Jain v. Randel Solutions, LLC
| Decision Date | 29 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2:21-CV-02126-EFM-GEB |
| Parties | SAMEER JAIN, UPMA JAIN, Plaintiffs, v. RANDEL SOLUTIONS, LLC, KULTURE KURRY, LLC, KANSAS KURRY, LLC, ROUSHAN KUMAR, ANJUSHREE KUMAR, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Plaintiffs Sameer Jain and Upma Jain filed suit against Defendants Randel Solutions, LLC, Kulture Kurry, LLC, Kansas Kurry, LLC Roushan Kumar, and Dr. Anjushree Kumar alleging (1) a civil action under federal law for forced labor, (2) a civil action under Kansas law for human trafficking, (3) a civil action for violations of the Kansas minimum wage and maximum hours law (“KMWMHL”), (4) a civil action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), (5) breach of contract, (6) unjust enrichment, and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim under which relief may be granted (Doc. 18) regarding (1) the breach of contract claim against all Defendants other than Randel Solutions, LLC, and (2) all of the claims against Defendant Dr. Anjushree Kumar. For the reasons stated below the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion.
Plaintiffs Sameer Jain and Upma Jain, a married couple (collectively the “Jains”), are Indian citizens who currently reside in Florida. While living in New Delhi, India, the Jains met Defendants Roushan Kumar and Dr. Anjushree Kumar, a married couple (collectively the “Kumars”). The Jains and the Kumars spent considerable time together in New Delhi, during which, the Kumars created the impression that they were powerful and well-connected in India and the United States. Around 2012, Roushan Kumar asked Sameer Jain for business advice regarding a company the Kumars owned, Randel Solutions, LLC. At first, Jain helped Kumar form a subsidiary to Randel Solutions in India. But in 2015, Kumar began recruiting Jain to move to Kansas and work as the Business Development Manager at Randel Solutions. Sameer Jain then entered an employment contract with Randel Solutions.
In November 2017, Sameer Jain came to the United States, initially without Upma Jain or their minor son, on an H-1B Visa sponsored by Randel Solutions. When Sameer Jain arrived, Roushan Kumar allegedly told him he was not allowed to legally work or be paid until he had a social security number. Kumar insisted that Jain work at two of his restaurants-Kulture Kurry, LLC, and Kansas Kurry, LLC (the “Restaurants”). Jain was allegedly required to work 12 to 14 hours per day, a minimum of six days a week. Though he was paid occasionally, the pay was below his promised salary and did not cover the hours or overtime he worked. After Upma Jain's arrival in the United States in April 2018, Kumar also pressured her to work at Kulture Kurry. She then worked at the restaurant the same long hours as Sameer Jain.
Throughout this time, Dr. Anjushree Kumar worked in other states but maintained her primary residence in Kansas. She frequently spent time in Kansas to be with her family and manage her business affairs. She had an ownership interest in Randel Solutions, but not in the Restaurants. However, Dr. Kumar allegedly was an active manager of all three businesses and visited them frequently during her regular travel to Kansas.
During these visits, Dr. Anjushree Kumar made sure the workers knew she had authority over them and the businesses. She allegedly threatened the Jains with termination of their employment, revocation of Sameer Jains' work visa, detention and deportation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and incarceration by Homeland Security. She also allegedly threatened separation from their son and would show the Jains news stories about minors held in cage-like cells and separated from their parents in ICE detention. With her husband, Dr. Kumar convinced the Jains that they could cause physical danger to the Jains and their son in the United States, to their extended family still living in India, or to their family if they were deported back to India. Additionally, Dr. Kumar was aware of Roushan Kumar's actions, including having the Jains use personal funds to pay for Restaurant expenses and employee salaries. The Jains also allege that because of the long hours, hard physical labor, and physical threats their physical and mental health deteriorated.
In early 2019, Roushan Kumar informed the Jains that he had plans to sell Kulture Kurry and that they must find new employment and pay him $1, 500 a month to maintain their visa status. Sameer Jain then convinced the Kumars that he and Upma Jain needed to move to Florida to start new jobs to make the payments. The Jains subsequently moved. Once in Florida, the Jains reported Kulture Kurry to the United States Department of Labor, which found Kulture Kurry and Randel Solutions liable for FLSA violations.
In March of 2021, the Jains filed suit in this Court. The Amended Complaint asserts seven claims. Count I is a civil action under federal law for forced labor. Count II is a civil action under Kansas law for victims of human trafficking. Count III is a civil action for violations of the KMWMHL. Count IV is for violations of the FLSA. Count V is for breach of contract. Count VI is for unjust enrichment. And Count VII is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants then jointly filed a Motion to Dismiss. This matter is fully briefed, and the Court now rules as follows.
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a defendant may move for dismissal of any claim for which the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.[2] The Court must decide “whether the complaint contains ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' ”[3] A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads facts sufficient for the Court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.[4] While the Rule requires more than “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, ” it “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations.' ”[5]
In determining whether a claim is facially plausible, the Court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint but need not afford such a presumption to legal conclusions.[6] Generally, the Court is constrained by the allegations in the complaint when considering a motion to dismiss. However, “a document central to the plaintiff's claim and referred to in the complaint may be considered in resolving a motion to dismiss, at least where the document's authenticity is not in dispute.”[7]
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of contract as to all parties other than Sameer Jain and Randel Solutions. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs' allegations do not state a plausible claim for any of the Counts against Dr. Kumar.
Defendants argue that Count V should be dismissed as brought by Plaintiff Upma Jain and against Defendants the Restaurants and the Kumars because there is no privity of contract. [8] The only parties to the employment contract are Sameer Jain and Randel Solutions.
In response, Plaintiffs argue that Upma Jain is not bringing the claim and that the claim is not brought against the Restaurants. Plaintiffs concede that the Kumars did not sign the contract as individuals, but ask the Court leave to amend to remove the Kumars from Count V.
In determining the parties to an action, courts generally look to the pleader's statement of the claim.[9] Here, the heading of Count V specifies that the breach of contract claim is being brought by Sameer Jain against the Kumars and Randel Solutions. The paragraphs under the Count V heading do not reference Upma Jain. Because she is neither listed as a party in the heading nor included in the specific allegations under the claim, the Court concludes that Upma Jain is not a party to Count V.
As to the Restaurants, the Court notes that there is a discrepancy between the Count V heading and the allegations listed therein. In the Amended Complaint's opening paragraph, Plaintiffs define the word “Defendants” as referencing “all defendants collectively.” This indicates that “Defendants” includes the Restaurants. The term “Defendants” appears in paragraphs 58 through 64 under the Count V heading. This suggests that the allegations are against the Restaurants as well as the Kumars and Randel Solutions, as indicated in Count V's heading. Plaintiffs, however, explain in their response to Defendants' motion that Count V is only against the Kumars and Randel Solutions. Therefore, the Court concludes that the parties to Count V are Sameer Jain, the Kumars, and Randel Solutions.
To continue reading
Request your trial