Baiju v. United States Department of Labor et al
||United States Department of Labor and Fifth Avenue Committee, Inc.
||Bishnu S Baiju
||November 14, 2012
||New York Eastern District Court
||Kiyo A. Matsumoto
|Nature of Suit:
||Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
|Cause of Action:
||05:702 Administrative Procedure Act
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|January 31, 2014
ORDER denying 65 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 66 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 74 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 75 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons in the enclosed Memorandum and Order, the court grants su mmary judgment to respondents Department of Labor and Fifth Avenue Committee affirming the final decision of the ARB and denies petitioners motions for summary judgment. The final decision of the ARB is affirmed, and Baijus petition for review is de nied. In addition, petitioners motion for U-Visa certification is denied. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of a n appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment in favor of the respondents and close this case. The Department of Labor is ordered to serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order on pro se petitioner and note service on the docket by February 4, 2014. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 1/31/2014. (Tsai, Denise)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.