Gupta v. Headstrong, Inc.

Background

Arvind Gupta brought claims against Headstrong, Inc. and Genpact Limited for wages allegedly owed under the H-1B provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He also sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of Department of Labor orders dismissing his administrative claims against Headstrong. Gupta proceeded without a lawyer.

Headstrong argued that a settlement agreement extinguished any wage claims Gupta had. The court granted Headstrong’s motion to dismiss, and the Second Circuit affirmed. The court later denied Gupta’s request for attorneys’ fees and awarded Headstrong $105,081.05 under the settlement agreement’s provision requiring a party that breached the agreement by filing a lawsuit to pay the opposing party’s defense fees. The Second Circuit affirmed that ruling as well. The court then denied Gupta’s motion to vacate the judgment.

Rule 59(e) motion

Gupta moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter the judgment awarding attorneys’ fees. He argued that the court had overlooked evidence in the administrative record showing that he had no money or assets. He also offered unsworn statements about his current financial condition, including several bank-account balances.

Rule 59(e) motions must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment. The court stated that reconsideration is generally justified only by an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court denied Gupta’s motion for two reasons. First, it was untimely: the attorneys’ fee judgment was entered on October 26, 2020, and Gupta filed the motion almost two and a half years later. Second, even if timely, the motion failed on the merits. Gupta’s current financial-condition assertions were not new evidence because unsworn statements in a brief are not evidence. The court also stated that it and the Second Circuit had already considered and rejected Gupta’s financial-burden arguments, including the evidence in the administrative record. Gupta identified no intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error that justified altering the judgment.

The court denied the motion to alter the judgment and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket number 198 and mail Gupta a copy of the order. Headstrong also sought a filing restriction and a $500 increase in the attorneys’ fee award for each request, motion, or application by Gupta. The court denied that application at that time but warned that it might consider those measures if Gupta continued filing frivolous motions.