Hall v. Thomas
753 F. Supp. 2d 1113
N.D. Ala.2010Background
- Hall and Rocha alleged a nationwide RICO conspiracy by Thomas and Fisher to depress wages by employing large numbers of illegal immigrants at Gold Kist and Pilgrim's Pride facilities.
- The court limited discovery to facts pertaining to the Russellville, Alabama Pilgrim's Pride facility due to concerns about proximate causation of nationwide wage injury.
- Plaintiffs retained Dr. George Borjas (damages/causation) and James Johnston (immigration compliance) as experts; defendants moved to exclude Borjas and Johnston under Daubert and for summary judgment.
- Pilgrim's Pride filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy; the bankruptcy proceedings affected defense counsel representation and scheduling in this action.
- The court conducted a Daubert hearing in 2010, ultimately excluding Borjas's testimony as unreliable and granting summary judgment for defendants, with the RICO claims dismissed with prejudice.
- Plaintiffs' Rule 56(f) petition for further discovery was denied; Borjas's report stood as the sole (excluded) evidentiary basis for causation and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daubert admissibility of Borjas' report | Borjas' methods are valid and data sufficient for causation. | Borjas' report is fatally incomplete and unreliable. | Borjas' report excluded; testimony not admissible. |
| Rule 56(f) request for further discovery | Additional data would allow completion of causation/damages analysis. | Discovery was dilatory and time-barred; no additional discovery is warranted. | Rule 56(f) petition denied; no further discovery allowed. |
| RICO causation and predicate acts under INA §1324 | INA violations by defendants constitute RICO predicate acts causing injury. | Plaintiffs failed to prove actual knowledge and direct causation; predicates insufficient. | Summary judgment for defendants; RICO claims fail for lack of causation and predicate-act proof. |
| Harboring predicate under INA §1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) | Employment plus harboring conduct could satisfy harboring predicate. | Harboring requires substantial facilitation beyond mere employment; evidence insufficient. | Harboring predicate insufficient; claim fails as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.2010) (to prove RICO predicate, employer must know aliens were brought into the U.S.)
- Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 465 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir.2006) (proximate causation and injury in RICO require 'by reason of' the predicate)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (gatekeeping for reliability and relevance of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (flexible Daubert standard; general admissibility depends on reliability)
- Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (2006) (require proximate causation; injury must be directly caused by predicate acts)