Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 1 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 SEAN P. GATES (CA SBN 186247) SGates@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017-3543 Telephone: 213.892.5200 Attorney for Plaintiffs JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, AND JOHN DOE V 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, AND JOHN DOE V, 13 14 15 16 Case No. Plaintiffs, v. PURE FOREST, LLC, JEFF WADSWORTH, OWEN WADSWORTH, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 COMPLAINT Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, and John Doe 21 V (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are victims of human trafficking who proceed under 22 pseudonyms due to a reasonable fear of retaliation due to threats of bodily injury or 23 death made by defendants, either directly or through their agents. Plaintiffs allege 24 as follows: PARTIES 25 26 1. Plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico who were recruited by defendants to 27 enter the United States to perform labor for defendant Pure Forest, LLC (“Pure 28 Forest”). Plaintiffs entered the United States lawfully in April and July 2012 on H1 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 2 of 27 1 2 2B visas. 2. Defendant Pure Forest is a limited liability corporation organized 3 under the laws of the State of Idaho. Its principal place of business is in Oakley, 4 Idaho. On information and belief, among other things, Pure Forest grows, harvests, 5 and sells Christmas trees. 6 7 8 9 3. Pure Forest has registered in California as a Foreign Limited Liability Company since at least 2009. 4. Defendant Jeff Wadsworth is the Chief Executive Officer and a member of Pure Forest. 10 5. Defendant Owen Wadsworth is a member of Pure Forest. 11 6. Upon information and belief, Pure Forest engages in interstate 12 commerce through the production, distribution, and sale of its products in a 13 multistate area. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14 15 7. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1595 and 1964(c); 16 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1337(a), and 1350; and 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b) and 1854. 17 This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims pursuant 18 to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 19 8. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as a substantial part 20 of the events giving rise to this action occurred within this district and defendants 21 do business in this district. Venue is also proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), 22 as defendants Pure Forest, Jeff Wadsworth, and Owen Wadsworth are subject to 23 personal jurisdiction in the state of California. Venue is also proper pursuant to 18 24 U.S.C. § 1965. STATEMENT OF FACTS 25 26 Fraudulent Recruitment of John Doe I, John Doe II, and John Doe III 27 9. 28 Acting through its Mexican national employees Pure Forest recruited individuals, including Plaintiffs, to travel to the United States to perform labor. 2 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 3 of 27 1 10. Acting with the authorization of Pure Forest and, on information and 2 belief, at the direction of defendants Jeff Wadsworth and Owen Wadsworth, the 3 Mexican recruiter offered work to Mexican nationals, including three Plaintiffs: 4 John Doe I, John Doe II, and John Doe III (“Does I-III”). 5 11. Through its Mexican recruiter and, on information and belief, at the 6 direction of Jeff Wadsworth and Owen Wadsworth, Pure Forest made fraudulent 7 representations to Does I-III, promising that Pure Forest would employ Does I-III 8 in California to do deforestation work for forty hours a week at a wage of $16.47 9 per hour for nine months. Pure Forest also promised that it would pay for the visa 10 and travel expenses for Does I-III. In addition, Pure Forest promised that it would 11 provide Does I-III with all meals during their time of employment and would 12 provide trailers for lodging. Does I-III accepted this offer. 13 14 15 12. Pure Forest scheduled interviews at the U.S. embassy for Does I-III to apply for their visas. Each obtained an H-2B visa. 13. Pure Forest arranged for Does I-III to travel to the United States. 16 Sometime after April 1, 2012, U.S. CIS inspected and admitted Does I-III on the H- 17 2B visas. 18 14. In Gerber, California, Does I-III and other workers were divided 19 amongst the Pure Forest “bosses.” Does I-III were assigned to work under one 20 Pure Forest supervisor. The Pure Forest supervisor took the Plaintiffs to a remote 21 work location in the Sierra Nevada mountains. 22 15. When the Plaintiffs arrived at the work site they were given nothing 23 but a tent to sleep in. Does I-III were forced to share a tent because there were not 24 enough for all of the workers. Does I-III were each forced to buy a sleeping bag 25 from Pure Forest for $35. 26 Fraudulent Recruitment of John Doe IV and John Doe V 27 16. 28 Through Pure Forest’s Mexican recruiters Pure Forest recruited Plaintiffs John Doe IV and John Doe V (“Does IV-V”). Through these Mexican 3 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 4 of 27 1 recruiters and, on information and belief, at the direction of Jeff Wadsworth and 2 Owen Wadsworth, Pure Forest made fraudulent representations to Does IV-V. The 3 manner of recruitment was nearly identical to the recruitment of Does I-III. Pure 4 Forest offered work in California to do deforestation work for forty hours a week at 5 a rate of $16.47 an hour for nine months. Pure Forest promised that it would pay 6 for the visa and travel expenses for Does IV-V. In addition, Pure Forest promised 7 that it would provide Does IV-V with all meals during their time of employment 8 and would provide trailers for lodging. Does IV-V accepted this offer. 9 10 11 12 13 17. Pure Forest scheduled interviews at the U.S. embassy for Does IV-V to apply for their visas. Each obtained an H-2B visa. 18. Pure Forest arranged for Does IV-V to travel to the United States. U.S. CIS inspected and admitted each of them on H-2B visas in July 2012. 19. Once in Sacramento, California, Does IV-V and other workers were 14 separated into groups and assigned to work under Owen Wadsworth. Owen 15 Wadsworth took Does IV-V to a remote work location in the Sierra Nevada 16 mountains. 17 20. Does IV-V were given only a tent to sleep in. 18 Confiscation of Plaintiff’s Passport 19 21. John Doe III had his passport taken by Pure Forest when he arrived in 20 Gerber, California. Pure Forest retained the passport for several weeks before 21 returning it to John Doe III. 22 22. John Doe IV had his passport, identification cards and other 23 documents taken by defendant Owen Wadsworth. John Doe IV asked to have these 24 documents returned when they were told the work was done and they needed to 25 leave. Pure Forest would not return the documents upon request. 26 Oppressive Working Conditions 27 23. 28 Once each group of Plaintiffs arrived in the mountains, they were required by defendants to plant trees and spray chemicals on the surrounding 4 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 5 of 27 1 ground. Plaintiffs did not receive proper attire or equipment for working with the 2 tools and chemicals. Plaintiffs received no training. 3 24. Plaintiffs were forced to carry chemical containers on their backs. The 4 containers often leaked, resulting in chemical burns on Plaintiffs’ backs and hands. 5 Plaintiffs’ eyes are red and irritated from the constant exposure to the chemicals. 6 25. Doe V became ill from chemical exposure. He often woke up 7 nauseous and dizzy from the chemicals. He also cut his hand during work. 8 Defendants would not let him rest while he was injured. Defendants did not 9 provide any medication or first aid for these injuries. 10 11 12 26. Plaintiffs suffered anxiety worrying about the long-term effects they would suffer due to the harmful chemicals they were using. 27. Pure Forest supervisors were always armed; they carried weapons and 13 had weapons in their vehicles. Pure Forest supervisors, under the supervision of 14 Jeff Wadsworth and Owen Wadsworth, constantly threatened Plaintiffs and the 15 other workers, telling them repeatedly that they would shoot them and leave them 16 for dead if they did not continue to work. For instance, John Doe I witnessed one 17 Pure Forest supervisor tell another worker that he would put a bullet in his head. 18 John Doe I was paralyzed with fear. The Pure Forest supervisors also used abusive 19 and crude language to berate the Plaintiffs and other workers, eroding their 20 confidence. 21 22 23 28. The Pure Forest supervisors often would shoot their guns off in the middle of the night to scare the workers. Plaintiffs reasonably feared for their lives. 29. The Pure Forest supervisors, under the supervision of Jeff Wadsworth 24 and Owen Wadsworth, inflicted this psychological and verbal abuse to coerce 25 Plaintiffs into believing that they would be seriously harmed if they did not work at 26 a fast pace or tried to leave Pure Forest. 27 28 30. Plaintiffs were forced to work twelve to thirteen hours each day, six days a week, regardless of the weather conditions. Plaintiffs were not permitted 5 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 6 of 27 1 breaks to rest in the summer in order to take shelter from the heat. Plaintiffs were 2 forced to work outdoors in the rain. 3 31. Plaintiffs received only one short break for a meal and water during 4 the long work days. Plaintiffs would often not eat because the food was rotten. 5 They were forced to drink unpurified water directly from the river. Plaintiffs only 6 source of water for showering was also the river. 7 32. On Sundays the Plaintiffs would be required to prepare for the next 8 week; they would sharpen tools, mix chemicals, and wash their clothes. Plaintiffs 9 did not have a day off during their time with Pure Forest. 10 33. On Sundays Plaintiffs were taken to town to wash their clothes. Pure 11 Forest’s drivers would watch them closely while in town to make sure they did not 12 speak with anyone. The laundry mat owners eventually told Plaintiffs they could 13 not use the washing machines due to all of the chemicals on their clothing. 14 Plaintiffs were forced to use what little money they had saved to buy a used 15 washing machine from one Pure Forest supervisor. 16 34. Plaintiffs continued to work only because they had no other option. 17 They were disoriented, confused, stuck in a remote part of the Sierra Nevada 18 mountains miles from the nearest town, and they were in a foreign country where 19 they did not speak the language. Plaintiffs felt trapped, they believed they had no 20 choice other than to do as they were told. They feared that they would not ever be 21 permitted to leave. Plaintiffs were terrified that they would face serious harm if 22 they did not continue to work. Plaintiffs suffered from serious stress, lack of sleep, 23 and anxiety caused by these circumstances. 24 35. Plaintiffs also feared for the safety of their families. The Pure Forest 25 supervisors, under the supervision of Jeff Wadsworth and Owen Wadsworth, 26 intimidated Plaintiffs by threatening to harm their families in Mexico. 27 28 36. It was in the interest of Pure Forest, and with the actual or constructive knowledge of Jeff Wadsworth and Owen Wadsworth, that the Pure Forest 6 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 7 of 27 1 supervisors intimidated, defrauded, and coerced Plaintiffs as described above. 2 Defendants’ “Deductions” From Plaintiffs’ Pay 3 37. Plaintiffs were “paid” in cash by Pure Forest every two weeks. 4 Although Plaintiffs were given paystubs showing payment for 40 hours of work at 5 $16.50 an hour, the paystubs did not show the “deductions” taken out by Pure 6 Forest, including for travel expenses and each Plaintiffs’ visa. Plaintiffs had not 7 been previously informed about these deductions. When Plaintiffs complained 8 about these deductions, they were told that they had to pay for these items. 9 Plaintiffs had no recourse. 10 38. Plaintiffs were each forced to pay for food and to give $60 to the cook 11 using what little cash they were given. Plaintiffs had not been previously informed 12 about these expenses. After the deductions, Plaintiffs were left with essentially no 13 money. 14 15 16 39. Defendants Jeff Wadsworth and Owen Wadsworth were fully aware of the deductions taken from Plaintiffs’ pay. 40. Does II and V complained to a Pure Forest supervisor about the 17 deductions that were being taken out of each pay check. Plaintiffs asked Jeff 18 Wadsworth how much they owed for the visa and travel expenses. Plaintiffs were 19 never given an answer. 20 21 41. The “deductions” continued for the entire time Plaintiffs worked for Pure Forest. 22 42. 23 Defendants’ Failure to Pay Wages 24 43. 25 26 Plaintiffs never received a tax statement from defendants. Upon information and belief, Pure Forest failed to keep accurate wage and hour records as required by federal and state law. 44. Due to the deductions made by defendants described in paragraphs 37 27 through 41, Plaintiffs’ hourly wages fell below both state and federal minimum 28 wage requirements. 7 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 8 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 45. Defendants failed to pay the wage rate promised to the Plaintiffs at the time of their recruitment in Mexico. 46. Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs for all of the hours they worked in each workweek. 47. Although Plaintiffs worked well over forty hours in each workweek, 6 defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime at the rate of one and a half times the 7 regular rate of pay for their overtime hours in excess of 8 hours per day and/or 40 8 hours per week, as required by federal law, state law, and the foreign labor 9 certification. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime at the rate of two times 10 the regular rate of pay for their overtime hours in excess of twelve hours per day, as 11 required by state law. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs were 12 working extremely long hours each week and were not receiving the wages to 13 which the Plaintiffs were entitled by law. 14 Plaintiffs Leave Pure Forest 15 48. On about October, 2012 Plaintiffs were told that there was no more 16 work for them. They were taken to a bus stop where a Pure Forest supervisor paid 17 for bus tickets with money that had been withheld from the Plaintiffs’ last pay 18 checks. 19 49. The Pure Forest supervisors, under the supervision of Jeff Wadsworth 20 and Owen Wadsworth, threatened Plaintiffs and the other workers. The Pure Forest 21 supervisors warned them not to tell anyone what had happened, and they threatened 22 to harm Plaintiffs’ and the other workers’ families if they did tell anyone. 23 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (“FLSA”) (All Defendants) 24 25 26 27 28 50. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 of this complaint as if full set forth herein. 51. At all times relevant to this case, defendants were employers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). 8 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 9 of 27 1 52. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the federal statutory minimum wage 2 during the time they were employed by defendants, in violation of 29 U.S.C. 3 § 206(a)(1). 4 5 6 53. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime pay for all hours that they worked in excess of forty per week in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). 54. Defendants made unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs’ wages. These 7 unlawful deductions cumulatively brought Plaintiffs’ wages below the statutory 8 minimum in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 211(c). 9 55. Defendants made deductions from Plaintiffs’ wages for their 10 transportation fees to the United States and the associated visa fees, which were 11 expenses incurred primarily for the benefit of the defendant employers, in violation 12 of 29 C.F.R. § 531.35. Because of defendants’ deductions, Plaintiffs were not paid 13 all wages free and clear during their employment, in violation of 29 U.S.C. 14 § 206(a)(1). 15 56. As a result of these violations, Plaintiffs suffered damages. 16 57. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of damages for unpaid minimum 17 wages and unpaid overtime, plus liquidated damages in an equal amount and 18 interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, in an amount to be determined at trial. 29 U.S.C. 19 § 216(b). 20 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION ACT (“AWPA”) (All Defendants) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 58. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 57 of this complaint as if set fully set forth herein. 59. At all times relevant to this case, defendants were agricultural employers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(2). 60. At all times relevant to this case, the Plaintiffs were migrant agricultural workers within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1802(8)(A). 9 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 10 of 27 1 61. Defendants intentionally violated AWPA by: 2 a. Failing to disclose in writing, to each Plaintiff at the time of that 3 Plaintiff’s recruitment, complete and accurate information about 4 the employment, as required by 29 U. S.C. § 1821(a), including: i. The wage rates to be paid, 29 U. S.C. § 1821(a)(2); 5 ii. The crops and kinds of activities on which the worker 6 may be employed, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(a)(3); 7 8 iii. The period of employment, 29 U.S.C. 1821(a)(4); 9 iv. The transportation, housing, and any other employment 10 benefit to be provided, and any costs to be charged for 11 each of them, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(a)(5); and v. Whether State workers’ compensation insurance is 12 provided, 29 U.S.C. § 1821(a)(8). 13 b. Failing to post, in a conspicuous place, a statement of Plaintiffs’ 14 15 rights and protections under the AWPA, in violation of 29 16 U. S.C. § 1821(b); c. Failing to post or present each worker with a statement of the 17 18 terms and conditions of occupancy of the housing, in violation 19 of 29 U.S.C. § 1821(c); d. Failing to make, keep, and preserve records for each Plaintiff, as 20 required by 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(1); 21 e. Failing to provide each Plaintiff with an itemized written 22 23 statement of the information contained in such records every pay 24 period, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2); f. Knowingly providing false or misleading information 25 26 concerning the terms and conditions of employment in violation 27 of 29 U.S.C. § 1821(f); 28 10 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 11 of 27 g. Failing to pay the wages owed to each worker when due, in 1 violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1822(a); 2 h. Requiring Plaintiffs purchase goods in violation of 29 U.S.C. 3 § 1822(b); 4 i. Violating, without justification, the terms of the working 5 arrangement in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1822(c); 6 j. Failing to ensure that the housing in which defendants forced 7 8 Plaintiffs to live met federal and state health and safety codes, in 9 violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1823(a); k. Housing Plaintiffs without first securing the certification 10 required by 29 U.S.C. § 1823(b); and 11 12 l. Discriminating against and intimidating Plaintiffs for voicing 13 complaints about their working conditions, in violation of 29 14 U.S.C. § 1855(a). 15 62. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered damages. 16 63. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for these 17 violations of their rights under federal law. 18 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1194.2,1197, and 1198) (Defendant Pure Forest) 19 20 21 22 23 64. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 63 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 65. By virtue of defendant Pure Forest’s unlawful failure and refusal to 24 pay Plaintiffs wages in the amount and at the time due as required by law, Plaintiffs 25 have suffered damages in amounts to be proven at trial, and are entitled to all 26 appropriate penalties provided by the Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare 27 Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders, including liquidated damages. 28 11 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 12 of 27 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1197.1) (All Defendants) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 66. through 65 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 67. damages in amounts to be proven at trial, and are entitled to all appropriate penalties provided by the Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders, including penalties of $100 for each Plaintiff for the initial violation and an additional $250 for each Plaintiff for each subsequent pay period for which Plaintiffs were underpaid under California Labor Code § 1197.1(a). FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL BREAKS AND REST BREAKS (Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7) (Defendant Pure Forest) 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 By virtue of defendants’ unlawful failure and refusal to pay Plaintiffs’ wages in the amount and at the time due as required by law, Plaintiffs have suffered 12 15 Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 68. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 67 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 69. Defendant Pure Forest routinely and repeatedly refused to provide Plaintiffs with adequate meal periods, and to authorize or permit Plaintiffs to take rest period, in violation of California Labor Code § 226.7 and applicable IWC Wage Orders. 70. By virtue of its unlawful refusal to allow Plaintiffs meal and rest periods, to which they were entitled to by law, defendant Pure Forest is liable to Plaintiffs for statutory damages in an amount equal to one hour of wages for each day that an adequate rest period was not authorized or permitted, and one hour of wages for each day that an adequate meal period was not provided, in amounts to be proven at trial. 27 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION 28 12 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 13 of 27 (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 970, 1709, 1710) (All Defendants) 1 2 3 4 5 71. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 70 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 72. Defendants committed fraud by representing, either directly or through 6 their agents, to Plaintiffs that they would be paid $16.47 per hour and work 40 7 hours per week. Defendants falsely represented to Plaintiffs that they would not 8 need to pay for their transportation to California or their visa expenses. Further, 9 defendants falsely represented to Plaintiffs that they would have a decent place to 10 11 12 13 14 sleep and would not need to pay for food. 73. When defendants made these representations to Plaintiffs, defendants knew these representations to be false. 74. Defendants made these representations in order to induce Plaintiffs to travel to the United States and to perform labor for defendants. 15 75. Plaintiffs relied on defendants’ representations to their detriment. 16 76. Plaintiffs were justified in their reliance on defendants’ fraudulent 17 representations. 18 77. Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary damages in an amount equivalent to 19 double the detriment they suffered by relying upon defendants’ fraudulent 20 representations. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1709, 1710) (All Defendants) 21 22 23 24 25 26 78. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 77 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 79. Defendants made false representations, either directly or through their 27 agents, to Plaintiffs about the circumstances of their employment in the United 28 States, including, but not limited to, making false representations about the amount 13 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 14 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 and manner of payment. 80. Defendants had no reasonable grounds for believing their representations to Plaintiffs were true. 81. Defendants intended for Plaintiffs to rely on their false statements and misrepresentations. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on defendants’ misrepresentations. 82. Plaintiffs were unaware of defendants’ true intentions, and had they 7 been aware of such facts, would not have left Mexico to come to the United States 8 to work for Pure Forest. 9 83. Plaintiffs were injured as a result of their reliance on defendants’ false 10 statements and misrepresentations, which caused Plaintiffs to leave their home, 11 subjected Plaintiffs to exploitation of their labor, and caused Plaintiffs to suffer 12 damages. 13 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLIGENCE (All Defendants) 14 15 16 17 84. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 83 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 85. Defendants stood in a special relationship to Plaintiffs, based on the 18 facts alleged in this Complaint, including but not limited to the following: 19 defendants contracted with Plaintiffs for their employment as laborers, arranged and 20 initially paid for Plaintiffs’ travel to the United States, and procured Plaintiffs’ 21 agreements based on fraudulent pretenses. Defendants brought Plaintiffs to a 22 remote location in the Sierra Nevada mountains, knew that Plaintiffs had no 23 familiarity with the culture, society, language or laws of the United States, 24 conspired to hold John Doe IV’s passport, and refused to let any of the Plaintiffs 25 leave the premises unaccompanied. Defendants knew at the time they brought 26 Plaintiffs to the United States that they had no money for return airfare and no other 27 means of earning money in the United States. 28 86. The California Labor Code imposes duties on employers, including the 14 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 15 of 27 1 duty to “do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, safety, and 2 health of employees.” Cal. Lab. Code § 6401. 3 87. By virtue of the relationship described above and defendants’ position 4 as Plaintiffs’ employers, their duty of reasonable care towards Plaintiffs under the 5 circumstances included but was not limited to: 1) a duty to provide a work 6 environment free of intimidation, threats, and fear; 2) a duty to provide reasonable 7 accommodations and a safe working and living environment; 3) a duty of 8 reasonable care under the circumstances to protect Plaintiffs’ emotional state; 4) a 9 duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to protect Plaintiffs’ physical well- 10 being; and 5) a duty to ensure Plaintiffs were informed of their rights as employees 11 under the laws of the United States and the State of California. On the basis of the 12 facts alleged in this complaint, defendants assumed a duty to care to Plaintiffs 13 beyond that owed to the public in general, including but not limited to the duties 14 listed above. 15 88. Defendants breached these duties owed to Plaintiffs by the acts and 16 omissions alleged in this complaint, including but not limited to: subjecting 17 Plaintiffs to threats of death and verbal abuse; failure to allow Plaintiffs one day’s 18 rest in seven; and failure to allow or provide Plaintiffs means to leave the premises 19 unaccompanied or contact the outside world. 20 89. As a direct and proximate cause of defendants’ breach of their duty of 21 reasonable care under these circumstances, Plaintiffs have suffered financial harm, 22 serious emotional distress, and other injuries. 23 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF BREACH OF CONTRACT (All Defendants) 24 25 26 27 28 90. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 89 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 91. Defendants collectively entered into contracts with Plaintiffs and each party’s acceptance was supported by good and valuable consideration. 15 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 16 of 27 1 2 3 92. Plaintiffs fulfilled their contractual obligations by traveling to the United States and laboring for defendants. 93. Defendants breached the contracts with Plaintiffs by failing to pay 4 contractually established wages for work performed by Plaintiffs and to cover 5 promised expenses. 6 7 8 9 94. loss of expected wages and income. 95. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (All Defendants) 11 13 14 Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary damages equal to the amount specified in contracts entered with defendants. 10 12 Because of defendants’ breach of contract, Plaintiffs suffered from a 96. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 95 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 97. Defendants made a clear and unambiguous promise to pay Plaintiffs 15 pursuant to the terms of the contracts they entered into in exchange for performance 16 of the services described therein. Plaintiffs actually and reasonably relied upon this 17 promise when agreeing to perform said services and Plaintiffs’ reliance on this 18 promise was foreseeable by defendants. 19 98. Plaintiffs have suffered an injury by not being paid as promised, and 20 their injury can only be avoided by enforcement of defendants’ promise to pay 21 Plaintiffs for their services. 22 ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNJUST ENRICHMENT & QUANTUM MERUIT (All Defendants) 23 24 25 99. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 98 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 26 100. By laboring for Pure Forest, Plaintiffs provided benefits to defendants. 27 101. Plaintiffs expected to be compensated for the labor they provided to 28 defendants. Defendants’ unjust failure to pay Plaintiffs prevailing wages for the 16 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 17 of 27 1 2 3 labor performed constituted a distinct detriment to the Plaintiffs. 102. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to money damages equal to the reasonable value of the labor provided to defendants. 4 TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (All Defendants) 5 6 7 103. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 102 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 8 104. Defendants intentionally engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct 9 that they knew would cause severe emotional distress for the Plaintiffs or acted in 10 reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiffs would suffer emotional distress. 11 105. Defendants’ conduct, either directly or through their agents, which 12 intentionally inflicted emotional distress included, but is not limited to, the use of 13 coercion (including threats of physical harm) to force Plaintiffs to perform manual 14 labor; the withholding of legal documents; the refusal to provide prompt medical 15 treatment when needed; the refusal to pay contractually defined wages; the failure 16 to identify and remedy workplace violations of federal and state laws; and the 17 consistent verbal intimidation and abuse. 18 106. Plaintiffs suffered severe emotion distress that included emotional 19 reactions such as fear, humiliation, anger, worry, helplessness, and powerlessness. 20 This distress was caused by defendants’ intentional acts. 21 107. Further, defendants intentionally engaged in conduct that was 22 malicious, oppressive, despicable, and performed with a reckless indifference to the 23 interests of Plaintiffs. 24 25 108. Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary relief for both compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 26 THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (All Defendants) 27 28 109. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 17 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 18 of 27 1 2 3 4 through 108 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 110. Defendants had a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiffs and they breached this duty by acting negligently and failing to exercise reasonable care. 111. Defendants negligently engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct 5 that they knew or should have known involved an unreasonable risk of causing 6 severe emotional distress to the Plaintiffs. 7 112. Defendants’ conduct which negligently inflicted emotional distress 8 included, but is not limited to, the use of physical and mental coercion to force 9 Plaintiffs to perform manual labor; the withholding of legal documents; the refusal 10 to provide prompt medical treatment when needed; the refusal to pay contractually 11 defined wages; the enforced isolation of Plaintiffs from communication with family 12 members; the failure to identify and remedy workplace violations of federal and 13 state laws; and the consistent verbal intimidation and abuse. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 113. Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress that included emotional reactions such as fear, humiliation, anger, worry, helplessness, and powerlessness. 114. Defendants’ negligent acts were the proximate cause of the distress and injuries that Plaintiffs suffered. 115. Plaintiffs acted at all times in a careful and prudent manner and in the exercise of due care and caution. 116. Further, defendants intentionally engaged in conduct that was 21 malicious, oppressive, despicable, and performed with a reckless indifference to the 22 interests of Plaintiffs. 23 24 117. Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary relief for both compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 25 FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT (“TVPA”) Forced Labor, 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (All Defendants) 26 27 28 118. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 18 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 19 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 through 117 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 119. This claim is brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. 120. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589. 121. Defendants, either directly or through their agents, subjected Plaintiffs 7 to intense psychological and verbal abuse, which was designed to coerce Plaintiffs 8 into believing that they would suffer serious harm if they were to leave the employ 9 of defendants in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(2). 10 122. Defendants, either directly or through their agents, closely controlled 11 and monitored the movements of Plaintiffs in such a way that made Plaintiffs 12 believed they were physically restrained from leaving the employ of defendants in 13 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589. 14 15 16 123. Defendants confiscated Plaintiffs John Doe III and John Doe IV’s passports in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1592. 124. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages, punitive damages, and 17 restitution in an amount to be determined at trial and any other relief deemed 18 appropriate. 19 FIFTHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF TVPA Human Trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 1590 (All Defendants) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 125. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 124 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 126. This claim is brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. 127. Defendants recruited Plaintiffs for the purpose of subjecting them to forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590. 28 19 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 20 of 27 1 128. Defendants recruited Plaintiffs in Mexico with the intention of 2 subjecting them to forced labor. Plaintiffs were told that they would be working in 3 deforestation in California for $16.47 per hour for 40 hours per week. Instead, they 4 were forced to work many more hours each week for very little pay. 5 129. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages, punitive damages, and 6 restitution in an amount to be determined at trial and any other relief deemed 7 appropriate. 8 9 10 11 12 SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF CALIFORNIA TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT (“CTVPA”) Cal. Civ. Code § 52.5 (All Defendants) 130. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 129 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 13 131. This claim is brought under California Civil Code § 52.5. 14 132. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to forced labor in violation of 15 California Penal Code § 236.1. 16 133. Defendants conspired to and used fraud and/or deceit to contract with 17 Plaintiffs for their employment and to bring them to the United States. Defendants 18 then conspired to and used threats, duress, intimidation, fraud, deceit and/or 19 coercion to overbear Plaintiffs’ will, to deprive them of personal liberty by keeping 20 them secluded in a desolate place with no way of contacting their families, and to 21 force them to work for very little wages. 22 134. Through such actions, defendants, acting individually and in concert, 23 and with malice, oppression, fraud and/or duress, conspired to and did subject 24 Plaintiffs to a situation of human trafficking. 25 135. As a direct and proximate result of these actions, Plaintiffs have 26 sustained damages, including mental suffering, humiliation, emotional distress, 27 economic losses and physical injuries. 28 136. Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages, compensatory damages, and 20 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 21 of 27 1 punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial and any other relief 2 deemed appropriate, as well as attorney’s fees and costs of suit. California Civil 3 Code § 52.5(b) also entitles victims to treble damages. 4 SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 Involuntary Servitude & Forced Labor (All Defendants) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 137. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 136 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 138. This Court has jurisdiction over these violations of international law pursuant to the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. 139. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to involuntary servitude and/or forced 12 labor, which are violations of the law of nations and customary international law as 13 reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international 14 instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities. 15 140. One international instrument defines forced labor as “all work or 16 service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for 17 which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.” Convention Concerning 18 Forced or Compulsory Labor art. 2, May 1, 1932, 39 U.N.T.S. 55. 19 141. Defendants, either directly or through their agents, engaged in acts 20 including, but not limited to, psychological coercion, abuse of the legal process, and 21 threats of physical force to exact from Plaintiffs work or service which the Plaintiffs 22 had not offered voluntarily. 23 142. Aiding and abetting involuntary servitude and/or forced labor is also in 24 violation of the law of nations and treaties of the United States and is actionable 25 through the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. 26 143. Defendants aided and abetted the imposition of involuntary servitude 27 and/or forced labor by directing, ordering, conspiring to commit, or aiding the 28 imposition of involuntary servitude and/or forced labor. 21 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 22 of 27 1 2 144. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial and any other relief deemed appropriate. 3 EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 Human Trafficking (All Defendants) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 145. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 144 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 146. This Court has jurisdiction over this violation of international law pursuant to the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. 147. Defendants engaged in human trafficking, which is a violation of the 11 law of nations and customary international law as reflected, expressed, and defined 12 in multilateral treaties and other international instruments, international and 13 domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities. 14 148. The U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in 15 Persons, of which the United States became a signatory in 2000, defines human 16 trafficking as: 17 [T]he recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Crime, G.A. Res. 55/25, Annex II, U.N. GAOR, 55th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/Res/55/25 at 32 (Jan. 8, 2001). 149. Defendants, either directly or through their agents, engaged in acts including, but not limited to the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of Plaintiffs. These acts were conducted through the use of force, the threat 28 22 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 23 of 27 1 of force, abduction, fraud, deception, the abuse of power, and/or a position of 2 vulnerability. 3 4 5 150. Defendants trafficked Plaintiffs for the purposes of obtaining forced labor or services. 151. Aiding and abetting human trafficking is also a violation of the law of 6 nations and treaties of the United States and is actionable through the Alien Tort 7 Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. 8 9 10 11 152. Defendants aided and abetted human trafficking by directing, ordering, conspiring to commit, or aiding human trafficking. 153. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial and any other relief deemed appropriate. 12 NINETEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF FEDERAL RACKETEERING INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (“RICO”) (Defendant Pure Forest as the Enterprise and Defendants Jeff Wadsworth and Owen Wadsworth) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 154. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 153 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 155. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs against defendants Jeff Wadsworth and Owen Wadsworth of Pure Forest (“RICO I Defendants”). 156. Defendant Pure Forest is a corporation, and therefore an enterprise, for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). 22 157. RICO I Defendants organized, conspired, and participated in a 23 criminal worker exploitation scheme designed fraudulently to obtain government 24 approval to employ H-2B workers in order to subject the workers to forced labor 25 and exploit them for personal profit. 26 158. In furtherance of this criminal worker exploitation scheme, the RICO I 27 Defendants unlawfully conducted and participated in the affairs of the enterprise, 28 both directly and indirectly, through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 23 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 24 of 27 1 2 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and § 1962(d). 159. The RICO I Defendants knowingly and willfully committed, and 3 conspired to commit, the following predicate acts under RICO, 18 U.S.C. 4 § 1961(1): a) subjected Plaintiffs to forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 5 § 1589(a)(2)-(3); 6 b) recruited and transported Plaintiffs for the purpose of subjecting them 7 to forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590; 8 c) fraudulently obtained H-2B visas by knowingly making false claims 9 10 and statements about the nature of the work and the wage to be paid in 11 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546; 12 d) committed mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 13 1343, respectively, by sending fraudulent visa applications to U.S. 14 DOL and U.S. CIS; e) threatened physical violence, either directly or through their agents, in 15 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and 16 f) robbed and/or extorted Plaintiffs of their property in violation of 18 17 U.S.C. § 1951. 18 19 160. In furtherance of this criminal worker exploitation scheme, the RICO I 20 Defendants conspired unlawfully to conduct the affairs of an enterprise, both 21 directly and indirectly, through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 22 U. S.C. § 1962(d). 23 161. The RICO I Defendants knew or should have known that inherent to 24 the illegal worker exploitation scheme which they conspired to commit, the 25 following predicate acts under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) would be committed: a) fraudulently obtained H-2B visas by knowingly making false claims 26 27 and statements about the nature of the work and the wage to be paid in 28 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546; 24 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 25 of 27 1 b) committed mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2 1343, respectively, by sending fraudulent visa applications to U.S. 3 DOL and U.S. CIS; c) threatened physical violence, either directly or through their agents, in 4 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and 5 d) robbed and/or extorted Plaintiffs of their property in violation of 18 6 U.S.C. § 1951. 7 8 9 10 11 12 162. Each RICO I Defendant possessed knowledge of the general nature and contours of the criminal worker exploitation scheme. 163. Each RICO I Defendant possessed knowledge that the conspiracy extended beyond their individual roles. 164. Each RICO I Defendant conspired and agreed to further the criminal 13 worker exploitation scheme, which resulted in the commission of the predicate acts 14 described above. 15 165. Each RICO I Defendant shared the same intent as their co-conspirators 16 and had reason to believe that the criminal worker exploitation scheme would lead 17 to the commission of the predicate acts described above. 18 19 20 166. The predicate acts of racketeering activity described above constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). 167. The predicate acts were related to one another: they were committed 21 against the same individuals (the Plaintiffs) and for the same purposes (furtherance 22 of the criminal worker exploitation scheme and personal profit). 23 168. The predicate acts were related to the enterprise. RICO I Defendants 24 could not successfully conduct or conspire to conduct the criminal worker 25 exploitation scheme without the associations that formed the enterprise. 26 27 169. Upon information and belief, the racketeering activity took place over the course of multiple years. 28 25 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 26 of 27 1 170. Such acts of racketeering activity have been part of the RICO I 2 Defendants’ regular way of doing business through the enterprise, which implies a 3 threat of continued criminal activity. 4 171. Plaintiffs bring suit under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) to recover treble 5 damages for injuries sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of the RICO I Defendants’ 6 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d). PRAYER FOR RELIEF 7 8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: 9 172. Award Plaintiffs monetary damages for unpaid wages and unpaid 10 overtime plus liquidated damages in an equal amount and interest, as provided by 11 the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), in the amount of $20,300.00 for each of Does I-III 12 and $11,000.00 for each of Does IV-V or an amount to be determined at trial; 13 173. Award Plaintiffs, for each violation of AWPA, the amount of his 14 actual damages in the amount of $20,300.00 for each of Does I-III and $11,000.00 15 for each of Does IV-V or an amount to be determined at trial plus interest or up to 16 $500 in statutory damages, as provided by the AWPA, 29 USC § 1854; 17 174. Award Plaintiffs unpaid wages and overtime wages pursuant to 18 California Labor Code §§ 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 and 226.7, in the 19 amount of $26,200.00 for each of Does I-III and $14,000.00 for each Does IV-V or 20 in an amount to be determined at trial; 21 22 23 24 175. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000 each or in an amount to be determined at trial. 176. Award Plaintiffs damages for emotional distress in the amount of $100,000 each or in an amount to be determined at trial. 25 177. Award treble damages to Plaintiffs for violations of California Civil 26 Code § 52.5(b) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 27 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq., in an amount to be determined at trial. 28 178. Award restitution to Plaintiffs pursuant to Mandatory Victim’s 26 COMPLAINT la-1233026 Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 27 of 27 1 2 Restitution Act (2000) 18 U.S.C. § 3663 in an amount to be determined at trial. 179. Award attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 3 1964(c) (RICO); 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (FLSA); California Labor Code §§ 1194, 4 1194.2, 1197, 1198 and 226.7; 18 U.S.C. § 1595 (TVPA); and California Civil 5 Code § 52.5 (CTVPA). 6 7 8 9 180. Issue a permanent injunction barring defendants from contacting Plaintiffs or their families. 181. Grant such additional and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 10 11 12 Dated: April 8, 2014 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 13 By: /s/ Sean P. Gates SEAN P. GATES 14 15 Attorney for Plaintiffs John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, and John Doe V 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27 COMPLAINT la-1233026 JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) CIVIL COVER SHEET Case 2:14-cv-00879-LKK-CMK Document 1-1 Filed 04/08/14 Page 1 of 1 The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, JOHN DOE IV, AND JOHN DOE V (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff PURE FOREST, LLC, JEFF WADSWORTH, OWEN WADSWORTH County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) NOTE: Cassia County, ID (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. Attorneys (If Known) (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017-3543 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff ’ 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) ’ 2 U.S. Government Defendant ’ 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State ’ 1 DEF ’ 1 and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4 of Business In This State Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State ’ 5 ’ 5 Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6 IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) CONTRACT ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ TORTS 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’ Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 448 Education FORFEITURE/PENALTY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 365 Personal Injury Product Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 380 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS Habeas Corpus: ’ 463 Alien Detainee ’ 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence ’ 530 General ’ 535 Death Penalty Other: ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 550 Civil Rights ’ 555 Prison Condition ’ 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 690 Other BANKRUPTCY ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 830 Patent ’ 840 Trademark ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Management Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) ’ 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609 OTHER STATUTES ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ 375 False Claims Act 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes IMMIGRATION ’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 465 Other Immigration Actions V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 1 Original Proceeding ’ 2 Removed from State Court ’ 3 Remanded from Appellate Court ’ 4 Reinstated or Reopened ’ 5 Transferred from Another District (specify) ’ 6 Multidistrict Litigation Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 29 USC 201, et seq; 29 USC 1801, et seq; 18 USC 1590; 28 USC 1350; 18 USC 1961, et seq; 18 USC 1589 VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: Plaintiffs are victims of human trafficking who seek damages and a preliminary injunction. ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): IF ANY JUDGE DATE DEMAND $ 1,000,000.00 CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: ’ Yes ’ No JURY DEMAND: DOCKET NUMBER SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Sean P. Gates 04/08/2014 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE