IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
REJI SAMUEL, ATHA MOHAMMAD ABDUL,
KESAVARAO BUNDANKAYALA, RAJU
DIVAKARAN, BIJU PERUMPILLY GEORGE,
KRISHNA GONTHINA, NAYAPPULLI
JAYACHANDRAN, GALLA VENKATA RAMA
KRISHNA, SAMUEL JOSE
KUMRUMTHODATHIL, LOHITHAKSHAN
MADAMPET, JOHNY MANDY MATHAI,
BELTHAZAR PETER, MOHANAN BALAKRISHNA
PILLAI, SANTHOSH KUMAR RAJENDRAN
PILLAI, ABY KARICKATHARA RAJU, SUMESH
PORAMBATHUPARAMBIL SUBRAMANIAN, and
CHANDRAN SHAJU THANISSERY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C., SIGNAL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., SIGNAL
INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, G.P., SIGNAL
INTERNATIONAL TEXAS, L.P., MALVERN C.
BURNETT, GULF COAST IMMIGRATION LAW
CENTER, L.L.C., LAW OFFICES OF MALVERN C.
BURNETT, A.P.C., GLOBAL RESOURCES, INC.,
MICHAEL POL, SACHIN DEWAN, and DEWAN
CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. (a/k/a MEDTECH
CONSULTANTS),
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIV. NO. 1:13-cv-00323
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
ORDER OR ALTERNATIVELY OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTIONS OF BURNETT TO TRANSFER VENUE
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND &
STOCKTON, LLP
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
Telephone: (404) 815-6500
Facsimile: (404)-815-6555
bboice@kilpatricktownsend.com
bcorgan@kilpatricktownsend.com
spangborn@kilpatrickstockton.com
hheindel@kilpatricktownsend.com
William H. Boice
Georgia Bar No. 065725
Brian G. Corgan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Georgia Bar No. 187700
Susan Pangborn (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Georgia Bar No. 735027
California Bar No. 282533
Heather L. Heindel (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Georgia Bar No. 285204
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 1:13-cv-00323-MAC-ZJH Document 123 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 2600
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................1
A. Burnett Fails to Satisfy The Standard of Review for A Magistrate’s
Decision. ................................................................................................................. 1
B. Jurisdiction is Proper in the Eastern District of Texas. ........................................... 3
III. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................5
Case 1:13-cv-00323-MAC-ZJH Document 123 Filed 07/31/14 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2601
-ii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Beavers v. Express Jet Holdings, Inc., 421 F. Supp. 2d 994 (E.D. Tex. 2005) .............................. 2
Black v. SettlePou, P.C., 732 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2013) .................................................................. 2
Buckalew v. Celanese, Ltd., No. G-05-315, 2005 WL 2266619 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2005) ......... 4
Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 1999) ......................................... 4
Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 1995) ............................................................................... 2
David, et al. v. Signal International, LLC, et al., 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK, 2012 U.S.
Deist. LEXIS 114247 (E.D. La. Jan. 4, 2012) .................................................................... 4
Epicrealm Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc., Cases No. 2:05-CV-163-DF-CMC,
2:05-CV-356-DF-CMC, 2007 WL 2580969 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2007) ........................... 1
Gardner v. GC Servs., LP, No. 10-CV-997-IEG, 2010 WL 2721271 (S.D. Cal. July 6,
2010) ................................................................................................................................... 5
Ichl, LLC v. NEC Corp. of America, No. 5:08-CV-65, 2009 WL 1748573 (E.D. Tex. June
19, 2009) ............................................................................................................................. 2
In re Volkswagen of Am., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ................................................................. 5
Jones v. Xerox Commercial Solutions, LLC, No. H-13-0650, 2013 WL 3245957 (S.D.
Tex. June 26, 2013) ............................................................................................................. 4
Murrell v. Casterline, No. 1:10-CV-974, 2011 WL 2600600 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 2011) .............. 4
Reddy v. Superior Global Solutions, Inc., No. 4:11-CV-845, 2013 WL 1949948 (E.D.
Tex. May 9, 2013) ............................................................................................................... 1
Ross v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 542 F. Supp. 2d, 1014 (N.D. Cal. 2008)........................................ 4
U.S. v. Pena, 582 F. Supp. 2d 851 (5th Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 3
U.S. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) .............................................................................. 2
Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) ............................................................................................................ 1, 2
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) ....................................................................................................................... 1
Case 1:13-cv-00323-MAC-ZJH Document 123 Filed 07/31/14 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 2602
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs file this Opposition to Defendants Malvern C. Burnett, the Law Offices of
Malvern C. Burnett, A.P.C., and Gulf Coast Immigration Law Center, L.L.C.’s (collectively,
“Burnett”) Appeal of Magistrate Judge’s Order, or Alternatively Objection to Magistrate’s
Report and Recommendation to Deny Motion of Burnett to Transfer Venue. Burnett, without a
factual or legal basis, asks this Court to reconsider Magistrate Judge Hawthorn’s Order Denying
Burnett’s Motion To Transfer (“Order”). (ECF, No. 110.) Burnett fails to meet his burden
because the Order is not clearly erroneous. Because Burnett did not meet his burden and the
Order was proper, this Motion should be denied.
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. BURNETT FAILS TO SATISFY THE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR A MAGISTRATE’S
DECISION.
Likely because he cannot meet the standard, Burnett fails to state the standard of review
for his motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-
72(b), and Eastern District and Fifth Circuit precedent provide that District Courts shall only
modify or set aside a part of a Magistrate Judge’s order on a non-dispositive matter that is found
to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See Epicrealm Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing,
Inc., Cases No. 2:05-CV-163-DF-CMC, 2:05-CV-356-DF-CMC, 2007 WL 2580969, at *2 (E.D.
Tex. Aug. 27, 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)). Burnett’s Motion is devoid of either
requisite, and thus should be denied.
Magistrate Judges have broad discretion in the resolution of non-dispositive pretrial
matters. Reddy v. Superior Global Solutions, Inc., No. 4:11-CV-845, 2013 WL 1949948, at *1
(E.D. Tex. May 9, 2013) (citing Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)). The Court may modify or set aside a Magistrate Judge’s order only if it
Case 1:13-cv-00323-MAC-ZJH Document 123 Filed 07/31/14 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 2603
-2-
is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id. (citing Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir.
1995)). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.” U.S. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); see also Black v.
SettlePou, P.C., 732 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir. 2013).
A motion to transfer venue is a pretrial matter, and it is not a specifically listed exception
in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Therefore, the standard of review specified in 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A), which is that a District Court may reconsider a pretrial matter where a Magistrate
Judge’s order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” applies to the instant review of the
Magistrate Judge’s Order.
Additionally, Burnett’s Motion is an abuse of this Court’s resources. While a party may
object to the order of a Magistrate Judge, “[t]he district court need not consider frivolous,
conclusive or general objections.” U.S. v. Pena, 582 F. Supp. 2d 851, 853 (5th Cir. 2008).
Burnett’s objection centers on the fact that “Burnett disagrees with” the Order. Burnett makes it
clear in his motion that he intends to continue to waste the Court’s time and resources until he
gets the result he seeks, referencing not only his intent to appeal this Court’s order regarding
personal jurisdiction over Burnett, but also the Court’s order on this motion if the result is not
what he seeks. (Burnett Mot. pp. 2, 6.)1
Burnett cannot meet the standard of review for his motion. The Court should review the
Order for “clear errors.” There is no error, “clear” or otherwise, in the Order. As such, the Order
should be affirmed.
1 The Fifth Circuit has already considered and denied a writ of mandamus from Signal on a
substantially similar motion. In re Signal International, LLC, et al., No. 14-40313, ECF No. 6
(5th Cir. March 31, 2014).
Case 1:13-cv-00323-MAC-ZJH Document 123 Filed 07/31/14 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 2604
-3-
B. JURISDICTION IS PROPER IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
Even if this Court reviews the Magistrate’s Order de novo, Burnett’s motion should still
be denied. Burnett seeks to transfer venue of this action to the Eastern District of Louisiana,
invoking the first-to-file rule. As Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Burnett’s Motion to Transfer clearly
establishes, this case does not implicate a first-to-file issue, and §1404 transfer factors weigh
heavily in favor of retaining jurisdiction in Texas. (Pls.’ Resp. in Opp’n to Burnett’s Mot. to
Transfer, ECF No. 39.) There is not an earlier filed case by these plaintiffs raising the same
issues as asserted here. The David case was filed by other plaintiffs and was never certified as a
class action, requiring each of these plaintiffs to file an action separate from David. When
applying the first-to-file rule, “[t]he concern manifestly is to avoid the waste of duplication, to
avoid rulings which may trench upon the authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal
resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.” Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174
F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). In particular, when related cases do not
completely overlap, “the court considering transfer should consider whether the cases should be
consolidated, the extent of the overlap, the likelihood of conflict, and the comparative advantage
and interest of each forum in resolving the dispute.” Jones v. Xerox Commercial Solutions, LLC,
No. H-13-0650, 2013 WL 3245957, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June 26, 2013). Courts generally look to
the identity of the parties, the claims and issues raised in the two cases, and the prevailing
equities to determine whether there is sufficient overlap. Id. at *4.
This Court has already upheld the Magistrate’s decision that the first-to-file rule does not
apply here. (Order, ECF No. 63, February 12, 2014.) This action and the David action have
different parties, and the claims asserted by Plaintiffs in this action are not asserted on their
behalf in David. The first-to-file rule applies when the first-filed case and the second-filed case
involve substantially similar claims, not when the cases are “merely related.” Buckalew v.
Case 1:13-cv-00323-MAC-ZJH Document 123 Filed 07/31/14 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 2605
-4-
Celanese, Ltd., No. G-05-315, 2005 WL 2266619, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2005). When
examining whether the parties are substantially similar, the key issue is whether the parties in the
two cases are similar enough that a judgment in the first case will resolve the plaintiff’s issues in
the current case. Ross v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 542 F. Supp. 2d, 1014, 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
Two related cases do not allege substantially similar claims, as required for the first-to-file rule,
when there is no risk of either conflicting rulings or the ruling of one court interfering with the
authority of a second court. Murrell v. Casterline, No. 1:10-CV-974, 2011 WL 2600600, at *3
(E.D. Tex. June 29, 2011). Each plaintiff has his own individual facts that will require individual
determinations. David, et al. v. Signal International, LLC, et al., 2:08-cv-01220-SM-DEK, 2012
U.S. Deist. LEXIS 114247 (E.D. La. Jan. 4, 2012) Thus, there is no risk of conflicting rulings
because the specific facts of each plaintiff will dictate their individual and perhaps unique
outcome. Consolidation would therefore not result in greater judicial efficiency.
Further, the balance of conveniences, as described by the Fifth Circuit in In re
Volkswagen, clearly favors this Court as the appropriate venue for this action. In re Volkswagen
of Am., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008). The close geographical proximity of this Court (30
miles) to the former Texas Labor Camp favors this case being heard in Texas. Close proximity
of this Court eases the burden on potential witnesses and improves accessibility of proof. Eleven
Plaintiffs are residents of Texas, and many witnesses for both Plaintiffs and Burnett’s co-
defendant Signal have worked or resided in Orange, Texas and likely still reside in Texas. In
addition, Plaintiffs assert claims against Burnett and his co-defendants under Texas law.2 While
2 Burnett argues that the Court should consider the geographical location Billy Wilks, Rao, Indo-
Amera Soft, and Michael Pol in the balance of convenience. Wilks, Rao, and Indo-Amera Soft
are not defendants in this action and were never named as defendants in this action. This action
is currently stayed as to Mr. Pol due to his ongoing bankruptcy and Mr. Pol’s company, Global
Case 1:13-cv-00323-MAC-ZJH Document 123 Filed 07/31/14 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 2606
-5-
Plaintiffs recognize the ability of the federal court in Louisiana to apply relevant Texas law if
necessary, this Court is more familiar with the laws of Texas and will not bear the burden of
seeking to apply laws of a non-forum state. Finally, addressing the issue of human trafficking is
of utmost importance to this district. As the balance of conveniences clearly favors the Eastern
District of Texas, Burnett’s Motion to Transfer was properly denied and this Court should
preside over this action.
III. CONCLUSION
Burnett’s Motion should be denied. Burnett fails to meet his burden, as he fails to either
articulate the standard or prove the Order was clearly erroneous. There is no clear error – this is
not a first-to-file issue and Magistrate Judge Hawthorn’s reasoning is clear and concise.
Furthermore, the balance of conveniences favors venue in this Court, because the majority of the
harm occurred within this district, involved residents and witnesses present in the district, and
human trafficking is an issue of paramount importance to this district.
DATED: July 31, 2014.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND &
STOCKTON, LLP
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
Telephone: (404) 815-6500
Facsimile: (404)-815-6555
bboice@kilpatricktownsend.com
bcorgan@kilpatricktownsend.com
spangborn@kilpatrickstockton.com
hheindel@kilpatricktownsend.com
By: s/ William H. Boice
William H. Boice
Georgia Bar No. 065725
Brian G. Corgan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Georgia Bar No. 187700
Susan Pangborn (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Georgia Bar No. 735027
California Bar No. 282533
Heather L. Heindel (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Georgia Bar No. 285204
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Resources, has yet to participate in this action. Burnett’s argument regarding these parties
should be disregarded as irrelevant.
Case 1:13-cv-00323-MAC-ZJH Document 123 Filed 07/31/14 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 2607
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 31, 2014, I electronically filed the following documents:
1. PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPEAL OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER OR ALTERNATIVELY OBJECTION
TO MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY
MOTIONS OF BURNETT TO TRANSFER VENUE; and
2. PROPOSED ORDER
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send notification
of such filing to all CM/ECF participants.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that that U.S. Mail sent to the address of record for Global
Resources, Inc. has been returned undeliverable, therefore I am unable to serve a copy of these
pleadings on Global Resources, Inc. The last known address of Global Resources, Inc is:
Global Resources, Inc.
c/o Michael Pol
13 Herring Road
Beaumont, MS 39423-2055
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND &
STOCKTON, LLP
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
Telephone: (404) 815-6500
Facsimile: (404)-815-6555
bboice@kilpatricktownsend.com
By: s/ William H. Boice
William H. Boice
Georgia Bar No. 065725
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Case 1:13-cv-00323-MAC-ZJH Document 123 Filed 07/31/14 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 2608