IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Ramzi Zinnekah 300

North Akard, Apt 1218 Dallas, TX 75201 Maher Al-Masri 3023 Idyllbrook Lane Erie, PA 16506 Majdi Abdulghani 2404 River Ridge Drive West Des Moines, Iowa 50265 Haidar Alsaidi 6800 Orchard Ave Dearborn, MI 48126 Sadiq Alsaidi 6800 Orchard Ave Dearborn, MI 48126 Sinan Marrogy 7005 Yarmouth Dr. West Bloomfield, MI 48322 Neil Magi 7832 W Molly Dr. Peoria, AZ 85383 Faycal Maroufi 5808 Hermitage Circle Milton, FL 32570 Kidar Mohammad Alsafar P.O Box 741072 Arvada, CO 80006-1072 Elgasim Mohamed Fadlalla 1104 Tiffany Rd Silver s rin , MD 20904
INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

for Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act The Labor Law of the State of Kuwait Breach of Contract Tortious Interference with Contract Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Advantage Quantum Meruit Compensation Violation of Va. Code 18.2-499 et seq. Request for Injunctive Relief

JURY TRIAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES REQUESTED

Mahmoud Ali Luttfi

828 Hidden Point Dr. Fortworth, TX 76120

Nimna L. Jayasinghe Mudalige

120 Flushing Meadows Drive Rineyville, KY 40162

Navdeep Kaur Tucker

3 Pheasant Run Green Brook, NJ 08812

Waiel Samy Mansour

83-20 60 Ave. Middle Village, NY 113 79

Samah Fikri
3033 38th Street Astoria, NY 11103

Hamid Skili
8149 Colquitt Rd, Apt# F Atlanta, GA 30350

Bawaneka Galpoththawela
36 Castle Garden Ct. Olney, MD 20832

Saad Kabbaj
1109 Winding Water Way Clermont, FL 34 714

Nada Malek
1171 Grove Park St. Henderson, NV 89002

Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v.

Global Linguists Solutions

3190 Fairview Park Drive Suite 1000 Falls Church, VA 22042

DynCorp International, LLC

3190 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 700 Falls Church, VA 22042

AECOM 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300
Defendants.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

Plaintiffs, all U.S. citizens, some with exemplary service in the U.S. military, signed on to provide Arab language translation services to U.S. military forces operating in the Middle East. However, unbeknownst to them, Defendants, contractors to the U.S. military, had chosen to pursue a business model that denied Plaintiffs just compensation under the laws of the United States; denied Plaintiffs just compensation under the laws of the State of Kuwait; otherwise violated the sovereign laws of the State of Kuwait. As a consequence of Defendants' wrongful and illegal acts, certain Plaintiffs were arrested and thrown into Kuwaiti prisons. Other Plaintiffs have been under virtual house arrest- confined to U.S. military bases (Camp Buehring and Camp Arifjan) for over three months without the ability to leave Kuwait, cut off from their families, cut off from adequate medical care, and unable to work. Moreover, Defendant GLS attempted to coerce certain Plaintiffs into signing statements in which such Plaintiffs confessed to committing crimes in Kuwait - statements that GLS knew were false. When certain of Plaintiffs refused to sign such false statements,

GLS management old them that they were "on their own" and that GLS would no longer provide assistance to them in their efforts to leave Kuwait. Plaintiffs ring this action for legal damages yet also for the application of the Court's equitable power to be applied in a manner that permit their safe return to the United States.

PARTIES

1.

DynCorp International, LLC ("DynCorp") is a Delaware registered company

with its principle office at 3190 Fairview Park Drive Suite 1000, in Fairfax, VA that provides specialized mission-critical professional and support services outsourced by the U.S. military, non-military U.S. governmental agencies and foreign governments. DynCorp is a joint venture with AECOM in Global Linguist Solutions. 2. AECOM is a publically traded, global provider of professional technical and

management support services to a broad range of markets, including transportation, facilities, environmental, energy, water and government. AECOM's worldwide headquarters is located at 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300. AECOM is a joint venture with DynCorp in Global Linguist Solutions. 3. On July 11, 2011, DynCorp and AECOM announced that Global Linguist

Solutions, a joint venture between DI and AECOM, had been selected as one of six providers that will compete for task orders on the $9. 7 billion Defense Language Interpretation Translation Enterprise (DLITE) contract. 4. Awarded by the Department of the Army on July 1, 2011, the multiple award

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) hybrid contract provides translation and interpretation services for personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, tools,

materials, supervision and other items and any other non-personal services necessary to perform language interpretation and translation services for Force Projection Operations mission area only. 5. Global Linguist Solutions is an unincorporated joint venture between DynCorp

and AECOM. The GLS joint venture allows DynCorp and AECOM to sustain large-scale linguist contracts with the U.S. Government. Given that GLS is a joint venture, the DynCorp and AECOM joint ventures are liable for the liabilities of the joint venture to the same extent that partners are liable for the liabilities of a partnership. In the alternative, DynCorp exercises significant dominion and control over GLS such that, to the extent that GLS operates as a separate entity, it operates as an alter ego to DynCorp. 6. Ramzi Zinnekah is a U.S. citizen, a resident of the State of Texas, and entered

into a contract with GLS. 7. Al-Masri Maher is a U.S. citizen, a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and

entered into a contract with GLS. 8. Majdi Abdulghani is a U.S. citizen, a resident of the State of Iowa and entered

into a contract with GLS. 9. Haidar Alsaidi is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Michigan, and entered into a

contract with GLS. 10. Sadiq Alsaidi is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Michigan, and entered into a

contract with GLS. 11. Sinan Marrogy is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Michigan, and entered into a

contract with GLS. 12. Neil Magi is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Arizona, and entered into a contract
5

withGLS. 13. Faycal Maroufi is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Florida, and entered into a

contract with GLS. 14. Kidar Mohammad Alsafar is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Colorado, and a

contractor with GLS, 15. Elgasim Mohamed Fadlalla is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Maryland, and

entered into a contract with GLS. 16. with GLS, 17. Nimna L. Jayasinghe Mudalige is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kentucky, and Mahmoud Ali Luttfi is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Texas, and a contractor

entered into a contract with GLS. 18. Navdeep Kaur Tucker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of New Jersey, and entered

into a contract with GLS. 19. Waiel Samy Mansour is a U.S. citizen, a resident ofNew York, and a

contactor with GLS. 20. Samah Fikri is a U.S. citizen, a resident of New York, and entered into a

contract with GLS. 21. withGLS. 22. Bawaneka Galpoththwela is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Maryland, and entered Hamid Skili is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Georgia, and entered into a contract

into a contract with GLS. 23. withGLS.

6

Saad Kabbaj is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Florida, and entered into a contract

24. with GLS. 25.

Nada Malek is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Nevada, and entered into a contract

Absent class members are United States citizens or resident aliens of the

United States who were contractors of GLS who were subject to the harms described in this lawsuit.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

26.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Parties because (1) Defendants

do business in Northern Virginia and (2), The GLS contract signed by Plaintiffs states, "This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia of the United States of America. Any cause of action against the Employer must be brought in a federal court within the Commonwealth of Virginia unless the federal court does not have jurisdiction, in which case the cause of action must be filed in the Commonwealth court in Virginia." 27. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action as it alleges

violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law. 28. This Court has subject matter diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1332 (a)(2) as the representative plaintiffs are citizens of various states, except Virginia; Defendant is a headquartered in VA; and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 29. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) and

(c) as Defendant is headquartered in Northern Virginia.

ALLEGATIONS

30.

Plaintiffs are linguists who perform translation services pursuant to

Defendants' contracts to provide translation services to the United States military. 31. DynCorp required Plaintiffs and absent class members to undergo training in

the United States as a prerequisite to traveling outside the United States for the purposes of working on projects overseas. 32. DynCorp did not pay Plaintiffs or absent class members' wages during these

training periods. 33. Plaintiffs do not have authority to take any discretionary actions; they do not

direct the work of other DynCorp or GLS personnel; they do not formulate or effectuate management policies; they do not have authority to hire or fire employees; and they do not supervise or manage any programs or personnel. 34. Neither Plaintiffs or absent class members have any control over the nature or

the manner in which the work is to be performed during these training periods. In fact, during the mandatory training periods, Plaintiffs and absent contractors are confined within a DynCorp training facility and are not free event to come and go at their own will. Moreover, as GLS translators, many Plaintiffs have been confined to GLS facilities and are not permitted to leave the GLS facilities. 35. With respect to their service overseas, neither Plaintiffs nor absent class

members have authority to take any discretionary actions; they do not direct the work of other DynCorp or GLS personnel; they do not formulate or effectuate management policies; they do not have authority to hire or fire employees; and they do not supervise or manage any programs or personnel. 36. With respect to their service overseas, neither Plaintiffs nor absent class

members have any control over the nature or the manner in which the work their work is to
8

be performed. In fact, Plaintiffs and absent class members have been confined to military barracks and have not been allowed to come and go at their own will. 37. Defendants routinely require Plaintiffs and absent class members to perform

dedicate more than forty-eight (48) hours of their week in service to Defendant. 38. Article 24 of the Kuwaiti Commercial Law states that no foreign person or

business can do business in Kuwait without having a Kuwaiti agent. 39. Kuwaiti law requires all foreign workers be placed on the rolls of a local firm,

or "sponsor," which applies for working visas on behalf of employees and manages some aspects of payroll. 40. Defendants, through GLS, initially in compliance with Kuwait law, entered

into a sponsorship relationship with Al Shora International General Trading & Contracting Company ("Al Shora"). 41. Consistent with Kuwaiti law, Al Shora entered into individual employment

contracts with Plaintiffs so as to fulfill its role as the local sponsor of Plaintiffs' employment inside of Kuwait. 42. Inconsistent with Kuwait law, GLS abruptly ended its sponsorship relationship

with Al Shora. 43. Defendants did not inform Plaintiffs or absent class members of the decision to

end the sponsorship relationship between GLS and Al Shora, nor did Defendants inform Plaintiffs or absent class members that, as a consequence of its business decision to end the sponsorship relationship between GLS and Al Shora, certain Plaintiffs and corresponding absent class members - for reasons beyond Plaintiffs' and absent class members' controlhad lost the legal immigration status lacked legal status required to be in Kuwait.
9

44.

Al Shora provided multiple warnings to Defendants about the consequence of

ending the sponsorship relationship between GLS and Al-Shora with respect to the immigration status of Plaintiffs. 45. Defendants, for the most part, ignored the warnings made by Al Shora

regarding the effect of ending the sponsorship relationship with respect to the immigration status of Plaintiffs. 46. Al Shora informed Kuwait Government authorities that GLS was not in

compliance with Kuwait law. 47. Defendants, with knowledge of the legal requirements for doing business in

Kuwait, and with explicit warnings that Plaintiffs were subject to arrest, made a conscious business decision not to comply with the legal requirements for doing business in Kuwait by electing not to take the remedial action demanded by Al Shora and Kuwaiti Government officials. 48. After failure to prevail upon Defendants the need to comply with the laws of

Kuwait - the laws that provided for the legal immigration status of Plaintiffs - Kuwaiti Government officials began arresting certain Plaintiffs. 49. On May 6th 201, Majdi Abdulghani informed Defendants that he would have

to leave Kuwait to visit his ailing mother. 50. GLS management, with knowledge of the warnings of arrest that had been

made by Al Shora and Kuwait Government authorities, approved Majdi Abdulghani's travel plans; however, GLS management did not inform Plaintiff Abdulghani that Kuwaiti Government authorities had threatened to arrest him and the other Plaintiffs for Defendants' failure to comply with Kuwait's labor and immigration laws.
10

51.

Knowing of the threat of arrest, yet without transmitting the threat of arrest to

Plaintiff Abdulghani, Defendants allowed Plaintiff Abdulghani to submit himself to Kuwaiti law enforcement authorities at the airport. 52. Upon providing Kuwaiti Government authorities his passport, revealing his

identification as one of Plaintiffs subject to arrest, Kuwait Government authorities did, as promised to GLS, arrest Plaintiff Abdulghani on May 9, 2013 at the international airport. 53. 54. Plaintiff Abdulghani was held in Kuwait's jails for seven days. On May 30, 2013, Plaintiffs Ramzi Zinnekah and Maher Al Masri were

arrested by Kuwait Government authorities at a checkpoint in Kuwait. 55. 56. Plaintiffs Zinnekah and Al Masri were held in Kuwait prison for seven days. Seven other Plaintiffs were placed in Kuwaiti prisons because of Defendants'

refusal to comply with Kuwait's labor and immigration laws. 57. Following the arrests of Plaintiffs Abdulghani, Zinnekah, and Masri, the

remaining Plaintiffs were trapped on the Buehring and Arifjan U.S. military bases. They were trapped because they could not venture out beyond the compound for fear of arrest by Kuwait authorities. Moreover, the Kuwait Government would not issue exit documents or other papers to such Plaintiffs because they were considered to be in the country illegally. 58. GLS has represented to Plaintiffs that the legal strategies being pursued by

GLS' s attorneys in Kuwait were in Plaintiffs interests. 59. GLS has acknowledged that representations that Plaintiffs have engaged in

wrong-doing or criminal conduct while in Kuwait are false. 60. On or about September 7, 2013, GLS management presented documents to

certain Plaintiffs. They informed these Plaintiffs that they were required to sign the
11

documents immediately. The documents stated that the Plaintiffs had committed crimes, specifically immigration crimes, in Kuwait. Such statements were untrue as these Plaintiffs had not committed any crimes. GLS insisted that these Plaintiffs execute confessions to illegal conduct as a condition to being released from Kuwait and returning home. Some Plaintiffs, under duress, signed these statements. Other Plaintiffs, insisting that they not be forced to sign documents that admitted to facts that were inaccurate and crimes that they had not committed, refused to sign the documents. 61. Notwithstanding having signed documents that admitted to criminal activity-

criminal activity they did not commit, the Plaintiffs who signed such documents were not released from detention and were not allowed to return home. 62. The Plaintiffs who refused to sign the confessions were told that GLS could no

longer advocate for them and that "they were on their own." Thus, the Plaintiffs who refused to sign false confessions are now in limbo in Kuwait as GLS has abandoned them. COUNT I Violation of the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act With Respect to all Plaintiffs and Absent Class Members 63. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 64. The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et. seq, requires that Plaintiffs

and absent class members be compensated for work performed on behalf of Defendants. 65. During the time of Plaintiffs and absent class members' training on behalf of

Defendants, they were required to work without any compensation. 66. Plaintiffs and absent class members were instructed to doctor their time logs so

that their time records never indicated more than 12 hours worked in a single day, even 12

though Plaintiffs frequently worked in excess of 12 hours in a day. 67. The requirement that Defendants work without compensation reflecting their

actual time working for Defendants is a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 68. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court provide all the relief to which

Plaintiffs and absent class members are entitled under the law and that the Court award all attorney's fees and costs that are provided under the law.

COUNT II Violation of Article 64 ofthe State of Kuwait Labor Law With Respect to all Plaintiffs and Absent Class Members
69. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 70. While in Kuwait and under sponsorship by Al-Shora, Plaintiffs and absent

class members have the protection of the labor laws of the State of Kuwait. 71. Under contract with Defendants, Plaintiffs and absent class members are

obligated to resolve any claims against DynCorp in Virginia and in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 72. Under Article 64 of the State of Kuwait Labor Law, "it is forbidden to allow

workers to work for more than 48 hours per week or 8 hours a day, except in such events as are specified in this Law." Moreover, "[w]orking hours during the month of Ramadan shall be equal to 36 hours per week." 73. Defendants routinely require Plaintiffs and absent class members to work in

excess of 48 hours and otherwise breached the labor laws of Kuwait. 74. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others

similarly situated, pray that the Court enforce the obligations of the laws of the State of
13

Kuwait against Defendants and award Plaintiffs and absent class members any and all compensation due to them for having worked in excess of the maximum hours of labor described by the laws of the State of Kuwait.

COUNT III Breach of Contract with Respect to Nimna Mudalig, Waiel Mansour, Navdeep Tucker, Hamid Skili, Samah Fikri and all those similarly situated
75. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 76. Defendants also made a deliberate choice not to conduct business in Kuwait in

compliance with the laws of Kuwait. 77. Because of Defendants illegal conduct in Kuwait, Nimna Mudalig, Wai el

Mansour, Navdeep Tucker, Hamid Skili, Samah Fikri and all those similarly situated were deported from Kuwait and brought back to the United States. 78. After Nimna Mudalig, Waiel Mansour, Navdeep Tucker, Hamid Skili, Samah

Fikri and all those similarly situated were brought back to the United States, Defendants placed them on administrative leave without pay. Such persons did not voluntarily choose the status of administrative leave without pay. These Plaintiffs had not taken a leave of

absence, were not back in the United States by choice, had no control over their deportation from Kuwait, and were otherwise blameless for the fact that they could not be used in performance of the contract with the U.S. Government. 79. The act of placing Nimna Mudalig, Waiel Mansour, Navdeep Tucker, Hamid

Skili, Samah Fikri and all those similarly situated on administrative leave without pay constitutes a breach of contract.

14

80.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court find that the Defendants

have breached their contract with Nimna Mudalig, Waiel Mansour, Navdeep Tucker, Hamid Skili, Samah Fikri and all those similarly situated and award Plaintiffs all compensation due to Plaintiffs as if they had fully performed their services to Defendants.

COUNT IV
Breach of Contract with Respect to Ramzi Zinnekah, Maher Al-Masri, and Majdi Abdulghani
81. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 82. Ramzi Zinnekah, Maher Al-Masri, and Majdi Abdulghani ("Imprisoned

Plaintiffs") were all arrested by Kuwaiti authorities following Defendants' refusal to abide by the laws of the State of Kuwait with respect to its sponsorship with Al-Shora. These Imprisoned Plaintiffs were held in Kuwaiti jails, in common prison cells with inadequate sanitation or access to adequate care. 83. Under their contract with Defendants, Defendants were required to ensure that

all of the legal requisites of Imprisoned Plaintiffs' presence in Kuwait were in accordance with the laws of the State of Kuwait. 84. 85. Defendants breached this contractual obligation to Imprisoned Plaintiffs. After Imprisoned Plaintiffs were released from the Kuwaiti jails they were

deported from Kuwait. 86. Following the Imprisoned Plaintiffs' deportation from Kuwait, they were

placed in the status of administrative leave without pay. Imprisoned Plaintiffs did not elect the status of administrative leave without pay. 87. However, Defendants would not release Imprisoned Plaintiffs from their
15

employment contract with GLS. Thus, even though Imprisoned Plaintiffs were not being paid pursuant to the GLS contract, Imprisoned Plaintiffs remained under contract with GLS. 88. Defendants breached Imprisoned Plaintiffs' contract by 1) failing to fulfill

GLS 's obligation to Imprisoned Plaintiffs to ensure that Imprisoned Plaintiffs' presence in the State of Kuwait was in conformance with the laws of the State of Kuwait; and 2) refusing to provide pay to Imprisoned Plaintiffs under the lie that Imprisoned Plaintiffs were on administrative leave without pay. 89. WHEREFORE, Imprisoned Plaintiffs pray that the Court will provide

damages and whatever other relief is appropriate and just under the circumstances to adequately compensate them for the breach of contract perpetrated by Defendants. COUNTY Tortious Interference with Contract 90. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 91. In compliance with Kuwait's immigration and labor laws, Plaintiffs are under

contract with Al Shora. 92. 93. Defendants have knowledge of the contract between Plaintiffs and Al Shora. With knowledge of the contractual obligations between Plaintiffs and Al

Shora, Defendants took wrongful actions that they knew would interfere with the contractual relationship between Plaintiffs and Al Shora, to wit, Defendants wrongfully severed the sponsorship relationship between GLS and Al Shora and Defendants refused to bring the contractual employees, Plaintiffs, into compliance with Kuwaiti labor and immigration law. 94. As a consequence of the wrongful acts by Defendants, Al Shora was forced to

16

terminate its contract with Plaintiffs. 95. As a consequence of the wrongful acts by Defendants, Al Shora was forced to

report Plaintiffs to Kuwaiti authorities as Plaintiffs were not legally present in Kuwait. 96. The Plaintiffs were damaged by Defendants' interference with their

contractual obligations with Al Shora in that Plaintiffs were detained against their will in Kuwait, Plaintiffs were unable to perform the services for which they went to Kuwait, and Plaintiffs were not fully or adequately paid for work contemplated at the time they went to Kuwait or for time spent in Kuwait. 97. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court find that the Defendants have

tortiously interfered with the contract between Plaintiffs and Al Shora and provide whatever relief is necessary to compensate Plaintiffs for the harms suffered on account of this interference. COUNT VI Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Advantage 98. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 99. The Plaintiffs are Arabic to English, English to Arabic or Urdu to English,

English to Urdu translators. 100. Persian Gulf. 101. Kuwait is a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the A significant portion of the Arab-speaking population lives in and around the

Gulf ("GCC"). Other members of the GCC include United Arab Emirates ("UAE"), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Sultanate of Oman, and Qatar.

17

102.

Defendants knew, or should have known, that Plaintiffs have prospective

business opportunities serving as translators in the various Arab-speaking countries. 103. As a consequence of Defendants intentional, wrongful, acts - acts that caused

violations of Kuwait law -- the Linguist have been placed on a list of foreign nationals who are not permitted to work in Kuwait. 104. As a result of Plaintiffs been placed on a list of persons not qualified or

permitted to work in Kuwait, Plaintiffs have been placed on a list maintained by the GCC. As persons identified as not qualified to work in Kuwait, Plaintiffs have also been listed as not qualified to enter or work in any of the GCC states. In sum, Plaintiffs have been "blacklisted" and cannot pursue professional employment in any of the GCC states. 105. As the geographic region of Arab speakers is limited, the Plaintiffs are

damaged by Defendants' wrongful acts, i.e., Plaintiffs cannot be employed by GCC states, and/or, Plaintiffs must overcome the damage to their reputation caused by being "blacklisted" by Kuwait and the GCC in order to find gainful employment. 106. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court find that the Defendants have

tortiously interfered with the prospective business relations that would have been enjoyed by Plaintiffs had Defendants not intentionally engaged in the wrongful acts that caused Plaintiffs to be "blacklisted" by Kuwait and by other members of the GCC, and award Plaintiffs compensation sufficient to compensate them for the lost revenue they would have realized had they not been subjected to the wrongful acts committed by Defendants.

COUNT VII Quantum Meruit Compensation with respect to Nada Malek, Mohmoud Luttfi, Majdi Abdulghani, Kidar Alsafar, Neil Magi, Saiqi Alsaidi, Sinan Marrogy, Haidar Aisad, Elgasim Fad/al/a, and Faycal Maroufi, and all others similarly situated.

18

107.

The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 108. The aforementioned Plaintiffs ("Detained Plaintiffs") and others similarly

situated have been trapped in Kuwait, unable to leave the country for months. 109. These Plaintiffs and absent class members are trapped on U.S. military bases

in Kuwait because Kuwaiti authorities will not issue exit papers for them to leave the country unless and until GLS makes adequate arrangements to bring their conduct into compliance with the laws of the State of Kuwait. 110. The Defendants deliberately embarked on a new business strategy for

operating in Kuwait. Under the new business strategy, Defendants chose to operate in Kuwait without their approved in-country sponsor Al-Shora.
111.

The business strategy had significant risk, including but not limited to the fact

that Defendants' business strategy, being inconsistent with the laws of Kuwait, could draw the attention and incur the retribution of Kuwait authorities charged with enforcing Kuwait's requirement that foreign national contractors such as Defendants, operate within the expectations of Kuwait law and with an approved sponsor. 112. The Plaintiffs were uninformed participants in Defendants new business plan.

Specifically, knowing that their new business plan would place Plaintiffs at risk of being arrested and jailed- or otherwise found to be in violation of Kuwait's laws - Defendants nonetheless pursued their new plan. 113. To this end, Defendants required Plaintiffs to provide a service for which they

were not provided compensation, yet for which, in equity and fairness, they should be provided compensation by the Court. Specifically, Defendants required Plaintiffs to provide
19

the service, in conjunction with their new business plan, of being subjected to retribution of Kuwait authorities pursuant to Defendant's deliberate choice not to comply with Kuwait's laws. 114. The Detained Plaintiffs did, in fact, provide the service anticipated by

Defendants in launching their new business model. Specifically, Plaintiffs were targeted for law enforcement by Kuwaiti authorities, Plaintiffs were subject to the promised retribution pursuant to Defendants' new business plan, and demands were placed upon Plaintiffs time and resources that were anticipated by Defendant yet for which no compensation has yet been paid. 115. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court will act consistent with the

precepts of equity, fashion a contractual term that provides just compensation for the service provided by the Linguist in the experimentation of Defendant's new business approach in Kuwait, and pay fair compensation - in addition to what Plaintiffs would have earned for their translation services - to compensate Plaintiffs for the additional role they played. COUNT VIII Conspiracy to Injure Another in Trade, Business, or Profession 116. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 117. Under Va. Code Ann. 18.2-499 A," Any two or more persons who combine,

associate, agree, mutually undertake or concert together for the purpose of (i) willfully and maliciously injuring another in his reputation, trade, business or profession by any means whatever or (ii) willfully and maliciously compelling another to do or perform any act against his will, or preventing or hindering another from doing or performing any lawful act,

20

shall be jointly and severally guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Such punishment shall be in addition to any civil relief recoverable under 18.2-500." 118. Under Va. Code Ann. 18.2-500 A, "Any person who shall be injured in his

reputation, trade, business or profession by reason of a violation of 18.2-499, may sue therefor and recover three-fold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable fee to plaintiffs counsel, and without limiting the generality of the term, 'damages' shall include loss of profits." 119. Under Va. Code Ann. 18.2-500 B, "Whenever a person shall duly file a civil

action in the circuit court of any county or city against any person alleging violations of the provisions of 18.2-499 and praying that such party defendant be restrained and enjoined from continuing the acts complained of, such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues involved, to issue injunctions pendente lite and permanent injunctions and to decree damages and costs of suit, including reasonable counsel fees to complainants' and defendants' counsel." 120. Defendants, Defendants' managers, and Defendants' legal counsel have

combined, associated, mutually undertook or otherwise acted in concert with each other for the purpose of willfully injuring certain Plaintiffs in their reputation, trade, business, and profession by having such Plaintiffs execute confessions to criminal activity while in Kuwait. 121. Such statements were false as such Plaintiffs did not engage in any criminal

conduct while in Kuwait. 122. The attempt to have such Plaintiffs execute false confessions to crimes they

did not commit constitutes an attempt to injure Plaintiffs. 123. In addition, Defendants willfully and maliciously compelled certain Plaintiffs 21

to execute such false confessions and attempted, by willful and malicious act, to compel Plaintiffs to execute such false confessions. 124. For those Plaintiffs who refused to execute false confessions of criminal

conduct, Defendants have, through their representatives in Kuwait, informed such Plaintiffs that they are "on their own" and efforts made by GLS to secure their release from Kuwait will cease. 125. WHEREFORE such Plaintiffs are entitled to legal relief and immediate

temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief including but not limited to 124.01 124.02 Treble damages; The entry of an Order that Defendants cease and desist from any

action that will harm any affected Plaintiffs including but not limited to any statement or representation that affected Plaintiffs have engaged in any criminal activity during their stay in Kuwait; 124.03 The entry of an Order that Defendants be obligated to obtain and/or

pay for independent Kuwaiti legal counsel to provide legal advice to affected Plaintiffs and to advocate in the best interest of affected Plaintiffs without a conflict of interest between GLS and the affected Plaintiff; and 124.04 The entry of Judgment in favor of affected Plaintiffs and the

payment of affected Plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs and any other relief to which affected Plaintiffs are entitled to under Va. Cod. Ann. 18-2-500.

COUNT IX
Request for Injunctive Relief
126. The Detained Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and allege as follows:

22

127. months. 128.

The Detained Plaintiffs have been detained in Kuwait for more than three

The Detained Plaintiffs are confined to U.S. military bases in Kuwait for fear

of being arrested by Kuwaiti authorities should they venture off the U.S. military bases. 129. The Detained Plaintiffs are at risk of being arrested by Kuwaiti authorities

because Defendants refuse to abide by the laws of the State of Kuwait. 130. Because Defendants refuse to abide by the laws of the State of Kuwait, the

State of Kuwait will not issue exit documents and authorizations necessary for the Detained Plaintiffs to leave Kuwait for the United States (or other locales). 131. Notwithstanding the fact that the Detained Plaintiffs have been detained for a

period of three months, Defendants continue to refuse to abide by the laws of the State of Kuwait sufficient to prevent the Detained Plaintiffs from being placed under arrest and sufficient for the State of Kuwait to issue exit authorizations and documentation. 132. The detention and threat of incarceration causes irreparable injury to the

Detained Plaintiffs in the form of anxiety, fear of incarceration, and freedom of movement for which there is no adequate legal remedy. 133. Moreover, certain Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are entitled to

injunctive relief pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 18-2-499 et seq. 134. WHEREFORE, Detained Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court issue an

injunction to compel Defendants to take any and all actions to bring their conduct in Kuwait into compliance with the laws of the State of Kuwait and to pay any damages that are claimed by Al-Shara, and to follow the directives of any and all agencies of the Kuwait Government necessary to ensure that Plaintiffs might be released from Kuwait and allowed 23

to return home.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

135. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 137 are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein. 136. Named Plaintiffs seek to certify a class action to remedy the wrong-doing

described herein. 137. This action is properly maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)

for the following reasons: 155.01 Numerosity. There are more than 130 Plaintiffs under contract with Defendants who have been harmed by the wrongful acts described herein. Joinder of all the affected Plaintiffs affected by Defendants wrongful acts would be impracticable. Moreover, some of those under contract with Defendants are trapped in the State of Kuwait and cannot participate in legal proceedings here in the United States. 155.02Common Questions of Fact and Law. This should be maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) as there exists at least one question of fact and law that are common to all of the harms visited upon Plaintiffs. 155.02.01 questions of fact include: 155.02.01.01 Did Defendants fail to obtain and retain a Kuwaiti sponsor for Plaintiffs? 155.02.01.02 Did Defendants take any meaningful acts to bring themselves into compliance with Kuwaiti law such that Plaintiffs would have proper sponsorship with an approved Kuwaiti company?
24

By way of example, and not limitation, such common

155.02.01.03 Did Defendants anticipate the consequence from their failure to comply with Kuwaiti law? 155.02.01.04 Was the fate of Plaintiffs considered to be part of doing business in Kuwait using a new business model? 155.02.01.05 Were Defendants warned of the consequences of being out of compliance with Kuwaiti law and/or ending their sponsorship with Al-Shora? 155.02.02 questions oflaw include: 155.02.02.01 Were Defendants required to obtain and maintain an approved Kuwaiti agent for the benefit of the putative class so that the members of the putative class could legally provide their translation services in Kuwait? 155.02.02.02 Did Defendants' actions and/or inactions cause the members of the putative class to be imprisoned and otherwise unable to enter/leave Kuwait, to move about Kuwait or to work in Kuwait? 155.02.02.03 Did Defendants have legal justification for cancelling their sponsorship relationship with Al-Shora? 155.02.02.04 Did Defendants defraud the members of the putative class by promising them they would obtain and maintain a legal agent in Kuwait and then fail to do so? 155.03 Similarity of Claims and Defenses. The instant complaint should be maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) because Plaintiffs have similar claims with respect to being declared as being in Kuwait illegally and the consequences that
25

By way of example, and not limitation, common

flowed therefrom. Moreover, Defendants have similar defenses as Defendants have treated Plaintiffs, in on-going negotiations with Al-Shora and Kuwaiti Government authorities, as a set, contiguous unit. 155.04Adeguacy of the Representative Plaintiffs. Representative Plaintiffs are adequate representative plaintiff as their claims are typical of the absent class members, there exist no outstanding questions regarding any of the Representative Plaintiffs' veracity or ability to testify under oath regarding their experiences at the hands of DynCorp and GLS, nor any other known inhibition in their ability to assist counsel in bringing the claims asserted on behalf of the absent class members to a trial on the merits. 155.05 The Risk oflnconsistent or Varying Adjudication. This action should be maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(l)(A) as separate courts considering the same issues of fact and law with respect to the facts of a handful of the 130 Plaintiffs victimized by Defendants' wrong doing might reach different results with respect to establishing or not establishing Defendants contractual obligations to Plaintiffs or tort duties owed to them. 155.06 Superiority of Class-Wide Adjudication. Finally, class-wide adjudication is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) as the questions of law and fact common to the harms visited upon Plaintiffs as a consequence of Defendants business practices predominate over questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this broad-based controversy. 155.07 Additional Factors Favoring Class Certification: 155.07.01 Litigation costs, in terms of discovery and complex legal

26

arguments, are prohibitively expensive for individual Plaintiffs. For example, if litigated separately, individuals may be required to bear the expense of expert testimony on the requirements of Kuwait laws and the propriety of the actions or inactions undertaken by the Defendants that affected the putative class' work status in Kuwait, and thus legal status to remain in or leave Kuwait. 155.07.02 A single determination, on a class-wide basis, regarding

whether Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiffs, failed in their duty to safeguard Plaintiffs' wellbeing in their dealings with members of the Kuwait business community or government authorities, and caused improper interference in the contractual relationships that Plaintiffs had with their Kuwait sponsor will be more cost-effective than individual adjudications. 155.07.03 The Definition of the Putative Class: Plaintiffs propose

separate class definitions to correspond with differing counts and differing claims. 155.07.03.01 Without prejudice, as to Count I of the action, Plaintiffs propose the following class definition: "All persons who have been employed by, or who have contracted with DynCorp, AECOM, or GLS who have been required to undertake training or other work without compensation, who have been instructed to report and record fewer hours than they have worked, or who have been denied overtime or other pay owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act." 155.07.03.02 Without prejudice, as to Count II of the action, Plaintiffs propose the following class definition: "All person who, serving as employees or contractors with GLS in Kuwait, worked excess of the time limits placed on Kuwait employers pursuant to Article 64 of Kuwait's Labor Law." 27

155.07.03.03 Without prejudice as to Count II of the action, Plaintiffs propose the following class definition: "All persons who, having served as employees or contractors with GLS in Kuwait and who were deported from Kuwait as a consequence of the GLS/Al-Shora dispute, were placed on administrative leave without pay." 155.07.03.04 Without prejudice, as to Count V of the action, Plaintiffs propose the following class definition: "All person who, having served as employees or contractors with GLS and who executed contracts with Al-Shora yet who were deemed to be in breach of their Al-Shora contract as a consequence of GLS ending its sponsorship agreement with Al-Shora." 155.07.03.05 Without prejudice, as to Count VI of the action, Plaintiffs propose the following class definition: "All persons who having served as employees or contractors with GLS have been unable to find employment as translators in the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council because of the allegations of misconduct alleged by authorities of the State of Kuwait." 155.07.03.06 Without prejudice, as to Count VII of the action, "All persons who served as employees or contractors with GLS and who, as a consequence of the conflict between GLS and Al-Shora, have been jailed, deported, detained or been unable to leave Kuwait." 155.07.03.07 Without prejudice, as to Count IX of the action, "All persons who served as employees or contractors with GLS who were presented with statements or other declarations wherein such persons had to confess or otherwise admit to having wrong-doing or crimes in Kuwait."

28

156

In addition, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(3) for

injunctive relief as Plaintiffs and absent class members face irreparable harm to their businesses, family relationship, and well-being by their continued detention in Kuwait and certain Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to Va. Ann. Code 18-2-500. 157 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of all those

similarly-situated, requests that the Court granted the relief requested in the above-numbered paragraphs and any and all forms of legal and equitable relief the Court deems necessary to provide complete justice with respect to the above-alleged facts. 158 WHEREFORE, in addition to the specific remedies requested for each

individual count, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class members defined herein, Plaintiffs generally pray for judgment and relief on all Causes of Action as follows: 158.02 a declaration that Defendants are joint and severally liable for the harms and damages described herein; 158.03 the appointment of the named Plaintiffs as a Class representatives; 158.04the appointment of John J. Beins, Joseph A. Hennessey (pro hac pending) and Seth D. Goldberg (admission pending) ofBeins, Goldberg & Hennessey, LLP as Class Counsel; 158.05 a declaration of financial responsibility on the part of Defendants for the costs of Class notification; 158.06 additional equitable relief, including an Order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff and all members of the Class for any act or practice declared by this Court to be unlawful;

29

158.07 additional equitable relief, including cy pres (fluid recovery) relief, in the event that a residue exists in the common fund created for the Class, in order to ensure that Defendants do not retain any illicit profit; 158.08 an award of compensatory and exemplary damages including but not limited to treble damages, as allowed by applicable law; 158.09 an award of attorneys' fees, as allowed by applicable law; 158.10 an award of costs, as allowed by law; 158.11 an award of pre- and post- judgment interest at the maximum legal rate; and 158.12 such other and further relief as the Court deems proper in order to achieve complete justice on the violations and wrong-doing complained of herein.

JURY DEMANDED

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of this action.

PUNITIVE DAMGES DEMANDED

Plaintiff hereby demands the imposition of punitive damages against Defenedants.

Dated: 9/18/2013

Isl John J.

John J. Beins, sq. - V JBeins@bghllp. m Seth D. Goldberg, dmis ion pending) Joseph A. Hennessey, Esq. {pro hac pending) Beins, Goldberg & Hennessey, LLP 2 Wisconsin Circle, Suite 700

30

Chevy Chase, MD 20815 (240) 235-5040 (240) 235-5038 (f)

Attorney for individual Plaintiffe and putative class

31