423 F.Supp.3d 1112
D. Colo.2019Background
- Plaintiffs are elite U.S. female taekwondo athletes who allege decades of sexual abuse, forced sexual services, and trafficking by Steven and Jean Lopez and that the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) and USA Taekwondo (USAT) facilitated, covered up, or benefited from that misconduct.
- Operative pleading is a Second Amended Complaint asserting TVPA claims, RICO, and multiple state-law torts (originally 21 claims); some claims were later withdrawn and SafeSport dismissed.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; Magistrate Judge Hegarty issued a detailed Recommendation granting in part and denying in part those motions.
- Key legal disputes concerned (a) the applicable statute of limitations for TVPA claims, (b) venture liability under §1589(b)/§1595, (c) whether obstruction provisions (§1590(b)/§1591(d)) require governmental enforcement, (d) RICO standing, (e) state-law duty and damages for negligence/gross negligence/outrageous conduct, and (f) proposed class definitions.
- The district court affirmed/adopted much of the Recommendation but modified parts: it dismissed several claims (including RICO and certain state claims), denied other dismissals, and struck the proposed Damages Class as overbroad.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TVPA's 2008 extension to a 10‑year limitations period applies to pre‑2008 conduct whose civil claims were not yet time‑barred | Plaintiffs: the 10‑year period governs claims that were unexpired when Congress amended the TVPA on Dec. 23, 2008 | Defendants: applying the 10‑year period is impermissibly retroactive; old shorter period should control | Court: adopts Cruz framework — 10‑year period applies to claims that were unexpired on enactment; several TVPA claims survive within that window |
| Whether USAT/USOC can be liable under §1589(b)/§1595 as participants in a "venture" that obtained forced labor/sexual services | Plaintiffs: venture liability applies; USAT/USOC knowingly benefited and recklessly disregarded forced‑labor/sex‑trafficking conduct | Defendants: venture standard narrower; must show overt acts or the venture itself carried out forced‑labor acts; some conduct predates 2008 expansion | Court: follows Bistline and adopts a broad "venture" concept; venture/benefit allegations against USAT and USOC survive in part (subject to statute‑of‑limitations limits) |
| Whether obstruction provisions (§1590(b)/§1591(d)) reach obstruction of private investigations or require governmental enforcement | Plaintiffs: obstruction claims encompass institutional interference that delayed investigations and reporting, including to Congress | Defendants: statutes target obstruction of government enforcement/investigations, not private probes; allegations insufficient | Court: obstruction provisions require obstruction of governmental enforcement; dismissed Claim 14 as to USOC (insufficient allegations), allowed Claim 14 to proceed against USAT based on alleged false Congressional testimony tied to a governmental actor |
| Whether Plaintiffs have civil RICO standing (injury to business or property) | Plaintiffs: alleged enterprise and pattern of racketeering caused institutional and economic harms to athletes and class | Defendants: plaintiffs fail to plead RICO injury to business or property | Held: RICO claim (Claim 15) dismissed for lack of RICO standing (no cognizable business/property injury alleged) |
| Whether negligence / gross‑negligence / outrageous‑conduct claims survive against USOC and USAT (duty, breach, causation, damages) | Plaintiffs: institutional defendants assumed duties and their conduct (delaying/suspending investigations) caused emotional and physical harms | Defendants: (USAT) owed no duty to former athletes; (USOC) no causal link to physical injury within limitations; gross negligence/outrageous conduct not sufficiently pleaded | Court: negligent‑supervision/retention claims dismissed (time‑barred); negligence and gross negligence dismissed as to USAT (no duty) and as to USOC (no timely physical‑injury causation); outrageous conduct vs USOC dismissed as not outrageous as a matter of law |
| Whether proposed classes are properly pled and not overbroad (Injunction Class and Damages Class) | Plaintiffs: classes appropriate for injunctive relief and damages from taekwondo cohort; any defects can be cured by repleading | USOC: Injunction Class overbroad (all USOC female athletes across sports); Damages Class overbroad—includes uninjured members and untimely claims | Court: refused to strike Injunction Class at this stage; struck Damages Class as facially overbroad and unfixable by simply shortening the period |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014) (applying Landgraf and holding TVPA's extended limitations period can apply to claims unexpired when amended)
- Bistline v. Parker, 918 F.3d 849 (10th Cir. 2019) (interpreting "venture" under §1589(b) and applying broad, association‑in‑fact approach)
- United States v. Kaufman, 546 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (recognizing coerced sexual acts can constitute "labor or services")
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (framework for assessing retroactivity of statutes)
- DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2010) (class commonality for injunctive relief where agency‑wide policies create uniform risk)
- Jean‑Charles v. Perlitz, 937 F. Supp. 2d 276 (D. Conn. 2013) (holding obstruction of private investigation insufficient for §1591(d) claim)
- Culpepper v. Pearl Street Bldg., 877 P.2d 877 (Colo. 1994) (Colorado rule that negligence‑based emotional‑distress recovery requires physical injury)
- Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336 (Colo. 1988) (defining elements and high threshold for outrageous‑conduct intentional infliction of emotional distress)