This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Immigration
False Claims Act
Qui Tam False Claim Act

United States of America, ex rel. Carl Krawitt, an individual v. Infosys Technologies Limited, Incorporated, Apple Incorporated

Published: Apr. 19, 2019 | Result Date: Mar. 12, 2019 | Filing Date: Jul. 22, 2016 |

Case number: 5:16-cv-04141-LHK Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Lucy H. Koh

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

John M. Pierce
(John Pierce Law PC)

Jonathan B. Gaskin
(Kaufhold Gaskin LLP)

Steven S. Kaufhold
(Kaufhold Gaskin LLP)


Defendant

Christopher E. Babbitt
(Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr LLP)

Michael A. Mugmon
(Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr LLP)

Danny S. Ashby
(Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP)

Michelle P. Chiu
(Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP)


Facts

Carl Krawitt filed suit on behalf of the United States against Infosys Technologies Limited Inc. and Apple Inc. in relation to defendants' immigration and visa procedures used for their employees.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Krawitt claimed defendants defrauded the federal government by falsely claiming Indian foreign nationals were qualified for less expensive immigration visas, falsely claiming Indian foreign nationals were not being paid for work, and by having Indian foreign nationals perform work U.S. citizens could perform instead. Krawitt alleged defendants created fraudulent letters and falsely described the work certain Indian foreign nationals performed in the U.S., and hid their scheme from the government. Specifically, Krawitt alleged the relevant Indian foreign nationals used B-1 visas instead of more expensive, necessary H1-B visas.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the allegations of improper immigration practices and claimed the B-1 visas were appropriate for the work to be performed by the Indian foreign nationals at issue.

Result

The court dismissed the case, finding there was no evidence that the Indian foreign nationals at issue used the incorrect visas. The court noted ambiguity existed in the proper uses of the B-1 visa, and it could not find defendants knew or were willfully blind to the correct uses of B-1 visas.


#131510

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390