DLD-132 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-3033 ___________ ARVIND GUPTA, Appellant v. WIPRO LIMITED; AZIM HASHIM PREMJI, President of Wipro, in his personal and official capacity; SECRETARY OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-01954) District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 14, 2019 Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, Jr., and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 2, 2019) _________ OPINION* _________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Arvind Gupta appeals an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying his motion to reopen and granting a motion for a filing injunction. Because the appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. For almost a decade, Gupta has attempted to obtain relief based on his allegation that his former employer, Wipro, Ltd., improperly took unlawful deductions from his wages. In May and June 2009, Gupta filed complaints with the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. The Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division found no reasonable cause to investigate the complaint. Gupta requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who ultimately found “that summary decision in favor of the Administrator is appropriate” and dismissed Gupta’s complaint. Gupta next filed a petition for review with the Administrative Review Board (ARB), which affirmed the ALJ’s dismissal of his complaint. In March 2014, Gupta filed a pro se complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) against Wipro and the Secretary of Labor.1 Wipro and the Secretary of Labor 1 Gupta initially filed the complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which, upon Wipro’s motion (which was joined by the Secretary of Labor), transferred the matter to the District of New Jersey. The Northern District of California observed that Gupta “has no California ties and has shown only a tenuous California connection to his claims.” See Gupta v. Perez, 2014 WL 2879743, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014). 2 filed motions for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. See Gupta v. Perez, 101 F.Supp.3d 437, 462 (D.N.J. 2015). Gupta filed a timely motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. See Gupta v. Perez, 2015 WL 5098173 (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2015). Gupta appealed, and we summarily affirmed.2 See Gupta v. Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 649 F. App’x 119, 123 (3d Cir. 2016) (not precedential). Thereafter, Gupta filed in this Court a motion seeking to transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit his challenge to the transfer order issued by the Northern District of California. See note 1, supra. Wipro and the Secretary of Labor opposed that motion, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals