NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3444-15T1 SPACEAGE CONSULTING CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARIA VIZCONDE and HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., Defendants-Respondents. Argued September 12, 2017 – Decided September 22, 2017 Before Judges Yannotti, Carroll and Mawla. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-1196-14. Paul A. Clark, Corporate Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (SpaceAge Consulting Corp., attorneys; Mr. Clark, on the briefs). Colin M. Page argued the cause for respondent Maria Vizconde (Colin M. Page & Associates, attorneys; Mr. Page, on the brief). Robyn L. Aversa argued the cause for respondent Home Box Office, Inc. (Jackson Lewis, PC, attorneys; Ms. Aversa, of counsel and on the brief; Janet O. Lee, on the brief). PER CURIAM The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff SpaceAge Consulting Corp.'s action against defendant Maria Vizconde on the basis that the employment agreement between plaintiff and Vizconde was unenforceable because it violated federal law. The court also dismissed plaintiff's complaint against Vizconde's subsequent employer, Home Box Office, Inc. (HBO), for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration, to amend the complaint, and to disqualify the motion judge were thereafter denied. Plaintiff challenges these orders on appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I. Plaintiff is a software services company that trains employees and then assigns them to its clients to provide software development, application integration, and technology training services. Plaintiff is an employer governed by the H1-B non- immigrant worker provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 to § 1537, and its implementing regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 655.700 to 655.855. In February 2003, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) began investigating plaintiff for allegedly violating federal law governing H-1B employees by not paying wages during their training periods. After the DOL completed its investigation, on March 1, 2006, it issued a determination letter advising that the employment 2 A-3444-15T1 relationship between plaintiff and its employees, as well as plaintiff's obligation to pay wages to its H-1B employees, began when training commenced. The DOL alleged that plaintiff willfully failed to pay required prevailing wages to its H-1B employees during the training period, as required by 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n)(2)(C)(vii), 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(6)(i), and 20 C.F.R. § 655.805(a)(2), and wilfully misrepresented the prevailing wage rate on two labor condition applications, as required by 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n)(2)(C)(ii) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 655.730 and 655.805(a)(1), among other violations. The DOL subsequently discovered that plaintiff was threatening to file lawsuits against H-1B employees if they resigned. On August 4, 2006, the DOL warned plaintiff that it was a violation of 20 C.F.R § 655.731(c)(10)(i) to require H-1B employees ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals