890 F. Supp. 2d 671
N.D.W. Va.2012Background
- Hesleps allege AFAA misrepresented authority, forged documents, and exploited Ugandan adoption channels to obtain fees.
- AFAA, Carter-Shotts, Kagimu, and AFAA’s Board are defendants; Hesleps sue for RICO, fraud, IIED, and negligence among others.
- Hesleps adopted Sam through AFAA in Uganda with Kagimu identified as coordinator; subsequent USCIS and embassy investigations revealed forged death certificates and lack of Ugandan custody authority.
- Sam’s custody transferred to Hesleps in Uganda, but the embassy opened an investigation into document irregularities, and the Hesleps withdrew their USCIS petition in 2010.
- USCIS notified the Hesleps that AFAA had no Ugandan authority to assist in the adoption and had provided false death certificates; Sam was returned to his biological grandmother.
- Court resolves whether the Board has capacity to be sued, whether AFAA-Uganda is indispensable, and whether remaining claims survive applicable Rule 12 standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board has capacity to be sued | Board is not separate from AFAA, Inc. | Board is a separate entity if distinct from the corporation | Board lacks capacity; dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether AFAA-Uganda is a necessary/indispensable party under Rule 19 | Joinder not feasible; no alternate forum; likely complete relief possible | AFAA-Uganda is distinct; joinder required | Non-joinder not warranted; case may proceed. |
| Whether RICO claim is pleaded with adequate enterprise, predicate acts, and pattern | Alleged enterprise includes individuals and corporation; predicate acts via mail/wire fraud; plausible pattern | No distinct enterprise; insufficient pattern | RICO claim plausible; survives Rule 12(b)(6) as to Counts 1 and 2. |
| Whether fraud claim meets WV law and Rule 9(b) standards | Misrepresentations about authority, status, documents; reliance and damages alleged | Promissory statements cannot be fraud; lack of past-event misrepresentation | Fraud claim survives; meets Rule 9(b) and WV standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mainella v. Bd. of Trs., 27 S.E.2d 488 (1943) (board not a separate legal entity; entity is the corporation)
- Jules Inc. v. Boggs, 270 S.E.2d 683 (1980) (corporate board actions are actions of the corporation)
- Flarey v. Youngstown Osteopathic Hosp., 783 N.E.2d 585 (2002) (intracorporate conspiracy doctrines; board and corporation relation)
- Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001) (addresses corporate actors; outsiders may sue for acts by employees)