Nuñag-Tanedo v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board
790 F. Supp. 2d 1134
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are teachers from the Philippines with H-1B visas who allege recruitment by Navarro/UPI and related entities for teaching jobs in Louisiana.
- Recruiter Defendants allegedly charged a First Recruitment Fee and then demanded a second, larger fee and airfare before leaving the Philippines.
- Plaintiffs allege threats and coercive conduct (deportation, legal action) to compel continued participation and silence about abuses.
- Plaintiffs claim TVPA, RICO, California §1812.508, and related fraud/unfair business practices, among others.
- Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss, allowing several TVPA, RICO, and §1812.508 claims to proceed while dismissing some RICO predicate acts for lack of specificity.
- Plaintiffs may amend within 21 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 1709 | Nuñag-Tanedo alleges nondisclosure and misrepresentations. | Defendants contend insufficiency under Rule 9(b). | Fraud claim survives; complaint provides specific falsity/omission details. |
| TVPA § 1589 claim for forced labor | Defendants used coercive threats and debt to compel labor. | Debts and conditions do not meet 'serious harm' standard. | Claim survives; threats and fraud shown to coercively promote labor. |
| TVPA § 1590 claim (trafficking) | Recruitment, transport, and provision of workers constitute trafficking. | Insufficient proof of trafficking elements. | Claim survives; trafficking elements alleged through recruitment and coercion. |
| TVPA § 1592 claim (passport/document seizure) | Defendants possessed and refused to return passports in course of trafficking. | Not all instances shown; lack of specific acts by defendants. | Claim survives; evidence of passport control used to facilitate coercion. |
| RICO claim and mail/wire fraud predicate acts | Multiple predicate acts include forced labor, trafficking, extortion. | No specific mail/wire act pleaded with Rule 9(b) particularity. | RICO claim survives; mail/wire predicates dismissed for lack of specificity; extortion survives. |
| California §1812.508 claim (employment agency advertising) | Defendants made misleading representations about fees and terms. | Not explicitly listed in pleadings as false representations. | §1812.508 claim survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calimlim v. Smith, 538 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2008) (nonphysical coercion can constitute serious harm under TVPA)
- United States v. Bradley, 390 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2004) (serious harm includes psychological coercion)
- Stac Elecs. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir. 1996) (pleading standards for fraud under Rule 9(b))
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard; reject conclusory allegations)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (heightened plausibility standard for complaints)
- Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 1993) (relaxation of Rule 9(b) when facts are within plaintiff’s knowledge)