b)(6) and 12(c) motions) [ECF# 1713] (37 F.Supp.3d 822) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0022.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/12/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons [ECF# 1818] (37 F.Supp.3d 836) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0023.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/14/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order (re: Signal’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Choice of Law) [ECF# 2075] (2015 WL 105747) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0026.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/06/2015
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) [ECF# 2077] (2015 WL 75276) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0025.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 01/06/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 2115] (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0027.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/09/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 2161] (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0028.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/18/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Trial Memorandum Regarding Forced Labor and Trafficking For Forced Labor Claims [ECF# 2202]
IM-LA-0010-0029.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/26/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 2213] (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0030.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/27/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Trial Brief Regarding In Public Pari Delicto [ECF# 2234]
IM-LA-0010-0031.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/03/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Trial Brief on Rico Jury Charge Regarding Third Party Reliance [ECF# 2254]
IM-LA-0010-0032.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/07/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Jury Verdict Form [ECF# 2272]
IM-LA-0010-0033.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/18/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons (2015 WL 1281018) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0035.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 03/20/2015
Source: Bloomberg Law
Judgment [ECF# 2406] (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0036.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/11/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment [ECF# 2408] (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0037.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/11/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment [ECF# 2409] (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0038.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/11/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 2527] (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0041.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/28/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Reasons (2015 WL 5254625) (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0039.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 09/09/2015
Source: Bloomberg Law
Order of Partial Dismissal [ECF# 2652] (E.D. La.)
IM-LA-0010-0040.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/26/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
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 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Morgan, Susie [Sue, Donna] (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-0010-0040 | IM-LA-0010-0041 | 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
Plaintiff's Lawyers Ahmed, Sameer (New York)
IM-LA-0010-9000
Bauer, Mary C. (Virginia)
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, Jennifer M. (New York)
IM-LA-0010-0032 | IM-LA-0010-9000
Stewart, Meredith B. (Louisiana)
IM-LA-0010-0029 | IM-LA-0010-0031 | 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
Davis, Lauren Masur (Louisiana)
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
Keller, Robert Louis (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

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -