19-1761-cv Compunnel Software Group Inc. v. Gupta UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 20th day of September, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., WILLIAM J. NARDINI, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _______________________________________ COMPUNNEL SOFTWARE GROUP, INC., Petitioner-Counter- Claimant-Counter- Defendant-Appellee, v. 19-1761 ARVIND GUPTA, Respondent-Counter- Defendant-Counter- Claimant-Appellant, MARTY WALSH, in his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Labor, Respondent-Counter- Defendant-Appellee. _______________________________________ FOR PETITONER-COUNTER- CLAIMANT-COUNTER- DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: SANJAY CHAUBEY, Law Offices of Sanjay Chaubey, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT-COUNTER- DEFENDANT-COUNTER- CLAIMANT-APPELLANT: ARVIND GUPTA, pro se, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT-COUNTER- DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: BRANDON M. WATERMAN, Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Abrams, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Arvind Gupta, pro se, appeals from a series of district court orders in his proceeding against his former employer, Compunnel Software Group, Inc., and his petition for review of an administrative proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) of the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”). Compunnel employed Gupta from 2007 to 2009. In 2008, Gupta filed an administrative complaint against Compunnel before the Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) of the DOL, alleging violations of the H-1B visa program under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) based on failure to pay required wages. Ultimately, in 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and the ALJ dismissed the matter pursuant to the agreement. Gupta then repudiated the settlement agreement and sought review by the ARB. The ARB denied his petition for review on the grounds that the settlement agreement was facially valid and the ARB did not have the authority to review Gupta’s collateral attacks on the agreement’s validity. Gupta then sought review in the district court. After discovery, the district court granted Compunnel’s and the DOL’s motions for summary judgment and denied Gupta’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, reasoning that the DOL’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious because the settlement agreement was valid, the approval was procedurally proper, and the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals