BAPS Wage Theft and Trafficking Case

इस पेज को हिंदी में पढ़ें

About This Case 

Workers who performed stonework and construction work to build BAPS temples in New Jersey, California, Illinois, Texas, and Georgia sued entities related to the Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS) temple in 2021.  They alleged that they performed often dangerous work up to 12.5 hours per day, seven days per week, with few days off all year for approximately $1.20 per hour.  They allege that BAPS engaged in forced labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act—keeping them working through threats of serious harm by taking away their passports, prohibiting them from communicating with others, refusing to let them leave worksites, and sending most of their pay to foreign bank accounts so they had no meaningful ways to leave. This caused the workers serious economic harm, emotional distress, and other damages.  Plaintiffs also allege that the outrageously low hourly pay violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and related state wage laws. 

This case was paused at Defendants’ request while the U.S. Department of Justice investigated the Defendants for trafficking.  The investigation has ended and this case has resumed moving forward.  

Radford Scott LLP, Kakalec Law PLLC, and Katz Banks Kumin LLP represent the Plaintiffs and have proposed to represent the following classes: 

  • workers who worked on BAPS temples under R-1 visas in Robbinsdale, New Jersey between 2011 and now;  
  • workers who worked on BAPS temples under R-1 visas in Atlanta, Georgia between 2003 and now; 
  • workers who worked on BAPS temples under R-1 visas in Houston Texas between 2002 and now; 
  • workers who worked on BAPS temples under R-1 visas in Chicago, Illinois between 2002 and now;  
  • and workers who worked on BAPS temples under R-1 visas in Los Angeles between 2005 and now. 

Plaintiffs will ask the Court to let this case go forward as a class and collective action.  

Updates on this matter will be posted to this page periodically.  

Contact Radford Scott LLPKakalec Law PLLC, or Katz Banks Kumin LLP for more information.  


Status Updates: 

May 11, 2021 

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the United States District Court of New Jersey.  

Read the Complaint


February 3, 2022  

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. 

Read the Amended Complaint


December 08, 2025:  

BAPS Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. 

Read the Motion. 


February 09, 2026:  

Plaintiffs filed a brief opposing BAPS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. 

Read the brief and supporting documents.


February 17, 2026
Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order to prevent Defendants from engaging in retaliation against the Plaintiffs or other class members. 

On February 25, 2026, Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulated to injunctive relief that protects Plaintiffs and other class members from such retaliation; that stipulation was so-ordered by U.S. District Judge Georgette Castner. 

Read the brief and the So-Ordered Stipulation 


March 09, 2026:  

BAPS Defendants filed a reply brief in further support of their motion to dismiss. 

Read the Reply


March 23, 2026: 

The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to serve the India-based defendants, BAPS India and Harshad Chavda, by email, text message, and social media message. On April 22, Plaintiffs notified the Court that they served those defendants.

Read the order


June 17, 2026: 

BAPS India and Harshad Chavda each file motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint as to them.

Read BAPS India’s motion

Read Harshad Chavda’s motion


June 29, 2026:

The Court issues an order resetting the motion date for the BAPS Defendants’ original motion to dismiss so that the motions to dismiss by the BAPS Defendants and the India-based Defendants may be decided together.​


August 3, 2026

Plaintiffs file their oppositions to the India-based defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Read Plaintiffs’ brief opposing BAPS India’s motion

Read Plaintiffs’ brief opposing Harshad Chavda’s motion


August 5, 2026

The Court held a one-hour hearing with the parties on whether discovery can begin, in whole or in part, while the motions to dismiss are pending. Counsel for Plaintiffs appeared and argued that discovery should proceed.

 

 

Our Offices

Washington, DC
Katz Banks Kumin LLP

11 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202-299-1140
New York, NY
Katz Banks Kumin LLP

111 Broadway, Suite 1403
New York, NY 10006

Phone: 646-759-4501
Philadelphia, PA
Katz Banks Kumin LLP

1845 Walnut St., 25th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Phone: 215-735-2171
San Francisco, CA
Katz Banks Kumin LLP

235 Montgomery Street, Suite 665
San Francisco, CA 94104

Phone: 415-813-3260