Gupta v. Headstrong, Inc. (Board decision, June 4, 2014)

Plain-English summary

Arvind Gupta asked the Board to review a judge's orders keeping Headstrong as the sole respondent and denying a default motion while his case was still pending. The judge had denied Gupta's request to certify an issue for interim appeal. The Board found no exceptional circumstances to justify discretionary review without certification. It denied the petition and treated his request for more time as moot, leaving the underlying case before the judge.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: Immigration and Nationality Act review provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)(2); Board review rule, 20 C.F.R. § 655.845; interlocutory appeal framework, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• Outcome: Petition for interim Board review denied; merits case remained pending.
• Key point: Neither certification from the judge nor exceptional circumstances supported interim review.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor
Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

IN THE MATTER OF:

ARVIND GUPTA,
ARB CASE NO. 14-058

PROSECUTING PARTY,
ALJ CASE NO. 2014-LCA-008

v. DATE: June 4, 2014

HEADSTRONG, INC.,

RESPONDENT.

BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Arvind Gupta, pro se, Mumbai, India

Before: E. Cooper Brown, Deputy Chief Administrative Appeals Judge; Joanne Royce, Administrative Appeals Judge, and Luis A. Corchado, Administrative Appeals Judge.

ORDER DENYING INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW

Arvind Gupta has filed with the Administrative Review Board (ARB) a petition for interlocutory appeal of a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge’s orders that (1) denied Gupta’s request to include Genpact Limited as a Respondent, (2) ruled that Headstrong, Inc. is the sole respondent in this matter and (3) denied a default motion against Headstrong Order Directing Prosecuting Party To Use Proper Caption; And Ordering Parties to Confer Regarding Discovery Disputes And Prosecuting Party’s Witness Requests Prior To Pre-Hearing Conference (ALJ Apr. 24, 2014). Gupta previously filed a Motion for Enlargement Of Time To File Petition for (Interlocutory) Review.

USDOL/OALJ REPORTER
PAGE 1

The Secretary of Labor has delegated her authority to issue final administrative decisions in cases arising under the Immigration and Nationality Act 1 to the Administrative Review Board. 2 The Secretary’s delegated authority to the Board includes “the discretionary authority to review interlocutory rulings in exceptional circumstances, provided such review is not prohibited by statute” (emphasis added). 3

Where an ALJ has issued an order of which the party seeks interlocutory review, the ARB has elected to look to the certification procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b) to determine whether to accept an interlocutory appeal for review. 4 Here, Gupta has neither obtained the ALJ’s certification of the party question at issue, nor has he demonstrated exceptional circumstances sufficient to persuade the Board to exercise its discretionary authority to review this issue. 5

Accordingly, we DENY Gupta’s petition for interlocutory review. Gupta’s motion for enlargement of time is moot.

SO ORDERED.

LUIS A. CORCHADO
Administrative Appeals Judge

E. COOPER BROWN
Deputy Chief Administrative Appeals Judge

JOANNE ROYCE
Administrative Appeals Judge

1
8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101-1537 (Thomson Reuters 2014) and implementing regulations at 20 C.F.R. Parts H, I.
2
8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(n)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 655.845; see Secretary’s Order No. 02-2012 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 77 Fed. Reg. 69,378 (Nov. 16, 2012).
3
Id. at § 5(c)(66).
4
Gunther v. Deltek, Inc., ARB Nos. 12-097, 12-099, ALJ No. 2010-SOX-049, slip op. at 2 (ARB Sept. 11, 2012); Prioleau v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., ARB No. 12-098, ALJ No.
2010-SOX-003 (ARB Aug. 30, 2012).
5
The ALJ denied Gupta’s motion requesting certification. Order Denying Prosecuting Party’s Motion For Certification Of Issue For Interlocutory Review (ALJ Apr. 21, 2014).

USDOL/OALJ REPORTER
PAGE 2