Martinez-Rodriguez v. Giles
1:17-cv-00001
D. IdahoSep 14, 2017Background
- Six Mexican veterinarians sued multiple defendants alleging a scheme to recruit them to the U.S. under false pretenses and force them to perform low‑wage dairy labor; claims included forced labor (18 U.S.C. §1589), trafficking (18 U.S.C. §1590), and civil RICO.
- Plaintiffs alleged that attorney Jeremy L. Pittard reviewed their visa documents and spoke with them before embassy interviews, advising them to state they were "Animal Scientists" and deny performing general dairy labor.
- Pittard moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the allegations against him were speculative and lacked facts showing knowledge or participation in the alleged conspiracy.
- The court applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard and Ninth Circuit precedents on pleading and leave to amend.
- The court held that Plaintiffs’ allegations against Pittard were conclusory and insufficient to show the required scienter, participation in forced labor/trafficking, or a RICO pattern, and granted dismissal without prejudice but with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allegations against Pittard plausibly state a forced labor claim under §1589 | Pittard reviewed documents and counseled plaintiffs pre-interview, implying knowledge and facilitation of forced labor scheme | Statements are insufficient; no allegations Pittard threatened, coerced, or knew of scheme | Dismissed: allegations fail to show serious threats or Pittard's requisite knowledge/scienter |
| Whether allegations state a trafficking‑into‑servitude claim under §1590 | Pittard "knowingly recruited/obtained" plaintiffs through fraud and misrepresentation | No factual basis that Pittard knowingly recruited or participated in trafficking; involvement limited to pre-arrival legal tasks | Dismissed: bare legal conclusions do not plausibly allege knowledge or participation |
| Whether allegations support civil RICO claim (pattern of racketeering causing injury) | Pittard’s document review and pre-interview calls are predicate acts supporting a RICO pattern | Two isolated acts are neither continuous nor a threat of ongoing racketeering; no showing of racketeering harm | Dismissed: no pattern or racketeering activity shown against Pittard |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without leave to amend | Plaintiffs asked for leave to amend if complaint deficient | Pittard urged dismissal of claims as unsalvageable | Court granted dismissal without prejudice and granted leave to amend (30 days) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (established plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (applied plausibility standard and limits on conclusory allegations)
- Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir.) (nonconclusory factual content must be plausibly suggestive of a claim)
- United States v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.) (elements of forced labor include seriousness of threat and defendant's knowledge)
- Steam Press Holdings, Inc. v. Haw. Teamsters, Allied Workers Union, Local 996, 302 F.3d 998 (9th Cir.) (RICO continuity requirement explanation)
- H.J., Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (RICO "pattern" requires relatedness and continuity)
- Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353 (9th Cir.) (elements of civil RICO claim)
- Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d 728 (9th Cir.) (leave to amend standard post‑Iqbal)
- Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir.) (district courts should grant leave to amend absent impossibility of cure)
- Diaz v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff entitled to offer evidence unless pleading cannot be saved)