• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGANSOUTHERN DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,vs.Civil Action No.APPLIED PLASTIC PRODUCTS,Defendant.________________________________/ 
COMPLAINT
 
FOR CIVIL PENALTY
Plaintiff, the United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Terrence Berg,United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, and Jacqueline M. Hotz, AssistantUnited States Attorney, states its complaint to recover a civil penalty against Applied PlasticProducts, as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This civil action is brought on behalf of the United States of America to recover acivil penalty against defendant Applied Plastic Products.2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1345 and 28 U.S.C. §1355(a).3. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1395(a) because the penalty accruedwithin this judicial district.
Case 2:09-cv-14399-RHC-MAR Document 1 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 1 of 4
 
-2-
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff is the United States of America, suing on behalf of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).5. Defendant Applied Plastic Products is an Michigan company doing business at 6024Corporate Drive, Ira Township, Macomb County, Michigan.
BACKGROUND
6. In November 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was signed intolaw which made it illegal for employers to hire or recruit unauthorized aliens, requiredemployers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of their employees, and createdcriminal and civil sanctions for violations. Section 274A(b) of the Immigration and NationalityAct (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(b), requires employers to verify the identity andemployment eligibility of all individuals hired in the United States after November 6, 1986.8 C.F.R. § 274a.2 designates the Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 (I-9) for thispurpose and requires employers to (a) have employees complete Section 1 of the form at the timeof hire; (b) complete Section 2 within three business days of hire; (c) re-verify that an individualis still authorized to work if his or her employment authorization expires; (d) retain the I-9 for atleast three years from the date of hire or for one year after the employee is terminated, whicheveris longer.7. On March 17, 2009, ICE completed an audit of the I-9 forms maintained by AppliedPlastic Products.8. On March 25, 2009, ICE issued a Notice of Intent to Fine charging Applied PlasticProducts with ninety four (94) violations of Section 274A(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and
Case 2:09-cv-14399-RHC-MAR Document 1 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 2 of 4
 
-3-
Nationality Act (INA) for failure to properly complete ninety four (94) Employment EligibilityVerification Forms I-9. This Notice was personally served on Gerald Ruggles, President of Applied Plastic Products, on April 3, 2009. By regulation, Applied Plastic Products had a thirty(30) day period from the date of service of the Notice to apply to the ICE Office of Chief Counsel to preserve its right to contest the proposed fine, or to seek a negotiated settlement,otherwise the fine becomes final. Failure to take action within the thirty (30) period results inthe fine becoming final.9. Applied Plastic Products failed, refused, or neglected to apply to the ICE Office of Chief Counsel on or before May 4, 2009. Accordingly, the amount and nature of the finebecame final and nonreviewable.10. On May 27, 2009, ICE issued a Final Order to Cease Violations and Pay Fine (FinalOrder) in the amount of $41,360.00. This Final Order was personally served on Gerald Ruggles,President of Applied Plastic Products on May 29, 2009. (See Exhibit A - Final Order).
COUNT I
11. The allegations of paragraphs 1 - 9 are fully incorporated herein.12. Defendant is indebted to the United States in the amount of $41,360.00.13. Plaintiff United States has made demand upon Defendant for payment, butDefendant has failed to pay.14. Accordingly, the United States is entitled to a judgment against defendant in theamount of $41,360.00.
Case 2:09-cv-14399-RHC-MAR Document 1 Filed 11/09/2009 Page 3 of 4
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...