Doe v. SiddigDoe v. Siddig
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
(September 12, 2011)
Plaintiff Jane Doe1 brings this action against Defendants Safwat Hassan Siddig (“S. Siddig“) and Kawthar Hassan Suliman, a.k.a. Kawthar Siddig, asserting a variety of claims in connection with her nineteen years of employment in Defendants’ household as a self-described domestic servant and nanny. Presently before the Court is Defendants’ [18] Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
I. BACKGROUND
Doe is a thirty-four-year-old Sudanese citizen living in the United States. Compl. ¶ 10. She claims that Defendants “trafficked” her into the country over two decades ago in order to benefit from her “forced labor” and thereafter subjected her to “false imprisonment” and “involuntary servitude” for the succeeding nineteen years. Id. ¶ 1.
A. Factual Background
In 1990, Doe was a fourteen-year-old minor living with her family in Sudan.3 Compl. ¶ 12.4 She was a primary school
Thereafter, S. Siddig obtained an A-3 Non-Immigrant Visa5 authorizing Doe to enter the United States. Id. ¶¶ 4, 15-16. In order to secure the visa, Doe‘s written employment contract was presented to officials at the United States Embassy in Sudan. Id. ¶ 15. According to Doe, S. Siddig or his agents falsely represented Doe‘s age on her visa and passport applications in order to make her appear as an adult instead of a fourteen-year-old minor. Id. ¶ 16.
In 1990, Doe moved to the United States to serve as a domestic servant and nanny in Defendants’ household in Woodbridge, Virginia. Id. ¶¶ 2, 11. For the next nineteen years, Defendants forced Doe to work long hours seven days a week, without holiday-, vacation-, or sick-leave. Id. ¶¶ 2, 17, 19. Her daily responsibilities included cleaning Defendants’ home, washing and ironing clothes, cooking meals, and caring for Defendants’ four children, including two adult disabled children. Id. ¶¶ 17-19. Doe would also periodically care for the children of Defendants’ relatives and guests. Id. ¶¶ 18-19.
In the nineteen-year period extending from 1990 to 2009, Defendants never paid Doe the federal statutory minimum wage for the hours that she worked. Id. ¶¶ 3, 62, 66. Instead, she received $100 per month, approximately $3.33 per day, from 1990 until 1999 or 2000; $150 per month, approximately $5 per day, from 1999 or 2000 until 2006; and $200 per month, approximately $6.66 per day, from 2006 until 2009. Id. ¶ 3. Moreover, Doe was ordinarily paid only half of these amounts; she was told that the remainder was sent to her family in Sudan. Id.
Defendants kept Doe isolated from the outside world. Id. ¶ 28. Upon her arrival in the United States, they confiscated her passport, prohibited her from leaving the house alone, and told her that if she did ever leave the house alone, “she would be kidnapped or arrested.” Id. ¶¶ 28-29, 53. As a fourteen-year-old minor, Doe believed these statements and was scared to leave Defendants’ home on her own. Id. Indeed, Doe did not travel outside Defendants’ home alone for sixteen years. Id. ¶¶ 28, 36. She did not leave Virginia on her own until 2008, when she was approximately thirty-two years old. Id. ¶¶ 6, 30.
Doe was also isolated from her family in Sudan and the United States. Id. ¶¶ 32-33, 101. Defendants rarely allowed Doe to speak to her family in Sudan and did not tell her when relatives living in the United States attempted to make contact. Id. ¶¶ 32-33. On one occasion, when S. Siddig learned that Doe had made contact with a
Despite their prior representations, Defendants attempted to prevent Doe from learning English and did not allow her to attend school until the fall of 2005, approximately fifteen years after she arrived in the United States. Id. ¶¶ 5, 31. In contrast, nearly all of her siblings in Sudan were able to attend college and obtain an appropriate education. Id. ¶¶ 31, 79, 110.
Meanwhile, Defendants constantly subjected Doe to “verbal and psychological abuse,” yelling at her when something went wrong in the house or when she did not meet their demands. Id. ¶¶ 21-23, 35, 99. Her health also suffered. The harsh cleaning chemicals that Defendants forced Doe to use for her housekeeping responsibilities caused her to “develop[] breathing difficulties” and burned her skin, resulting in “scars, rashes, and peeling skin that continue to disfigure her hands and feet today.” Id. ¶¶ 20, 25. Additionally, Defendants’ adult disabled children physically injured Doe, with one incident resulting in Doe temporarily losing her hearing. Id. ¶ 27. Despite numerous requests, Doe rarely received medical care because Defendants told her that it was too expensive. Id. ¶¶ 24, 26, 116.
On August 7, 2009, Doe “escaped” from Defendants’ control with assistance from a relative living in the United States. Id. ¶¶ 34, 37. Since then, Defendants have continued to try to locate Doe, “demand[ing] to know when she will return.” Id. ¶ 38.
B. Procedural History
Doe commenced this action on July 26, 2010. She asserts a total of thirteen claims against Defendants: (1) involuntary servitude pursuant to the
The Court held an Initial Scheduling Conference on December 1, 2010, during which the Court set an appropriate briefing schedule for the pending Motion to Dismiss. See Scheduling & Procedures Order (Dec. 1, 2010), ECF No. [13], at 7. Consistent with the schedule set by the Court, Defendants filed their moving papers on January 21, 2011, and Doe filed a timely opposition on February 11, 2011. Defendants failed to file a reply by the designated deadline or at any time thereafter. Accordingly, the motion is fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,”
III. DISCUSSION
A. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Is Fundamentally Infirm
At the outset, the Court pauses to make an overarching observation about the nature of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Although Defendants dutifully recite the legal standard governing this Court‘s review of a motion to dismiss, they consistently ignore that standard, setting forth their own version of the relevant facts and relying on that version in support of many of their legal arguments.6 See Defs.’ Mem. at 2-4. Often, their version of events directly contradicts the factual allegations set forth by Doe in her First Amended Complaint. Simply by way of example, whereas Doe alleges that Defendants systematically isolated her from the outside world and prevented her from traveling outside the household alone for sixteen years, see Compl. ¶¶ 6, 28-30, 32-34, 36, 53, 101, Defendants contend that Doe “was, at all relevant times, given complete freedom of movement,” Defs.’ Mem. at 4. Conspicuously absent from Defendants’ moving papers is a single citation to Doe‘s First Amended Complaint.
It is hornbook law that, on a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, and confine its consideration to those allegations (as well as documents incorporated in the complaint and matters of public record or of which the court may take judicial notice). Inexplicably, Defendants have completely disregarded this fundamental premise in crafting their Motion to Dismiss. The Court shall not belabor the point: Defendants’ chosen approach is patently impermissible and a waste of the parties’ and this Court‘s scarce time and resources. The Court shall disregard Defendants’ extraneous factual allegations and their legal arguments premised on those factual allegations. These arguments include the following: (1) the contention that Doe‘s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches,
see Defs.’ Mem. at 6-7; (2) the contention that Doe‘s claim for breach of contract
B. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Will Be Denied Insofar as It Is Based on the Expiration of the Applicable Statutes of Limitations
Defendants argue that Doe‘s claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) failure to pay statutory minimum wages in violation of the FLSA, (3) false imprisonment, (4) fraudulent inducement, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations. See Defs.’ Mem. at 11-12, 14-15, 17-18. Doe concedes that at least some of these claims would be barred, in whole or in part, if the statutes of limitations were strictly applied, but counters that each of the limitations periods should be equitably tolled until July 26, 2008, when she was first permitted to travel outside Virginia alone.8 See Pl.‘s Opp‘n at 11-15. Upon consideration of the totality of the well-
pleaded factual allegations in the First Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that Doe has adduced enough factual content to render her equitable tolling argument sufficiently plausible to allow her to proceed to discovery. See Jones v. Rogers Mem‘l Hosp., 442 F.2d 773, 775 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (noting that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that should not be decided on a motion to dismiss unless it is clear that plaintiff is not entitled to relief); Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1206 (9th Cir. 1995) (observing that “[b]ecause the applicability of the doctrine of equitable tolling often depends on matters outside the pleadings, it is not generally amenable to resolution on a [motion to dismiss].“) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, as Doe correctly observes, several courts have found the sort of factual allegations raised by Doe sufficient to invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Attisha, 2010 WL 8161660, at *1, 4-5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010); Deressa v. Gobena, 2006 WL 335629, at *1, 3-5 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2006); Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 389 (2007). Absent any contrary argument from Defendants, the Court considers it
One concluding observation is in order. Due to Defendants’ failure to file a reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss, the legal briefing relevant to Doe‘s equitable tolling argument has necessarily been one-sided. The Court underscores that the legal issues raised by Doe‘s argument are rather complex, and will require close attention from the parties in the future. At this point, the Court shall merely provide a non-exhaustive list of issues that will likely need to be addressed in any future motion. First, because some of Doe‘s claims arise under state law and others arise under federal law, the parties should be prepared to discuss how the relevant body of law (federal or state) affects Doe‘s equitable tolling argument. Compare Mondy v. Sec‘y of the Army, 845 F.2d 1051, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 1988), and Doe I v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 573 F. Supp. 2d 16, 34 (D.D.C. 2008), with Grimes v. Suzukawa, 551 S.E.2d 644, 646 (Va. 2001). This task may be further complicated in this case because some of Doe‘s claims may require the Court to borrow the statute of limitations applicable to the closest state law analog. See Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y. v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 485 (1980) (noting that the borrowing of a state statute of limitations “logically include[s]” borrowing the applicable tolling doctrine). Second, Doe‘s claim that “[i]t is well-established that the equitable tolling doctrine is read into every federal statute of limitations,” Pl.‘s Opp‘n at 11, is not strictly accurate. Rather, “[i]t is hornbook law that limitations periods are customarily subject to equitable tolling . . . unless tolling would be inconsistent with the text of the relevant statute.” Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 49 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Holland v. Florida, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2560 (2010) (“[A] nonjurisdictional federal statute of limitations is normally subject to a rebuttable presumption in favor of equitable tolling.“) (emphasis omitted). The parties should be prepared to discuss whether the application of the equitable tolling doctrine to any of Doe‘s statutory claims would be inconsistent with the underlying statute. Third, because it is alleged that S. Siddig was an official or employee of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C., at all times relevant to this action, the parties should be prepared to discuss the impact of any diplomatic immunity on the running of the statutes of limitations. See, e.g., Gonzales Paredes v. Vila, 479 F. Supp. 2d 187, 189 n.2 (D.D.C. 2007); Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 776 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court merely flags these issues for the parties. They raise questions for another day.
C. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Will Be Granted-in-Part and Denied-in-Part Insofar as it Seeks Dismissal of Doe‘s Claim for Involuntary Servitude
Defendants tender three arguments as to why Doe‘s claim for involuntary servitude under the
First, Defendants argue that Section 1584 is a criminal statute and does not create a private right of action. See Defs.’ Mem at 7. While that is undeniably true,
Second, citing retroactivity concerns, Defendants argue that Doe‘s claim for involuntary servitude based on violations of Section 1584 should be “limited to the date of [the statute‘s] enactment.” Defs.’ Mem. at 8. Section 1584 has imposed criminal liability on persons responsible for involuntary servitude since 1948, long before the events in question in this action are alleged to have transpired. However, Congress did not amend Section 1595 to create a private right of action for violations of Section 1584 until December 23, 2008. Despite Doe‘s arguments to the contrary, see Pl.‘s Opp‘n at 17, this represented a significant expansion of civil liability—“an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.” Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 283-84 (1994). Permitting private litigants to invoke Section 1595 to seek relief for violations of Section 1584 predating December 23, 2008 would undoubtedly “increase a party‘s liability for past conduct.” Id. at 281; see also Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 520 U.S. 939, 950 (1997) (concluding that an amendment to a statute “permitting actions by an expanded universe of plaintiffs with different incentives” was subject to the presumption against retroactivity). Therefore, and because there is no clear congressional intent favoring retroactive application, the Court shall dismiss Doe‘s claim for involuntary servitude under Sections 1584 and 1595 insofar as it is predicated on acts predating December 23, 2008. Cf. Nattah v. Bush, 2011 WL 938670, at *9 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2011) (concluding that Section 1595 “cannot be applied retroactively.“). Doe may nonetheless pursue such a claim for conduct occurring between December 23, 2008 and her alleged “escape” from Defendants’ control on or about August 7, 2009.
Third, and finally, Defendants contend that Doe cannot seek relief for involuntary servitude pursuant to an implied cause of action under the
In sum, the Court concludes that Doe may pursue a claim for involuntary servitude only under Sections 1584 and 1595 and only for conduct occurring between December 23, 2008 and her alleged “escape” from Defendants’ control on or about August 7, 2009.
D. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Will Be Granted-in-Part and Denied-in-Part Insofar as it Seeks Dismissal of Doe‘s Claims Under the TVPA
Defendants similarly argue that Doe‘s claim for trafficking for purposes of forced labor under the TVPA,
The Court rejects Defendants’ separate argument that Doe has failed to adduce sufficient facts to state a plausible claim that they violated Sections 1589 and 1590, an argument that is made without any meaningful reference to the statutory text or the allegations set forth in the First Amended Complaint. See Defs.’ Mem. at 9-10. Doe has provided sufficient factual content to state a plausible claim under Section 1595 for violations of Sections 1589 and 1590.
In sum, the Court shall deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Doe‘s claims for forced labor and trafficking for purposes of forced labor except insofar as those claims are predicated on acts predating December 19, 2003. Doe may pursue such claims insofar as they relate to conduct occurring between December 19, 2003 and August 7, 2009.
E. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Will Be Denied Insofar as It Seeks Dismissal of Doe‘s FLSA Claim
Defendants assert that Doe‘s claim under the FLSA must be dismissed because her allegations that she was denied the statutory minimum wage are conclusory. See Defs.’ Mem. at 12. Specifically, Defendants fault Doe for “mak[ing] no effort to quantify monetary wages she earned plus the non-monetary wages
F. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Will Be Denied Insofar as It Seeks Dismissal of Doe‘s Claim for False Imprisonment
Defendants claim that Doe‘s claim for false imprisonment must be dismissed because Doe has “failed to plead direct restraint at the hands of Defendant [sic] which restrained [her] physical liberty and there existed no legal justification.” Defs.’ Mem. at 14. However, Defendants’ implication that a plaintiff must allege a direct physical restraint in order to recover for false imprisonment is misplaced. Under Virginia law, which the parties agree applies to Doe‘s false imprisonment claim, it is sufficient that the defendant used “force, words, or acts” of which the plaintiff was “afraid to ignore or to which [she] reasonably believe[d] [she] must submit.” Zahand v. United Airlines Inc., 1994 WL 1031381, at *3 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1994). In other words, Virginia has eschewed the so-called “stone walls and iron bars” approach to false imprisonment. Upon consideration of the totality of the well-pleaded factual allegations in the First Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that Doe has adduced enough factual content to render her false imprisonment claim sufficiently plausible to allow her to proceed to discovery.
G. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Will Be Denied Insofar as It Seeks Dismissal of Doe‘s Claims for Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit
Defendants contend that Doe‘s claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit must be dismissed because she “makes no effort to quantify” her monetary and non-monetary wages. Defs.’ Mem. at 15, 17. However, Doe is not required to plead with particularity damages that would typically be expected to flow from her claims. See
H. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Will Be Denied Insofar as It Seeks Dismissal of Doe‘s Claim for Negligence
Lastly, Defendants argue that Doe‘s negligence claim must fail because they owed Doe “nothing more than [an] ordinary duty of care.” Defs.’ Mem. at 18. Defendants cite to no legal authority in support of their position nor make any attempt to correlate their argument to the factual allegations set forth in the First Amended Complaint. Such an argument hardly warrants serious attention; courts need not resolve arguments raised in a
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court shall GRANT-IN-PART and DENY-IN-PART Defendants’ [18] Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, the motion shall be GRANTED insofar as Defendants seek dismissal of (a) Doe‘s claim for involuntary servitude under Sections 1584 and 1595 to the extent her claim is based on acts predating December 23, 2008, (b) Doe‘s claim for involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment, regardless of the dates of the underlying conduct, (c) Doe‘s claim for trafficking for purposes of forced labor under Sections 1590 and 1595 to the extent her claim is based on acts predating December 19, 2003, and (d) Doe‘s claim for forced labor under Sections 1589 and 1595 to the extent her claim is based on acts predating December 19, 2003. The motion shall otherwise be DENIED, including with respect to (a) Doe‘s claim for involuntary servitude under Sections 1584 and 1595 for conduct occurring between December 23, 2008 and August 7, 2009, (b) Doe‘s claim for trafficking for purposes of forced labor under Sections 1590 and 1595 to the extent her claim is based on conduct occurring between December 19, 2003 and August 7, 2009, and (c) Doe‘s claim for forced labor under Sections 1589 and 1595 to the extent her claim is based on conduct occurring between December 19, 2003 and August 7, 2009. Defendants shall serve and file their Answer to the First Amended Complaint by no later than September 28, 2011. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Dated: September 12, 2011
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge