Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 1 of 94

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
Case No.: 9:10-cv-80771-KLR

Roy Magnifico, Roma Lim, Rezza Real,
Jeanette Halup, Bonifacio Ramos,
Lucille Liwag, Ross Ripotola, Raul
Rueda, Aries Caluya, Aris Ordonez,
Ritche Relampagos, Percival De Quiros,
and Jose Auingan, Denlit Fausto, Cesar
Ramos, Irene David, Arnold Laxamana,
Robert Bautista,
Plaintiffs

v.

Roberto Villanueva, Redelina Fernandez,
Star One Staffing, Inc., Star One Staffing
International, Mary Jane Hague, John
Carruthers, and Ruth Carruthers,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CIVIL COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

Plaintiffs, citizens of the Philippines, bring this action regarding forced labor and human

trafficking to recover for damages inflicted by Defendants Star One Staffing, Inc., Star One
Staffing International, Roberto Villanueva, Redelina Fernandez, Mary Jane Hague, John

1

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 2 of 94

Carruthers and Ruth Carruthers. Defendants recruited Plaintiffs from the Philippines and United
States, using fraudulent visa applications, false promises and misrepresentations regarding the
terms and conditions of employment to induce Plaintiffs to work for Defendants in the United
States.
2.

Defendants forced Plaintiffs to live in severely overcrowded housing and to work long

hours in country clubs and hotels in Florida and New York. To ensure that Plaintiffs complied
with their demanding work schedules, Defendants threatened Plaintiffs with arrest,
imprisonment, deportation, cancellation of their visas, loss of work, lawsuits, and blacklisting
and convinced Plaintiffs that they had close relationships with officials in the U.S. and Philippine
governments. Defendants also deducted exorbitant monthly fees from Plaintiffs paychecks for
food, housing, and transportation, despite having promised Plaintiffs during recruitment that
these would be provided for free. As a result of this campaign of fraud and coercion, Plaintiffs
remained in constant fear of the Defendants and believed they had no choice but to obey their
orders and continue working.
3.

Plaintiffs assert claims arising from violations of their rights under the Trafficking

Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §1589 and 18 U.S.C. §1590); Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. §
1350); Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. §1962(c) and 1962(d));
Fair Labor Standards Act (19 U.S.C. §§201 et. seq.); and state statutes and common law.

2

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 3 of 94

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a), a federal question, this action

arising under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), by 28 U.S.C. § 1350, this action
arising under the Alien Tort Statute, by 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), this action arising under the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this
action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), by 28 U.S.C. § 1337, this action
arising under Acts of Congress regulating commerce, and by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this action
arising under the U.S. Constitution and federal laws. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction
over the related state law claims asserted herein under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction and
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Supplemental jurisdiction over those claims is appropriate because
they arise from the same common nucleus of operative facts from which the federal claims arise.
5.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the Southern District of Florida.
Venue is also proper pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1965.
PARTIES
6.

Plaintiffs Roy Magnifico, Roma Lim, Rezza Real, Jeanette Halup, Bonifacio Ramos,

Lucille Liwag, Ross Ripotola, Raul Rueda, Aries Caluya, Aris Ordonez, Ritche Relampagos,
Percival De Quiros, Jose Auingan, Cesar Ramos, Robert Bautista, Arnold Laxamana, Irene
David, and Denlit Fausto (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are citizens of the Philippines. Plaintiffs
entered the United States lawfully during 2005 and 2006 on H-2B visas to perform labor.
7.

Plaintiffs Roy Magnifico, Jose Auingan, Ritche Relampagos, Bonifacio Ramos, Percival

De Quiros, Roma Lim, Aris Ordonez, Lucille Liwag, Jeanette Halup, Robert Bautista, Arnold

3

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 4 of 94

Laxamana, Irene David, Denlit Fausto, and Rezza Real (collectively, “Philippines Plaintiffs”)
were recruited by Defendants in the Philippines.
8.

Plaintiffs Ross Ripotola, Aries Caluya, Raul Rueda, and Cesar Ramos (collectively, “U.S.

Plaintiffs”) were recruited by the Defendants in Florida.
9.

Defendant Star One Staffing, Inc. (hereinafter “Star One”) is a Florida corporation with

its principal office located at 2414 Coral Way in Miami, Florida. Upon information and belief, it
has operations in at least Florida, New York, and Wisconsin.
10.

Star One is a labor staffing company that, by its own accounts, earned a gross annual

income of $8,500,000 during 2006. 1
11.

Defendant Star One Staffing International, Inc. (hereinafter “Star One International”) is a

Florida corporation with its principal office located at 2414 Coral Way in Miami, Florida.
12.

Upon information and belief, Star One and Star One International (collectively “Star One

Defendants”) operated as a single entity.
13.

Although Star One recruitment materials state that Star One International was created “to

facilitate recruitment of Filipino nationals to work in the American hospitality industry,”
documents associated with the recruitment and employment of Philippines Plaintiffs include only
the name of Star One.2

1

September 6, 2006 letter from Mary Jane Hague to the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Service Vermont Service Center.
2
Star One Staffing International “Welcome to America” brochure; September 6, 2006 letter,
supra note 1; Star One Staffing, Inc. Application for Alien Employment Certification, Form ETA
750A for ETA Case Number A-06201-11673; September 7, 2006 I-129 visa petition EAC 06258-51719; Star One Staffing Employment Contract.
4

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 5 of 94

14.

Defendant Hague, president of both corporations, appears to use the names

interchangeably, as evidenced in various correspondence regarding Plaintiffs, including letters to
the Department of Homeland Security.3
15.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ timesheets stated “Star One Staffing, Inc. is the

agent for the Employee named on the reverse side of this document…All payments for services
shall be made to Star One Staffing, Inc. …”
16.

Defendant Mary Jane Hague (hereinafter, “Hague”) is President, Treasurer, a director and

registered agent of Star One. She is also President, a director and a registered agent of Star One
International. Upon information and belief, Hague determined Plaintiffs’ places of employment
and established the terms of their employment.
17.

Defendant John Carruthers (hereinafter “J. Carruthers”) is Chief Financial Officer of Star

One. He is also Secretary, Treasurer and a director of Star One International. Upon information
and belief, J. Carruthers determined Plaintiffs’ places of employment and established the terms
of their employment.
18.

Defendant Ruth Carruthers (hereinafter “R. Carruthers”) is Vice President, Secretary and

a director of Star One.
19.

Defendant Roberto Villanueva (hereinafter “Villanueva”) was an agent, employee and

representative of Star One Defendants at all times relevant to this action. Upon information and
belief, Villanueva was Vice President of the International Division of Star One. Upon

3

November 30 and December 31, 2007 letters from Mary Jane Hague to the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Service Vermont Service Center; October 18, 2006 email from
Mary Jane Hague to Nonimmigrant Visa Chief, Joseph Tilghman. January 10, 2008 letter from
Mary Jane Hague to Lilian Cueva.

5

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 6 of 94

information and belief, Villanueva selected Plaintiffs’ places of employment, established the
terms of their employment, controlled their work schedules and supervised their work.
20.

Defendant Redelina Fernandez (hereinafter “Fernandez”) was an agent, employee and

representative of Star One Defendants at all times relevant to this action. Upon information and
belief, Defendant Fernandez controlled Plaintiffs’ work schedules and supervised their work.
21.

At all times relevant to this action, each of the above-named Defendants was an employer

of each Plaintiff within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § § 201 et seq.,
Fla. Stat. § 448.109(1)(a) and New York Labor Law, N.Y. Lab. L. § § 190 et. seq. and 650 et.
seq.
22.

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were “employees” of each Defendant within

the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § § 201 et seq., Fla. Stat. § 448.109(1)(a)
and the New York Labor Law, N.Y. Lab. L. § § 190 et. seq. and 650 et. seq.
23.

At all times relevant to his action, Plaintiffs were engaged in commerce, the production of

goods for commerce, and/or were employed in enterprises engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § § 206(a) and 207(a).
24.

As detailed in Paragraphs 9 through 21, at all times relevant to this action, Star One

Defendants constituted a unified operation, were under common control for a common business
purpose, had employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have
been moved in or produced for commerce by any person, and had an aggregate annual gross
volume of business of at least $500,000.
25.

Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this action, the country clubs,

banquet hall, and hotels listed in Paragraphs 278 and 282 were each an enterprise with
employees engaged in handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have

6

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 7 of 94

been moved in or produced for commerce by any person, and each had an aggregate annual gross
volume of business of at least $500,000.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Human Trafficking among Filipino Migrants
26.

According to the recently released U.S. State Department’s 2010 Trafficking in Persons

Report, “[a] significant number of Filipino men and women who migrate abroad for work are
subjected to conditions of involuntary servitude.”4
27.

The Philippines is the world’s third-largest source of international migrant labor.5

Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) comprise 4% of the Filipino population and 10% of the
Filipino workforce,6 and number four7 to five million.8
28.

Unfortunately, “[a] significant number”9 of overseas Filipino workers end up in

trafficking situations; in situations of forced labor and involuntary servitude.

“Trafficked

Filipino migrant workers [are] often subject to violence, threats, inhumane living conditions,
non-payment of salaries, and withholding of travel and identity documents.”10 The perception
that widespread corruption seriously undermines the Philippines government’s ability to

4

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, THE 2010 TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS (TIP) REPORT,
Philippines (Tier 2 Watch List), (2010), [hereinafter 2010 TIP REPORT], available at
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/142979.pdf.
5
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION, MIGRATION INITIATIVES APPEAL 2009 –
PHILIPPINES, available at
http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/activities/countries/mi/philippines.pdf.
6
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, PHILIPPINES COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS
PRACTICES-2009, Trafficking in Persons (2010), [hereinafter DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 2009
PHILIPPINES REPORT], available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/136006.htm.
7
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 2009 PHILIPPINES REPORT.
8
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, THE WORLD FACTBOOK, PHILIPPINES, Economy (2010),
[hereinafter CIA WORLD FACTBOOK], available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/geos/rp.html.
9
2010 TIP REPORT.
10
2010 TIP REPORT.
7

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 8 of 94

effectively address trafficking11 contributes to overseas workers’ own sense of vulnerability to
threats and complete control by their traffickers and prevents them from feeling safe enough to
report their traffickers’ activities or return to the Philippines.
Defendants’ Exploitation and Trafficking of Guestworkers from the Philippines
29.

During 2006, Defendants, directly and through their agents, recruited Plaintiffs, as well as

other individuals, from both the Philippines and within the United States to perform work in the
United States.
30.

Defendants recruited guestworkers from the Philippines under the H-2B visa program.

During the recruitment, Defendants provided Philippines Plaintiffs and other Star One recruits
with false and misleading information about the terms and conditions of their employment and
required them to incur significant debts. Defendants also misled the U.S. government by
providing inaccurate information on the H-2B visa applications and Department of Labor
certification forms submitted for Philippines Plaintiffs, including the location and amount of
work and pay.
31.

Defendants also recruited a small number of Filipino guestworkers already lawfully

present in Florida by misleading them about Star One’s ability to secure visas for them, as well
as providing false and misleading information about the terms and conditions of their
employment with Star One.
32.

Defendants created an atmosphere of complete control by representing to Plaintiffs their

apparent influence on officials in the United States and Philippines.
33.

Defendants introduced Plaintiffs to a U.S. judge, congressional staffer, Filipino Labor

Attaché, and police officer who were all introduced as friends and/or relatives of Defendants.

11

See 2010 TIP REPORT.
8

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 9 of 94

Defendants also made claims about their relationships to officials in the Philippines, including
within the U.S. Embassy. Defendants used these relationships to create feelings of both fear and
helplessness in Plaintiffs.
34.

Defendants first took Plaintiffs to south Florida to work. Plaintiffs were obliged to reside

in severely overcrowded staff houses that were strictly controlled by Defendants in Miami and
Boca Raton. Nearly all of the Plaintiffs were later transported by Defendants to work in New
York. The housing conditions there were no different from those in Florida, with severe
overcrowding and control of Plaintiffs’ movements. In both states, Plaintiffs were employed in
country clubs and hotels. Their assigned jobs ranged from kitchen and wait staff to security,
bartending, and driving shuttles.
35.

Once employed by Star One, Plaintiffs were monitored, intimidated, threatened, forced to

live in unsafe and severely overcrowded housing, and frequently provided insufficient food.
36.

Defendants required Plaintiffs to work in conditions, locations and positions different

than those contained in Defendants’ H-2B visa applications.
37.

At times, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with any work at all and, more

frequently, Defendants required Plaintiffs to work long hours, threatening Plaintiffs who dared to
admit they needed time off. Defendants also underpaid Plaintiffs and charged them exorbitantly
high fees for housing, food and transportation.
38.

In order to maintain their control, Defendants threatened Plaintiffs with arrest,

deportation, jail, and cancellation of their visas.
39.

As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered serious emotional and financial

distress, harm to their immigration status, and ongoing disruption to their lives.

9

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 10 of 94

40.

Potentially dozens of Defendants’ employees, including Plaintiffs, eventually had to

escape from the conditions of coercion and control imposed on them by Defendants.
Fraudulent Recruitment of Philippines Plaintiffs by Defendants
41.

During 2006, Defendants sought and obtained H-2B visas to bring workers from the

Philippines to the United States.
42.

Upon information and belief, Defendants fraudulently obtained H-2B visas by

misrepresenting the pay, location, and type of work guestworkers would perform, including
Plaintiffs Auingan, De Quiros, Real, Magnifico, B. Ramos, Bautista, David, Fausto, Laxamana
and Ordonez.
43.

Star One’s Application for Alien Employment Certification, a form that must be

submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor in order to secure H-2B guestworkers, signed by
Defendant Hague on February 28, 2006, stated that the 31 guestworkers sought would be
employed as waiters and waitresses at Boca Woods Country Club.12
44.

On the same form, Defendant Hague also certified that each employee would work one

shift per day, five days per week during the period of May 1, 2006 to January 30, 2007.
45.

On Star One’s September 7, 2006 Petition for Nonimmigrant Workers, submitted to U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendant Star One similarly certified that Plaintiffs
Auingan, De Quiros, Real, Magnifico, B. Ramos, Bautista, David, Fausto and Ordonez would
work at Boca Woods Country Club as waiters and work full-time, earning $271.12 per week.13

12
13

Application for Alien Employment Certification, supra note 2.
I-129 visa petition, supra note 2.
10

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 11 of 94

46.

However, once they arrived in Florida, Star One did not employ any of the Plaintiffs

listed in Paragraph 45 at Boca Woods Country Club.14
47.

Upon information and belief, Defendants violated U.S. immigration law by failing to file

the Form I-129 Petition for Change of Employer to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services for each new site where they employed Plaintiffs.15 Instead, Philippines Plaintiffs were
forced to accept jobs at new sites and were thus forced to work without legal authorization,
displacing qualified U.S. workers.
48.

Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to comply with the work schedules and

job duties promised, and failed to place Philippines Plaintiffs with the employers they identified
on the visa applications Star One submitted to the U.S. government.
49.

As detailed below, Defendants employed Plaintiffs listed in Paragraph 45 in other types

of positions. For example, Plaintiff B. Ramos was assigned to be a security guard and Plaintiff
Fausto was assigned to drive a golf cart.
50.

Defendants Hague, R. Carruthers, Villanueva, and Fernandez, along with Judge Andrew

Hague, traveled to the Philippines to secure workers for Star One.
51.

Upon information and belief, while in the Philippines, on October 13, 2006, Defendant

Hague’s husband, Judge Andrew Hague, requested a meeting with Ambassador Kristie Kenney
to “facilitate the early group Embassy interview” of prospective Star One employees, including
Philippines Plaintiffs De Quiros, Lim, Magnifico, Ordonez, B. Ramos, Bautista, David, and
Fausto.16

14

March 2, 2007 letter from James R. Calhoun, General Manager and COO of Gulf Stream Bath
and Tennis Club regarding the employment of Plaintiff Ordonez through Star One Staffing.
15
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(D).
16
October 13, 2006 email from Judge Andrew Hague to U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines,
Honorable Ambassador Kristie Kenney.
11

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 12 of 94

52.

While in the Philippines, Defendant Hague held out Andrew Hague as a judge in her

dealings with U.S. officials with regard to Star One.17
53.

In an email to Nonimmigrant Visa Chief Joseph Tighman of the U.S. Embassy in the

Philippines, Defendant Hague wrote that she had “come to Manila with my partner, Ruth
Carruthers and my husband, Judge Andrew Hague, for the express purpose of personally meeting
you and requesting your assistance in granting a group interview for thirty (30) applicants whose
H-2B petitions were recently approved…”18
54.

In that same email Defendant Hague referred to Defendant Villanueva as “one of our

other partners.”19
55.

Defendants utilized J.E.S. International Manpower Corporation (“J.E.S.”), a labor

recruitment and training company located in the Philippines, as their agent to facilitate the
recruitment and training of Filipino nationals to work for Star One in the United States.
56.

Hague executed a “Special Power of Attorney” designating J.E.S. as Star One’s legal

representative for a variety of purposes, including the execution of employment contracts and the
representation of Star One before any government, private office or agency in the Philippines
“for the purpose of recruiting, hiring and employment of Filipino Workers.”
57.

In an August 27, 2006 letter from Hague to the POEA, Hague identified J.E.S. as one of

Star One’s agents for the purposes of recruitment.20
58.

According to a certification issued by the POEA, Star One Staffing was registered to

J.E.S. from November 2, 2006 until November 2, 2010.21
17

October 18, 2006 email from Mary Jane Hague to Nonimmigrant Visa Chief, Joseph
Tilghman.
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
August 27, 2006 letter from Mary Jane Hague to the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration.
12

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 13 of 94

59.

Star One’s employment contracts with Philippines Plaintiffs identify J.E.S. as the agent

representing Star One in the Philippines.
60.

Defendants Villanueva, Fernandez, and Hague and Judge Andrew Hague visited J.E.S.’

facilities and met with prospective Star One employees in the Philippines during approximately
April through October 2006.
61.

Defendants Villanueva, Fernandez, and Hague directly participated in the recruitment of,

and securing of visas for, Philippines Plaintiffs and other prospective employees to work for Star
One.
62.

During the recruitment process and subsequent employment of Plaintiffs, Defendant

Villanueva acted as an agent, employee, and representative of Star One Defendants, as well as
Vice President of the International Division of Star One.
63.

Upon information and belief, Star One Defendants employed Defendant Villanueva to

recruit Plaintiffs from the Philippines, arrange their housing in the United States, coordinate for
their positions in various country clubs and hotels, and schedule each employee’s hours.
64.

At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Villanueva and Defendant Fernandez were

acting within the scope of their employment as agents, employees, and representatives of Star
One Defendants.
65.

Defendant Villanueva interviewed each Philippines Plaintiff prior to offering them a

position with Star One.
66.

Defendant Villanueva also met with the Philippines Plaintiffs in the Philippines

periodically throughout their recruitment and hiring process, which lasted from approximately
April through November 2006.

21

November 10, 2006 Certification of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.
13

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 14 of 94

67.

During these meetings, most of the Philippines Plaintiffs were introduced to multiple

agents and officers of Star One, including Defendants Villanueva, Fernandez, Hague and R.
Carruthers.
68.

Defendant Fernandez participated in some of the meetings Defendant Villanueva held

with Philippines Plaintiffs.
69.

During the recruitment of Philippines Plaintiffs and other guestworkers, Defendant Hague

knowingly provided false information to government officials about the amount and type of
work, wages and benefits offered by Star One Defendants.
70.

In a “Request for Manpower” from Hague sent to the POEA and Batarilan, president of

J.E.S., Hague stated that 56 wait staff were needed to work for Star One in the United States and
listed the following the terms and conditions, among others:
a. Free food and accommodation;
b. Free transportation from accommodation to the site of work;
c. Visa and initial medical or physical exam fees, labor card, and all other fees, if
any, will be paid by the company.22
71.

During multiple meetings organized by J.E.S., in order to induce Philippines Plaintiffs to

work for Star One, Defendant Villanueva knowingly provided them false and/or misleading
information about the amount and type of work, wages, and benefits offered by Star One.
Examples of such information include:
a. Defendant Villanueva informed Philippines Plaintiffs B. Ramos, Liwag,
Laxamana and Ordonez that Star One would eventually sponsor them for a “green

22

August 27, 2006 letter from Mary Jane Hague to the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration.
14

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 15 of 94

card,” or lawful permanent residency in the United States, if they were deemed
good employees.
b. Defendant Villanueva informed Philippines Plaintiffs that they would be provided
free housing, food and transportation while employed by Star One.
c. Defendant Villanueva informed Plaintiffs Lim, Auingan, Relampagos, B. Ramos,
Fausto, Halup, Liwag, Real, Ordonez, Fausto and David that Star One would
provide them with a regular allowance throughout their employment.
d. Defendant Villanueva told Philippines Plaintiffs that their regular work hours
would be eight hours per day.
e. Defendant Villanueva told Philippines Plaintiffs they would have ample
opportunity to work in the United States, including overtime hours.
f. Defendant Villanueva told Philippines Plaintiffs that there were jobs already
awaiting them in the United States.
g. Defendant Villanueva told Philippines Plaintiffs that they would be employed
only as waitresses and waiters.
72.

By inducing Philippines Plaintiffs and other recruits to accept employment with Star One,

the misrepresentations made by Defendant Villanueva served one of the purposes for which he
was employed by Star One Defendants.
73.

From approximately April through November of 2006, Defendants offered Philippines

Plaintiffs, along with other Filipino nationals, jobs in the United States.
74.

As a result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, each Philippines Plaintiff

accepted Defendants’ offer of employment, nearly all of them undertaking significant debt,

15

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 16 of 94

foregoing other employment opportunities and leaving their families to earn a livelihood working
for Star One.
75.

For example, Plaintiff Bautista left his employment of approximately 13 years in Saipan,

purchased a plane ticket, and traveled to the Philippines to work for Defendants. Plaintiff
Laxamana left his employment of approximately 11 years in Saipain, purchased a plane ticket
and traveled to the Philippines to work for Defendants. Plaintiff David left her employment of
over 10 years to work for Defendants.
76.

Philippines Plaintiffs were required to incur significant expenses to secure employment

with Star One.
77.

The required recruitment fees and employment-related expenses were so high that nearly

all Philippines Plaintiffs had to enter into debt in order to pay them.
78.

Some of Philippines Plaintiffs’ expenses included travel expenses and uniforms.

79.

The mandatory fees included: an agency recruitment fee paid to J.E.S., attorneys’ fees

paid to a lawyer selected by J.E.S., medical examination fees, visa application fees, and a fee
paid to the Philippines Overseas Employment Agency (“POEA”), a Philippine government
agency. Plaintiffs Lim, Relampagos, Liwag, Real, Fausto and Halup were required to pay fees
for training and certification in food and beverage services.
80.

Generally, fees paid by each of the Philippines Plaintiffs totaled between approximately

$2,500 and $3,000. This amount was nearly equivalent to the average 2006 annual income of a
family in the Philippines.23

23

According to the Philippines’ census data, the income of an average family of 4 was 174,000
Philippines pesos, or approximately $3,391.
16

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 17 of 94

81.

While Philippines Plaintiffs were required by J.E.S. to pay them a fee of approximately

7,000 Philippine pesos, allegedly for the POEA, the receipts from the POEA, provided by J.E.S.,
reflected payments of only one-third to one-half of that amount.
82.

Defendants never reimbursed Philippines Plaintiffs for any of the fees or other expenses

related to their recruitment and employment with Star One.
83.

Defendants required Plaintiffs to provide them with detailed personal information,

including: their personal address, their “provincial address,” place and date of birth, and height
and weight. In addition, for their spouse and each child or other dependent, most Plaintiffs were
required to provide their name, date of birth, work address and telephone number. Some also
provided this information for siblings or parents.
84.

Prior to their departure for the United States, Defendants, through their agents J.E.S. or

Defendant Villanueva, required Philippines Plaintiffs to sign contracts with Star One.
85.

The written contracts given to Philippines Plaintiffs stated that they would receive an

hourly wage of $6.78 per hour and an overtime wage of $10.17 per hour for each hour over eight
worked each day, and free transportation to the site of employment.
86.

The written contracts did not include several important promises previously made to

Philippines Plaintiffs by Defendants, including those relating to free food, housing or monthly
allowances.
87.

Defendants gave Philippines Plaintiffs Lim and Liwag very little time to review their

contracts and provided the contracts within one day of their scheduled flights to the United
States.

17

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 18 of 94

88.

Philippines Plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs Magnifico and David, inquired about the

significant differences between the promises Defendants made previously and the Star One
contracts. In response, Defendant Villanueva assured them that the promises would be honored.
89.

Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiff Magnifico that his contract did not reflect the oral

promises because Star One did not want to pay as many taxes to the United States government.
90.

Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiff David that the contract was drafted quickly and solely

for the “labor department” in the Philippines. As with other Philippines Plaintiffs, Defendant
Villanueva assured her that the contract would be revised to reflect the promises he had made
once she arrived in the United States.
91.

Defendant Villanueva told Philippines Plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs Halup, Bautista and

Fausto that the contract was just a formality for government officials, and new, accurate
contracts would be provided in Florida.
92.

Defendants, directly and through their agents at J.E.S., told Plaintiffs Ordonez, Auingan,

Magnifico, Relampagos, and Liwag that the Star One contracts were created only to show to
immigration officials at the airport, and that the previous promises made to them would be
included in their real and accurate contract which they would receive once they arrived in
Florida.
93.

Plaintiffs De Quiros, Lim, Ordonez, Magnifico, Auingan, Relampagos, Bautista, B.

Ramos, David, Fausto and Laxamana arrived in the United States in late November 2006.
94.

Plaintiffs Liwag, Halup, and Real arrived in the United States on approximately

December 4, 2006.
Fraudulent Recruitment of Plaintiffs from the United States

18

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 19 of 94

95.

Plaintiffs Ripotola, Caluya, Rueda, and Cesar Ramos, all Filipino nationals, came to the

United States between late 2005 and early 2006 with H-2B visas to work for employers unrelated
to Star One.
96.

Defendant Villanueva sought out and recruited U.S. Plaintiffs to work for Star One,

although they were lawfully employed by other entities, including his own brother’s company.
97.

During early 2006, while they were working at clubs and hotels in South Florida,

Defendant Villanueva visited U.S. Plaintiffs to attempt to convince them to work for Star One.
98.

As part of his efforts to impress U.S. Plaintiffs, Defendant Villanueva introduced

Plaintiffs Caluya and Rueda to Defendant Hague and to Ted Ravelo (hereinafter “Ravelo”), an
agent, employee, and human resources coordinator for Star One.
Misrepresentations Regarding Conditions of Employment
99.

In order to induce U.S. Plaintiffs to work for Star One, Defendant Villanueva knowingly

provided them false and/or misleading information about the amount and type of work, wages,
and benefits offered by Star One. Examples of such information include:
a. Defendant Villanueva promised Plaintiff Ripotola that he would eventually get
him a job in the healthcare field, as Plaintiff Ripotola was a trained physical
therapist in the Philippines.
b. Defendant Villanueva informed U.S. Plaintiffs that they would be provided free
housing, food, and transportation while employed by Star One.
c.

Defendant Villanueva informed U.S. Plaintiff Caluya that he would be provided a
monthly allowance.

d. Defendant Villanueva informed U.S. Plaintiffs that, if they worked for Star One,
he would get them better jobs, work as waiters, and pay of $7 an hour.

19

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 20 of 94

Misrepresentations Regarding H-2B Visas
100.

Defendant Villanueva also made numerous misrepresentations regarding U.S. Plaintiffs’

visas, including that he could help renew their current H-2B visas.
U.S. Plaintiff C. Ramos
101.

In an attempt to recruit U.S. Plaintiff C. Ramos, Defendant Villanueva informed him that

Star One would provide higher hourly wages than his current work and improved housing.
102.

Defendant Villanueva also informed Plaintiff C. Ramos that Star One would renew his H-

2B visa, which was due to expire at the end of April 2006.
103.

Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiff C. Ramos that only Villanueva and Star One could

renew his visa.
104.

Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiff C. Ramos that he could work for Star One while his

visa renewal application was pending, and that Star One would protect him from immigration
officials.
105.

Defendant Villanueva informed Plaintiff C. Ramos that Star One would file a residency

petition on his behalf to secure him lawful permanent residency.
U.S. Plaintiff Ripotola
106.

Defendant Villanueva informed Plaintiff Ripotola that he would renew Ripotola’s

existing H-2B visa before it expired on June 30, 2006.
107.

Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiff Ripotola that Ripotola had to travel to New York to

work for Star One during June 2006 so that Star One could determine whether his work met Star
One and the country club’s standards before they could petition for him.
108.

Defendant Villanueva further informed Plaintiff Ripotola that, if a visa could not be

secured prior to the expiration of his existing visa, Defendant Villanueva would purchase him a

20

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 21 of 94

return plane ticket to the Philippines so that Star One could petition for a visa for him from the
Philippines.
109.

Defendant Villanueva repeatedly told Plaintiff Ripotola that Villanueva was the only

person who could secure him a new visa.
110.

Defendant Villanueva informed Plaintiff Ripotola that Star One would file a residency

petition on his behalf to secure him lawful permanent residency.
111.

As a result of Defendant Villanueva’s misrepresentations regarding Star One’ ability to

renew Plaintiff Ripotola’s visa, Plaintiff Ripotola signed a contract to work for Star One in
approximately May 2006 and traveled to New York to work as required by Defendant
Villanueva.
112.

At the end of June 2006, Plaintiff Ripotola asked Defendant Villanueva for his promised

plane ticket to return to the Philippines before June 30. Defendant Villanueva informed Plaintiff
Ripotola that he had an 18-day grace period to lawfully remain in the U.S. after his visa expired.
113.

Defendant Villanueva further assured Plaintiff Ripotola that he would secure Plaintiff

Ripotola a new visa.
114.

In reasonable reliance on Defendant Villanueva’s continued misrepresentations and the

fact that he could not afford to pay for his own return flight to the Philippines, Plaintiff Ripotola
felt he had no choice but to remain in the United States and continue to work for Defendants.
Plaintiff Ripotola believed that Villanueva was the only person who could secure him lawful
immigration status again.
U.S. Plaintiffs Caluya and Rueda
115.

During his attempts at recruitment, Defendant Villanueva informed U.S. Plaintiffs Caluya

and Rueda that Star One would pay for their travel back to the Philippines if necessary.

21

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 22 of 94

116.

Although Plaintiffs Rueda and Caluya’s H-2B visas were expiring on April 30 2006,

Defendant Villanueva assured them that he had already begun the process of securing them new
H-2B visas to work for Star One.
117.

Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiffs Rueda and Caluya that they could continue working

while their new visas were being processed and, if they were asked for work authorization
documentation by the police or immigration officials, they needed only to provide the copy of
Star One’s receipt for the visa petition.
118.

Defendant Villanueva informed Plaintiffs Caluya and Rueda that Star One would file a

residency petition on their behalf to secure them lawful permanent residency.
119.

As a result of the misrepresentations made by Defendants, each U.S. Plaintiff accepted

Defendants’ offer of employment, foregoing other employment opportunities, to work for Star
One.
120.

By inducing U.S. Plaintiffs to accept employment with Star One, the misrepresentations

made by Defendant Villanueva served one of the purposes for which he was employed by Star
One Defendants.
121.

In reliance on Defendants’ false representations regarding Star One’s ability to secure

them visas to permit them to continue to work lawfully, as well as their ability to work lawfully
for Star One while their visa petitions were pending, U.S. Plaintiffs remained in the United
States, inadvertently lost their lawful immigration status, and worked for Star One.
122.

As described in Paragraph 83, supra, U.S. Plaintiffs were also required to provide

Defendants with information about themselves and their families.
123.

By the beginning of June 2006, each of the U.S. Plaintiffs had been required to sign a

contract with Star One.

22

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 23 of 94

124.

None of the U.S. Plaintiffs were given copies of the Star One contracts they were required

to sign.
Defendants’ Coercion and Control of Plaintiffs
125.

After using false and misleading promises about their employment to entice Plaintiffs into

debt and, in some cases, out of legal status to work for Star One Defendants, Defendants used a
variety of tactics to exercise control over Plaintiffs and coerce them to work, increasing their
intensity as employees sought to escape.
126.

Defendants gained and maintained control over Plaintiffs by actively promoting the

impression that they wielded power and influence within the U.S. and Philippine governments
and within Philippine and U.S. society, and that those who did not obey them would be made to
suffer the consequences, such as arrest and deportation or revocation of immigration status.
127.

Defendants increased the pressure on Plaintiffs, newly arrived to the United States, by

ensuring that they remained isolated and marginalized from the alien society around them.
128.

Defendants also used false promises of visa renewal and permanent legal status to retain

Plaintiffs and maintain control over them.
129.

Defendants also held critical immigration documents of some Plaintiffs, deliberately

increasing their sense of powerlessness to leave.
130.

In addition to using verbal abuse, Defendants exercised their control over Plaintiffs and

forced them to work constantly by regularly leveling threats of arrest, deportation, blacklisting,
lawsuits, and visa cancellation against Plaintiffs.
Representations Regarding Relationships to U.S. & Philippine Government Officials

23

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 24 of 94

131.

Defendants, directly or through their agents, made numerous representations to Plaintiffs

regarding their close relationships to powerful figures in the United States and Philippines,
including Florida police, a Florida judge, and government officials in both countries.
132.

Defendants’ representations caused Plaintiffs to view Defendants as legitimate and

powerful and, as time progressed, reinforced their feelings of fear and helplessness in the face of
Defendants’ coercion and control.
North Miami Police Officer
133.

A North Miami police officer regularly visited Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez in

Defendants’ Miami staff housing.
134.

Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez informed Plaintiffs that they had a close personal

relationship with this police officer.
135.

During his apparently social visits to their house, the officer was usually in his police

uniform and traveling in a police vehicle.
Florida Judge
136.

Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez informed Star One employees, including nearly all

of the Plaintiffs, that the owner of Star One’s husband was a Florida judge (“Judge Hague”).
137.

Upon information and belief, Judge Hague was the husband of Defendant Hague during

the relevant time period.
138.

Judge Hague is a judge in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida.

139.

Some Philippines Plaintiffs were introduced to Judge Hague during their recruitment and

hiring by Star One in the Philippines.
140.

Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiff Caluya that Judge Hague was knowledgeable about

the law, so there was no reason to worry about the processing of Caluya’s visa, but that if Caluya

24

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 25 of 94

left Star One, Judge Hague could help Star One file a complaint to stop the processing of his visa
application.
U.S. Consular Official
141.

During their recruitment in the Philippines, Defendant Villanueva repeatedly informed

Star One recruits, including Philippines Plaintiffs Laxamana, Ordonez, Magnifico, Lim, Real,
Relampagos, Halup, Fausto and Liwag, that Judge Hague had a friend in the U.S. Embassy in the
Philippines.
Deputy Director for U.S. Congressman
142.

Defendants introduced Plaintiffs B. Ramos, Rueda, Ripotola, Caluya, Halup, Lim, Real,

Liwag, and De Quiros to Ernesto Ramos, Deputy District Director for U.S. Representative
Kendrick Meek, from the 17th District of Florida.
143.

Defendants, through their agent J.E.S., showed Plaintiffs Real, Liwag, and Auingan, an

email sent by Ernesto Ramos to Nonimmigrant Visa Chief Tilghman on behalf of Star One’s visa
petition.24
Philippine Labor Attaché
144.

During the winter of 2007, a Star One employee sought the assistance of Florenda

Herrera, the Labor Attaché of the Philippines Embassy. When she visited Defendants’ staff
housing in Boca Raton, Ravelo informed residents of the house, including Plaintiffs Real,
Magnifico, Bautista, and C. Ramos, that she was his friend
145.

Despite their complaints and Star One’s subsequent investigation by the New York

Attorney General, Plaintiffs never saw any evidence that Labor Attaché Herrera took any action
on their behalf.

24

October 18, 2006 email from Ernesto Ramos to Joseph Tilghman.
25

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 26 of 94

Influence in the Philippines
146.

In the presence of Plaintiffs Ordonez and Magnifico, Defendant Villanueva stated that his

family knew murderers-for-hire in the Philippines.
147.

In the presence of Plaintiffs Ordonez and Magnifico, Defendant Villanueva stated that his

family knew people who could be hired to hurt or harass people in the Philippines.
148.

Defendant Villanueva informed Plaintiffs Lim, Ordonez, Rueda, Ripotola, Real, Auingan,

B. Ramos, Magnifico, Liwag, Bautista, and C. Ramos and other Star One employees that he had
influence and power in the Philippines.
Additional Connections
149.

Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiffs that Ravelo was the President of the Filipino

Community Association of Florida.
150.

Defendant Villanueva informed Plaintiffs Caluya and Lim that he had a friend who was

an immigration officer.
Attempts to Isolate Plaintiffs
151.

At the start of their employment with Star One, Ravelo and Defendants Villanueva and

Fernandez discouraged Plaintiffs from contacting anyone outside of Star One, particularly people
in the local Filipino community.
152.

Ravelo and Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez warned Plaintiffs not to talk to other

Filipinos, explaining to some Plaintiffs that Filipinos could not be trusted, were bad people, and
would give them false information.
Control over Plaintiffs’ Movement, Activities and Work
Restrictions on Plaintiffs’ Movement

26

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 27 of 94

153.

Before being permitted to leave the Star One housing, Plaintiffs were required to tell an

agent of Star One where they were going and how to reach them.
154.

Defendants controlled Plaintiffs’ transportation to and from work, directing drivers to

pick up and drop off Plaintiffs and their colleagues.
155.

On July 24, 2007, when Plaintiff Real and Star One employee Myra Baldivicio returned

to Star One housing later than expected, Ravelo issued a memo saying he had called the police to
find them and recommending to Star One that they be forced to return to the Philippines. In that
same memo, Ravelo wrote that their behavior should be treated with “summary severity.”
156.

Upon her return, Defendant Villanueva provided Plaintiff Real with a copy of the memo

recommending her deportation.
Verbal Abuse
157.

Adding to the environment of intimidation and control, Defendant Fernandez regularly

yelled and cursed at Star One employees without provocation, including most Plaintiffs.
158.

Defendant Fernandez yelled at Plaintiffs and other Star One employees who requested

that they not be assigned to work extra shifts.
159.

Defendant Fernandez once screamed that she would kill Plaintiff B. Ramos.
Forced Excessive Work

160.

Defendants required Plaintiffs to work in a variety of roles at hotels, country clubs and

banquet halls, including primarily wait staff, kitchen staff, and bartenders. Plaintiffs were also
required to work at times as drivers, security guards, bell hops and driving golf carts.
161.

After working a regular shift at one location, Defendants frequently required Plaintiffs to

work an additional shift at either the same or another location. On Plaintiffs’ days off from one

27

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 28 of 94

country club or hotel, Defendants regularly assigned them to work at another site so that
Plaintiffs worked up to 7 days per week without a break.
162.

As Defendants controlled Plaintiffs’ transportation to and from work, Defendants

frequently picked Plaintiffs up at the end of a shift and took them directly to another location for
additional shifts.
163.

Defendants Fernandez and Villanueva retaliated against some Plaintiffs and other Star

One employees by refusing to assign them any work if they did something Defendants
disapproved of, including expressing a desire to take time off or declining to work an extra shift.
164.

Plaintiff Relampagos was not scheduled for work for several weeks in retaliation for

complaints he made about wages in approximately March or April 2006.
165.

Defendant Fernandez locked Plaintiff Relampagos out of Star One’s staff house in Miami

after he declined to work an additional shift in March 2007.
166.

Many Plaintiffs were afraid to complain, even if they were exhausted or sick, for fear that

Defendants would retaliate, because they needed to work to afford Defendants’ monthly
deductions, detailed in Paragraphs 316-320, and pay off their debts in the Philippines.
Abuse and Threatened Abuse of the Legal System
Threats & Misrepresentations Regarding Visas
167.

Defendants used misrepresentations, promises and threats regarding visas and

immigration status to control Plaintiffs.
168.

As detailed in Paragraphs 99-124, Defendant Villanueva made misrepresentations to U.S.

Plaintiffs during their recruitment and throughout their employment regarding Star One
Defendants’ ability and willingness to provide them with H-2B visas.

28

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 29 of 94

169.

Managers at Glen Head Country Club inquired about the status of Plaintiffs Rueda and

Caluya’s visas on multiple occasions. Defendant Villanueva assured the managers, as well as
Rueda and Caluya, that Rueda and Calyua’s visa renewal applications were pending.
170.

In approximately November of 2006, Defendant Villanueva informed Plaintiffs Rueda

and Caluya that their visas had been declined and that he was going to appeal.
171.

However, Plaintiff Rueda later saw a Notice of Action from U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services stating that an appeal was filed on May 23, 2006 by Star One Staffing,
indicating that the petition had been denied much earlier and that Defendant Villanueva had been
lying to both the managers at the country club and Rueda and Caluya in order to convince them
they could continue working.
172.

Among the misrepresentations made to Plaintiffs Ordonez, Caluya, Rueda, Liwag

Ripotola, and Bautista, Defendants indicated that they could provide Plaintiffs with a path to
lawful permanent immigration status in the United States.
173.

Defendant Villanueva repeatedly threatened Plaintiffs Caluya, Lim, Auingan,

Relampagos, Liwag, De Quiros, Magnifico, Halup, Real, Bautista, Laxamana, David, Fausto and
Ordonez that Star One would not renew their visas if they failed to comply with Star One’s
excessive work assignments, detailed in Paragraphs 160-166, which would have rendered them
unable to continue working lawfully in the United States and subject them to deportation.
174.

Defendant Villanueva made these threats even though he and other Defendants were

clearly violating the H-2B program by forcing Plaintiffs to work at location other than those
approved by the US government.

29

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 30 of 94

175.

Throughout their employment, Defendant Villanueva informed Plaintiffs and other Star

One employees that, if they left Star One, he would cancel their visas and no other employer
would hire them.
176.

Plaintiffs were frightened by Defendants’ continuous threats, particularly because, as

Defendants knew, many were working to pay back the debts acquired to come to the United
States and work for Star One.
Document Holding
177.

When Plaintiffs Lim, Auingan, Relampagos, Liwag, B. Ramos, Halup, Magnifico, Real,

Bautista, Fausto, Laxamana, David and Ordonez were granted renewal visas during 2007,
Defendant Villanueva withheld and refused to provide them their original copies of the I-94
renewals.
178.

The I-94 is the primary proof that an alien is lawfully present in the United States. The

document includes a stamp of the date when a non-immigrant is admitted and the date when they
must depart. The form instructs the recipient to “retain this permit in your possession.” When an
individual’s visa is renewed, they receive an updated I-94, which is attached to a Form 797
Notice of Action.
179.

During approximately February 2007, Plaintiff Auingan went to get a drivers’ license at

the insistence of Defendant Villanueva. Defendants’ driver and agent, Masiglat, gave Auingan
his I-94 outside of the doors of the Department of Motor Vehicles and required him to return it
immediately upon exiting the building.
180.

During 2007, Plaintiffs Ordonez, David, Fausto, Auingan, Bautista, and Laxamana went

to get identification at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Defendants’ driver and agent,

30

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 31 of 94

Masiglat, would only give them their I-94s once they were outside of the Department of Motor
Vehicles and required them to return them to him immediately upon exiting the building.
181.

Plaintiff De Quiros escaped before his visa was renewed and U.S. Plaintiffs never

received visas through Star One.
182.

As a result of having their original immigration and identification documents held, many

of the Plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs Lim, David, Auingan, Relampagos, Liwag, Bautista,
Ordonez, Fausto and Halup felt they were unable to leave Star One.
Threats Regarding Arrest, Detention and Deportation
183.

Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez made ongoing threats to, and in the presence of,

Plaintiffs regarding the arrest, detention, and deportation of any Star One employees who
stopped working for Star One.
184.

Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez told Plaintiffs that, if any Star One employees

escaped, they would call the police or immigration enforcement to find them.
185.

Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiffs Magnifico and Fausto that they would be handcuffed

and escorted to the airport by police if they left.
186.

Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez told Plaintiff Bautista and others that they would

be escorted to be deported if they tried to escape and were caught.
187.

Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez told Plaintiffs that, if any Star One employees fled,

they could use the employees’ social security number to find them wherever they went.
188.

Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez’s threats were made on a regular basis, including

during Star One staff meetings.
189.

Over time, Star One employees began to escape. Defendants used these incidents to

reinforce their threats and control over remaining employees.

31

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 32 of 94

190.

Early in Philippines Plaintiffs’ employment, during approximately December 2006, one

of their co-workers, Caryl Olandesca, escaped during the night.
191.

In reaction to Olandesca’s escape, Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez posted a large

photocopy of her passport photo on a wall in the Defendants’ staff house in Miami with her
social security number written across the bottom. Villanueva and Fernandez also informed Star
One employees that her escape was reported to the police and that she would be caught and
deported.
192.

The day after Olandesca’s escape, police came to the staff house.

193.

When Defendants discovered that another Star One employee had escaped, Defendants

Villanueva, Fernandez and/or Ravelo required the remaining employees, including Plaintiffs, to
attend a staff meeting.
194.

At the meetings, Defendant Villanueva told the remaining workers that he had called

immigration enforcement or police and reported the escapee.
195.

Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiffs and other Star One employees that he had

“blacklisted” those workers who had already escaped, so they would face negative immigration
consequences and be unable to work overseas, and would do the same to any who tried to escape
in the future.
196.

Defendant Villanueva stated at a staff meeting that he heard one of the Star One

employees had complained about Star One at one of the country clubs where they worked.
Defendant Villanueva stated that if employees wanted to leave Star One they could, but that
Defendants would report them to immigration and file a complaint against them.
197.

Defendants used the above threats to compel Plaintiffs to work for employers not

authorized by their visas.

32

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 33 of 94

Threats of Litigation
198.

Defendant Villanueva also told Plaintiffs Caluya, Rueda, Lim, Auingan, Liwag, De

Quiros, Magnifico, Halup, Real, David, Bautista and Ordonez that Star One could sue them if
they violated their contract.
199.

By serving to ensure Plaintiffs’ and other guestworkers’ compliance with Star One’s

abusive working requirements and prevent Plaintiffs and other guestworkers from leaving Star
One, the threats and other acts of intimidation on the part of Defendants Villanueva and
Fernandez served purposes for which Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez were employed by
Star One Defendants.
200.

Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress due to both the Defendants’ coercive tactics and

Plaintiffs’ resulting forced labor.
201.

The emotional effects suffered by Plaintiffs include disrupted sleeping, nightmares,

ongoing feelings of fear, difficulty developing trust, anxiety, depression, difficulty concentrating
and stress.
Defendants Hague and J. Carruthers’ Role in the Abusive Working Conditions
202.

While living in Florida, a group of Star One employees, including Plaintiffs Real,

Relampagos, and C. Ramos went to speak with Defendants Hague and J. Carruthers at the Star
One offices about their concerns regarding their working and living conditions, including
underpayment of wages and their treatment by Defendants Fernandez and Villanueva.
203.

During their meeting, Defendant Hague said she would speak with Defendant Villanueva

about the concerns they raised.
204.

When the group returned to the Defendants’ staff house in Miami, Ravelo and Defendant

Villanueva were waiting outside for them.

33

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 34 of 94

205.

Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiff Real he knew she had visited the Star One offices.

206.

Defendant Fernandez told Plaintiff Real that she should kneel down in front of Defendant

Villanueva and apologize if she did not want to be sent back to the Philippines.
207.

Defendant Villanueva yelled at Plaintiff Real and told her that he and Ravelo were going

to send her back to the Philippines. He also told her that Defendant Hague did not believe her
story.
208.

Plaintiffs are unaware of any actions Defendant Hague took in response to the concerns

raised by the Star One employees.
Substandard Living Conditions
209.

Defendants warehoused Plaintiffs in severely overcrowded housing in both Florida and

New York (“Star One Housing”).
210.

As detailed below, these single-family houses were unequipped to house the numbers of

Star One employees Defendants assigned to them.
211.

While living in the Star One Housing, Plaintiffs and other Star One employees slept on

floors, closely packed bunk beds, air mattresses, and in hallways and common areas.
212.

Due to the insufficient number of bathrooms in the Star One Housing, Plaintiffs had to

get up several hours earlier than they otherwise would each morning to use the bathrooms. Given
the considerable hours Plaintiffs typically worked, being forced to get up early meant Plaintiffs
received only a few hours of sleep some nights.
213.

Some Star One employees, including Plaintiffs Laxamana, Bautista, Magnifico, Caluya,

Ordonez, Relampagos, Rueda, and Real sometimes had to relieve themselves in containers,
outside, or in nearby restaurant restrooms due to lack of access to bathroom facilities.

34

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 35 of 94

214.

There was a complete lack of privacy in the severely overcrowded housing required by

Defendants.
215.

Defendants, both directly and through their designated agents, controlled the Star One

Housing. They or their agents resided in the houses, required Plaintiffs to seek permission prior
to leaving, provided the food available in the houses, held mandatory meetings, and monitored
Plaintiffs’ activity within the house.
216.

Plaintiffs were also required to perform uncompensated work in the Star One Housing,

including cleaning, cooking and employment-related trainings.
217.

In addition to the uncompensated work described in Paragraph 216, Defendants required

Plaintiffs Laxamana and Bautista to transport Defendants’ other employees.
218.

Defendants deducted substantial housing fees, detailed in Paragraph 321-332, from

Plaintiffs’ pay.
219.

Upon information and belief, during the relevant time period, all Defendants were aware

of the number and size of houses available to Defendants’ employees, including Plaintiffs, and
the approximate total number of Star One Defendants’ employees.
Florida Housing
Miami House I
220.

Defendant Villanueva brought approximately 13 Star One employees, including U.S.

Plaintiffs Rueda and Caluya to his home in the greater Miami-area (hereinafter, “Miami House
I”), where he lived with Defendant Fernandez, in approximately March or April of 2006.
221.

Upon information and belief, Miami House I is located at 590 Southwest 23rd Avenue in

Miami, Florida.

35

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 36 of 94

222.

Upon information and belief, Miami House I was an apartment with one bedroom and

one bathroom.
223.

Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez resided in and oversaw the operation of Miami

House I.
224.

Miami House I was severely overcrowded and, upon information and belief, violated

local and state housing law.
225.

Due to overcrowded conditions in the house, Plaintiff Caluya slept without any mattress

on a makeshift bed on the floor and on chairs.
226.

Approximately 15 Star One employees, including Plaintiffs Rueda and Caluya, shared a

single bathroom.
Miami House II
227.

Once they arrived in the United States, in later November and early December 2006, the

Philippines Plaintiffs were taken to another house in Miami (hereinafter, “Miami House II”).
228.

Upon information and belief, Miami House II is located at 14430 Northeast 4th Avenue

in Miami, Florida.
229.

After they lived in Miami House I, Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez resided in and

oversaw the operation of Miami House II.
230.

Miami House II is a single-family house.

231.

Miami House II is a 3,108 square foot house with five bedrooms and three bathrooms.

232.

Defendants housed up to approximately 40 Star One employees at a time in Miami House

II.
233.

Miami House II, was severely overcrowded and, upon information and belief, violated

local and state housing law.

36

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 37 of 94

234.

Upon information and belief, Miami House II contained five bedrooms, one of which was

occupied by Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez.
235.

Miami House II contained three bathrooms, one of which was reserved solely for

Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez.
236.

Plaintiffs, along with other Star One employees, were required to sleep on bunk beds in

nearly every room in Miami House II, including common areas.
237.

One of the severely overcrowded rooms that some Plaintiffs slept in was an open

common area with just a curtain placed across the doorway.
238.

Up to approximately 20 Star One employees, including Plaintiffs Halup, Real and Liwag,

sometimes slept in a single room.
239.

Upon information and belief, Ravelo and Defendant Hague visited Miami House II.

Ravelo visited two to three times per week to speak with Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez
and to check on the staff.
Boca House
240.

Starting in late November and early December of 2006, Defendant Villanueva moved

some of the Philippines Plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs Magnifico, B. Ramos, Ordonez, De
Quiros, Liwag, Bautista, Laxamana, David, and Relampagos, along with other Star One
employees, to a house in Boca Raton (“Boca House”).
241.

Upon information and belief, the Boca House is in or near Boca Raton, Florida.

242.

Ravelo resided in and oversaw the operation of the Boca House.

243.

Boca House was a single-family house.

244.

Boca House was severely overcrowded and, upon information and belief, violated local

and state housing law.

37

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 38 of 94

245.

Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez regularly visited the Boca House to hold Star One

staff meetings, deliver food, and monitor Plaintiffs and their co-workers.
246.

Defendant Hague visited the Boca House.

247.

Defendants housed up to approximately 25 Star One employees at a time at the Boca

House.
248.

Some of the Plaintiffs, including Relampagos, Ordonez and De Quiros, along with other

Star One employees, were required to sleep in the Boca House’s common areas, including the
hallway.
249.

The Boca House had insufficient bathrooms for the number of people housed there.

250.

As in the Miami House, this meant Plaintiffs had to get up several hours earlier each

morning to use the bathrooms.
Transfer of Plaintiffs to New York
251.

Plaintiffs Caluya, Rueda, and C. Ramos were sent to New York by Star One in

approximately May 2006.
252.

Plaintiff Ripotola was sent shortly after in approximately June 2006.

253.

In the early spring of 2007, Defendant Villanueva told Philippines Plaintiffs that he

would begin transferring them to New York to work in hotels and country clubs there.
254.

Defendant Villanueva threatened Philippines Plaintiffs by stating that Star One would not

renew their visas, subjecting them to deportation, if they did not comply with his request to go to
New York. Plaintiffs felt they had no choice but to comply.
255.

In the early spring of 2007, Plaintiff de Quiros was sent to work in New York by Star

One.

38

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 39 of 94

256.

Between April and June of 2007, Plaintiffs Lim, Ordonez, Magnifico, Auingan, Liwag,

Real, Fausto, Bautista, David, and Halup were sent to work in New York by Star One.
257.

During the summer of 2007, Plaintiff Laxamana drove himself and six other Star One

employees to New York under Defendant Villanueva’s orders.
258.

Before they could be taken to New York, Plaintiffs Relampagos and B. Ramos escaped

from Star One during approximately May of 2007.
New York Housing
Motel
259.

Upon their arrival in New York, during the late spring of 2006, a group of Star One

employees, including Plaintiffs Caluya, Rueda, and C. Ramos were forced to live for several
weeks in the Norwick Motel in Oyster Bay, with Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez.
260.

Ravelo stayed at the motel with Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez for a few days

during this time.
261.

During this time, fifteen people were required to share two motel rooms and had to cook

their meals in the bathrooms with a rice cooker.
262.

Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez required Plaintiffs Caluya and Rueda to ask their

permission if they wanted to leave the motel room.
263.

Plaintiffs Caluya and Rueda, along with their Star One co-workers, were restricted to

using the back entrance of the motel in order to avoid discovery by motel staff.
New York Houses
264.

During the summers of 2006 and 2007, Defendants placed Plaintiffs Ripotola, Rueda,

Caluya, Lim, Real, Auingan, Halup, Liwag, Magnifico, De Quiros, Ordonez, David, Bautista and

39

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 40 of 94

other Star One employees in the following houses in New York (hereinafter “New York
Houses”).
265.

Upon information and belief, the New York Houses were located at:
a. 1026 Glen Cove Avenue in Glen Head, New York;
b. 54A Coolidge Avenue in Roslyn Heights, New York;
c. 421 Harding Avenue in Roslyn Heights, New York; and
d. 600A Cedar Swamp Road in Glen Head, New York.

266.

The house on Glen Cove Avenue is a 1,165 square foot, single family house.

267.

The house on Cedar Swamp Road is a 2,889 square foot, single family house.

268.

Defendants, including Villanueva, Fernandez, or one of their designated agents, resided in

and oversaw the operation of each of the New York Houses at all times.
269.

The New York Houses were each single-family houses.

270.

Each of the New York Houses was severely overcrowded and, upon information and

belief, violated local and state housing law.
271.

Due to overcrowding and lack of sufficient bed space in the New York Houses, some

Plaintiffs, including Plaintiff Real, had to sleep on air mattresses on the floors between bunk
beds of the New York Houses.
272.

Plaintiff Magnifico, along with other Star One employees slept in a living room.

273.

At times, approximately ten to twenty individuals were forced to share a single bathroom

in the New York Houses.
274.

As in the Miami and Boca Houses, this meant Plaintiffs had to get up several hours

earlier than they otherwise would each morning to be able to use the bathrooms.
Plaintiffs’ Limited Access to Food

40

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 41 of 94

275.

Defendant Fernandez directly controlled workers’ access to food in each of the Star One

Houses where she resided.
276.

Defendant Fernandez primarily purchased the food for Plaintiffs in Florida.

277.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Fernandez determined the quantity and type of

food to buy for Plaintiffs and their Star One co-workers in Florida.
278.

Defendants Villanueva and Defendants’ agent Masiglat primarily purchased food for

Plaintiffs in New York.
279.

Defendant Villanueva and Masiglat determined the quantity and type of food to buy for

Plaintiffs and other Star One employees in New York.
280.

Defendant Fernandez monitored the consumption of food by Plaintiffs.

281.

For example, while at Miami House II, Defendant Fernandez told Plaintiff Real that, if

she refused to work a double shift, she should not eat food designated for staff getting ready for
work.
282.

When Defendant Fernandez caught Plaintiff Real making herself a package of instant

noodles, she yelled at Real for eating them without permission.
283.

Defendants’ agent, Masiglat, and Defendant Fernandez also asked some Plaintiffs to limit

the amount of food that they consumed.
284.

While in New York, Defendants provided increasingly poor quality food that Plaintiffs

laxamana, Bautista, Ripotola, Rueda, Caluya, Lim, Real, Auingan, Halup, Liwag, Magnifico, De
Quiros, Ordonez were required to prepare for each other. There was sometimes insufficient food
for them to eat.
285.

Upon information and belief, Star One Defendants delegated the duties of securing and

overseeing housing and food for Plaintiffs and other guestworkers to Defendants Villanueva and

41

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 42 of 94

Fernandez, as well as to Ravelo. Thus, any substandard living conditions imposed directly by
Villanueva, Fernandez and Ravelo were carried out in service of one purpose for which they
were hired by Star One Defendants.
Working Conditions & Unlawfully Low Pay
Failure to Provide Promised Work
286.

While Defendants certified to the U.S. government and promised Philippines Plaintiffs

that there were jobs awaiting them in the United States, many had no regular, full-time work for
weeks after their arrival.
287.

When U.S. Plaintiff Caluya joined Star One to work in Miami, he was not provided the

work he was promised and stayed in Defendant Villanueva’s south Florida house without any
work. He was not provided work by Star One until Defendants moved him to New York
approximately one month later.
288.

Despite their promises, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff Fausto with regular work

for approximately two months after her arrival in the United States. During this time, Defendants
periodically had her perform work for them in the Star One offices. Defendants charged Fausto
for food, housing and transportation each month even during those periods when she was not
employed.
New York Attorney General Investigation of Wage Violations
289.

The New York Attorney General investigated Defendants including Star One

Defendants, and Defendants Hague, R. Carruthers, J. Carruthers and Villanueva violations of
New York wage laws from May to December 2006 and April to December 2007.
290.

The New York Attorney General found that Defendants, with the exception of Fernandez

who was not a subject of the investigation: (1) made deductions from some Star One employees’

42

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 43 of 94

wages for housing food and transportation up to $800.00; (2) failed to pay some Star One
employees the required overtime for hours worked in excess of forty in a week; (3) failed to pay
some Star One employees the required minimum wage; (4) failed to pay some Star One
employees wages for hours worked, including but not limited to “training”; (5) failed to pay
some Star One employees their wages each week; and (6) attempted to discriminate against some
Star One employees.
291.

As a result of the wage investigation, Defendants entered into an agreement with the State

of New York, paying $113,454.00 to a settlement fund which was distributed to former Star One
employees.
292.

Plaintiffs Ordonez, Auingan, Magnifio, Liwag, Ripotola, Real, Halup, Bautista,

Laxamana, David, Fausto and Lim, deemed by the New York Attorney General to be among the
employees that Defendants failed to pay properly, accepted payments from the settlement fund.
Plaintiffs Caluya, Rueda, C. Ramos, and De Quiros did not accept payments from the settlement
fund.
Florida Employment
293.

While in Florida, Defendants assigned each Plaintiff to work at multiple south Florida

country clubs and hotels each week, including Eden Roc Renaissance Miami Beach, St.
Andrew’s Country Club, Mizner Country Club, Marriott South Beach, Fisher Island Club,
Broken Sound Club, Fort Lauderdale Grande, Gulf Stream Bath & Tennis Club, High Ridge
Country Club, Hamlet Country Club, Boca Rio Country Club, and Indian Creek Hotel.
294.

Plaintiffs worked in Florida for Defendants during approximately the following dates:
a. Caluya: Approximately March 2006 to May 2006.
b. Rueda: Approximately February 2006 to March 2006.

43

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 44 of 94

c. Ripotola: Approximately February 2006 to June 2006.
d. Magnifico: Approximately November 2006 to April 2007.
e. Auingan: Approximately November 2006 to May 2007.
f. Liwag: Approximately December 2007 to April 2007.
g. De Quiros: Approximately December 2006 to April 2007.
h. Real: Approximately December 2006 to April 2007.
i. Lim: Approximately November 2006 to April 2007.
j. Halup: Approximately December 2006 to April 2007.
k. Ordonez: Approximately November 2006 to May 2007.
l. Relampagos: Approximately December 2006 to April 2007.
m. B. Ramos: Approximately late November 2006 to May 2007.
n. C. Ramos: Approximately November 2006 to May 2007.
o. David: Approximately November 2006 to May 2007.
p. Laxamana: Approximately November 2006 to July or August 2007.
q. Bautista: Approximately November 2006 to April 2007.
r. Fausto: Approximately November 2006 to April 2007.
295.

Philippines Plaintiffs’ hours in Florida varied but, when employed, they regularly worked

over 40 hours per week.
296.

Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez, as well as Ravelo, told Plaintiffs when and where

to work.
New York Employment
297.

Once they were in New York, Defendants required Plaintiffs Ordonez, Real, Magnifico,

Auingan, Lim, Halup, Liwag, Caluya, Rueda, Ripotola, Fausto, David, Laxamana, C. Ramos,

44

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 45 of 94

Bautista and De Quiros to work at multiple New York banquet halls, hotels and country clubs
each week, including Fresh Meadow Country Club, Glen Head Country Club, Glen Oaks
Country Club, Meadow Brook Country Club, Muttontown Club, Nassau Country Club, North
Hill Country Club, Piping Rock Club, Seawane Club, Bonnie Briar Country Club, Northshore
Country Club, and Thatched Cottage.
298.

Plaintiffs worked in New York for Defendants during approximately the following dates:
a. Caluya: Approximately May 2006 to January 2007.
b. Ripotola: Approximately June to November 2006.
c. Rueda: Approximately May 2006 to January 2007.
d. Magnifico: Approximately May 2007 to the October 2007.
e. Auingan: Approximately May 2007 to October 2007.
f. Liwag: Approximately April 2007 to October 2007.
g. De Quiros: Approximately April to June 2007.
h. Real: Approximately April 2007 to October 2007.
i. Lim: Approximately April to November 2007.
j. Halup: Approximately April 2007 to October 2007.
k. Ordonez: Approximately May 2007 to the fall of 2007.
l. C. Ramos: Approximately May to November 2006; and May to October 2007.
m. Bautista: Approximately April to November 2007.
n. Laxamana: Approximately July or August to October 2007.
o. David: Approximately May to December, 2007.
p. Fausto: Approximately May to December 2007.

45

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 46 of 94

299.

Plaintiffs’ work hours in New York varied but, when employed, they regularly worked

over 40 hours per week.
300.

As in Florida, as agents and employees of Star One Defendants, Defendants Villanueva

and Fernandez, as well as Ravelo, told Plaintiffs when and where to work.
Excessive Work Requirements
301.

Defendants generally failed to provide all of the Plaintiffs with sufficient work at the start

of each season while later requiring them to work up to approximately 60 and sometimes even
over 100 hours per week.
302.

As described in Paragraphs 160-166, Defendants required Plaintiffs to work significant

amounts of overtime, taking them directly from one job to another and demanding they work
without breaks.
303.

Plaintiff Fausto became ill and required medical attention due to being overworked by

Defendants.
Defendants’ Failure to Pay Plaintiffs
304.

Plaintiffs were generally paid just once per month.

305.

Defendants sometimes paid Plaintiffs up to two weeks late.

306.

Philippines Plaintiffs, who arrived in Florida around the end of November 2006, did not

receive any pay until approximately January 2007.
307.

Plaintiffs were generally paid by direct deposit to their bank accounts.

Philippines

Plaintiffs and U.S. Plaintiff Ripotola’s accounts were set up at the direction of Defendants. The
remaining Plaintiffs’ accounts had been established at the direction of their previous employer.
308.

Plaintiffs were paid from Star One’s bank account.

309.

The records of payment issued by Star One were generally signed by Defendant Hague.

46

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 47 of 94

310.

Defendants did not consistently provide all U.S. Plaintiffs with records of payment

detailing their pay, deductions, and withholdings.
311.

Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiffs Caluya and Rueda that Star One could not issue

payment summaries until their visas had been processed. After Plaintiff Rueda repeatedly
questioned Defendant Villanueva about the small payments he was receiving for his work each
month, Villanueva provided Plaintiff Rueda with a single payment record for the month of June
2006.
312.

Plaintiff Ripotola was paid inconsistent amounts sporadically and without explanation.

313.

Defendants failed to post the required wage and hour postings as required by Florida,

New York and federal law.
314.

Defendants gave Plaintiffs misinformation about their right to overtime pay for all hours

worked over 40 each week.
315.

Some Plaintiffs were unaware of their full rights to the applicable federal and state

minimum wages and overtime premiums during their employment.
Unlawful Deductions
Costs Associated with Recruitment & Relocation
316.

In order to be able to commence work for Star One, Philippines Plaintiffs incurred

various fees and expenses, as described in Paragraphs 76-82.
317.

Upon information and belief, Philippines Plaintiffs also incurred additional costs for their

transportation from their homes in the Philippines and Saipan to J.E.S.’ office in Manila.
318.

Defendant Hague informed the POEA and Star One’s agent, J.E.S., that Star One would

reimburse these expenses.
319.

The expenses identified in Paragraph 316 were primarily for the benefit of Defendants.

47

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 48 of 94

320.

Based on the expenses incurred by Philippines Plaintiffs in order to work for Star One,

Plaintiffs should have been due an additional amount of pay to reimburse them for the expenses
incurred for the convenience of Defendants to the extent that these expenses caused their wages
to fall below the legally-required minimums.
Food, Housing & Transportation Deductions
321.

Upon information and belief, Defendants deducted hundreds of dollars from U.S.

Plaintiffs’ wages each month for food, housing, and transportation.
322.

While Philippines Plaintiffs were in Florida, Defendants deducted between $400 and

$500 per month from Plaintiffs’ pay for housing, transportation and food.
323.

When Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs Halup, Real, Liwag and De Quiros with any

work during their first weeks in the United States, they were still charged a deduction of $400 to
$433, putting them into debt with Star One.
324.

Once Philippines Plaintiffs were in New York, Defendants increased the deductions for

food, housing and transportation to between $800 and $900 per month.
325.

Defendant Villanueva gave Plaintiffs a variety of excuses when questioned about the

housing, transportation and food deductions.
326.

Among those excuses, Defendant Villanueva told some Plaintiffs that the government

required these deductions and, if Defendant Star One did not make the deductions, the
government would.
327.

Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiff Caluya that Star One made the deductions because

their visas had not been processed yet, but that Star One would return the money once the visas
were processed.

48

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 49 of 94

328.

When Plaintiffs or their Star One colleagues raised concerns about the deductions,

Defendant Villanueva also told them they could “take it or leave it.”
329.

The Defendant-provided transportation, which the deductions allegedly partly covered,

was often overcrowded, meaning there were insufficient seats and seatbelts for some passengers,
including Plaintiffs, in violation of the law.
330.

Upon information and belief, the Defendant-mandated housing violated housing

standards.
331.

Upon information and belief, the amount Defendants charged Plaintiffs for food exceeded

the actual cost.
332.

As a result of all of the deductions and expenses described supra, Plaintiffs’ pay fell

below the relevant state and federal minimum wages as well as the promised hourly wage.
Unsolicited Payroll Advances
333.

When insufficient work assignments left some Plaintiffs with paychecks that did not

cover their basic needs or Defendants’ monthly deductions, Defendant Star One Staffing gave
them advances, whether or not the Plaintiffs wanted them.
334.

Upon information and belief, Defendants deposited unsolicited payroll advances in

Plaintiffs Magnifico, De Quiros, Halup, Laxamana, B. Ramos, Lim, Auingan, Relampagos,
Bautista, Fausto and Liwag’s bank accounts and then collected the advances from subsequent
paychecks.
335.

When combined with a lack of regular work hours, the deduction of prior payroll advance

balances meant that some Plaintiffs received paychecks with negative balances.
Uncompensated Work
336.

Defendants sometimes paid Plaintiffs for less than the total number of hours worked.

49

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 50 of 94

337.

Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to maintain proper records regarding

Plaintiffs’ work.
338.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ time records were submitted to Star One

Defendants.
339.

Upon information and belief, doubts were expressed by Defendant J. Carruthers regarding

the accuracy and/or completeness of Defendants’ timekeeping methods.
340.

Defendants required Plaintiffs to perform uncompensated work in Florida and New York,

including house and yard work at a home believed to be Defendant Hague’s, driving, cleaning
and cooking in Star One housing, giving and receiving training that was primarily for the benefit
of the employer, and performing administrative tasks for Star One. Defendant Fernandez also
required Plaintiff Fausto to soak and scrub her feet.
341.

Plaintiffs were also not compensated for travel time they spent being transported between

job sites once their work day had begun.
Failure to Provide Tips
342.

Members and guests of Fisher Island sometimes designated tips for Plaintiff Halup.

343.

Defendants never provided Plaintiff Halup the tips or included them in calculations of her

overtime wages.
Failure to Pay last Month of Work
344.

Most Plaintiffs did not receive their last paychecks.
Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime and Promised Wages

345.

Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the federal and state minimum wage for all hours

worked.
346.

Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs their promised wages.

50

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 51 of 94

347.

Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required overtime premium for all hours worked in

excess of eight each day, as promised in their employment contracts.
348.

Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required overtime premium for all hours worked in

excess of ten each day, as required by New York law.
349.

Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required overtime premium of one and one half

times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of forty each week.
Plaintiffs’ Escapes from Star One
350.

As a result of Defendants’ exploitation and coercion, Plaintiffs’ exhaustion, emotional

distress and financial hardships became intolerable and they were forced to flee.
351.

Plaintiff Ripotola escaped Star One from New York during approximately November

2006. Ripotola eventually decided to leave the area altogether because he did not feel he would
be safe unless he was far away from Defendant Villanueva.
352.

Plaintiffs Rueda and Caluya escaped Star One from New York during approximately

January 2007.
353.

Prior to his escape, Defendant Villanueva told Plaintiff Rueda that, if he left Star One,

“something bad” would happen to him and, additionally, he would not receive his pay.
354.

Plaintiff Relampagos escaped Star One from Miami during approximately April or May

2007.
355.

Plaintiff B. Ramos escaped Star One from Miami during approximately May 2007.

356.

Though Plaintiff B. Ramos had been hesitant to attempt escape for fear that Defendant

Villanueva would use his social security number to track him, as Villanueva had threatened, he
could no longer accept the maltreatment by Defendants and decided escape before being taken to
New York.

51

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 52 of 94

357.

Plaintiff B. Ramos had memorized telephone numbers he saw on the sides of taxis while

being driven to and from work and called a taxi early one morning before anyone else in the
house had awoken.
358.

Plaintiff De Quiros escaped from Star One from New York during approximately June

2007. When he fled, he was only able to grab a few of his belongings.
359.

Plaintiffs Auingan, Halup, Liwag, Real, Ordonez, Laxamana and C. Ramos escaped Star

One from New York during approximately October 2007.
360.

Plaintiff Ordonez tried not to alert any of his co-workers he was leaving because he was

afraid Defendant Villanueva would find out and call the police or immigration enforcement, as
he had claimed to do when other Star One employees had escaped.
361.

After Defendant Villanueva told him he was still $350 in debt, Plaintiff Laxamana

escaped in late October, 2007. At the time of his escape, he was owed approximately three
weeks salary.
362.

During October 2007, Plaintiff Magnifico escaped Star One from New York. Plaintiff

Magnifico was similarly anxious about letting other co-workers know that he was planning to
leave because he was afraid that someone might report it to Defendant Villanueva.
363.

Plaintiff Real realized that she had to find a way to escape in October 2007 after learning

that her paycheck for the prior month totaled approximately $1.50 despite working over 40 hours
each week.
364.

During November 2007, Plaintiff Lim escaped Star One from New York. After working

over 40 hours per week for a month, Plaintiff Lim received a paycheck totaling approximately
$25.38. Feeling desperate, and knowing that Defendants’ monthly deductions were going to
keep her in debt, she was willing to risk Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez’s retaliation.

52

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 53 of 94

365.

During November 2007, Plaintiff Bautista escaped Star One from New York after

receiving a paycheck for only approximately $79.00 for the previous month of work and he was
going to be forced by Defendants to return to Florida to work again.
366.

In December of 2007, Plaintiffs David and Fausto escaped after waiting to be paid for the

previous month’s work. Plaintiff Fausto’s last paycheck was for approximately $66.00. Feeling
desperate due to lack of food and transportation and withheld wages, they were only able to
leave after borrowing money.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003 (“TVPA”)
Forced Labor, 18 U.S.C. § 1589
(Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, Fernandez)
367.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
368.

Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendants Star One, Star One International,

Villanueva, and Fernandez.
369.

This claim is brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

370.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva and Fernandez subjected

Plaintiffs to forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589.
371.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva and Fernandez knowingly

provided and obtained Plaintiffs’ labor and services by subjecting Plaintiffs to threats of serious
harm of themselves and others, including litigation, blacklisting by the U.S. government, arrest,

53

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 54 of 94

detention, deportation by immigration and law enforcement officials, loss of immigration status,
and physical harm in the Philippines, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(2).
372.

By threatening Plaintiffs with litigation, blacklisting by the U.S. government, arrest,

detention, deportation by immigration and law enforcement officials, deceiving Plaintiffs about
the terms of their visas and Defendants’ intent and ability to acquire future visas, and
confiscating Plaintiffs’ immigration documents, Defendants Star One, Star One International,
Villanueva and Fernandez provided and obtained the labor of Plaintiffs through abuse and
threatened abuse of law and the legal process in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(3).
373.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva and Fernandez knowingly

provided and obtained Plaintiffs’ labor and services by using a scheme, plan and pattern intended
to cause Plaintiffs to believe that, if they left Defendants’ employ, they or another person would
suffer serious harm or physical restraint in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589(4).
374.

As a result of the above violations, Plaintiffs suffered damages.

375.

Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at

trial and any other relief deemed appropriate, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003 (“TVPA”)
Human Trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 1590
(Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, Fernandez)
376.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
377.

Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendants Star One, Star One International,

Villanueva and Fernandez.
378.

This claim is brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

54

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 55 of 94

379.

Defendants knowingly recruited, harbored and transported Plaintiffs for the purposes of

subjecting them to forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590.
380.

Defendants recruited Plaintiffs from within the Philippines and United States, housed

them in Defendant-controlled housing, and transported them throughout Florida and to New
York, for the purposes of subjecting them to forced labor.
381.

As a result of the above violations, Plaintiffs suffered damages.

382.

Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at

trial and any other relief deemed appropriate, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”)
28 U.S.C. § 1350
Involuntary Servitude and Forced Labor
(Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, Fernandez)

383.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
384.

Plaintiffs, who are all aliens, bring this claim against Defendants Star One, Star One

International, Villanueva and Fernandez.
385.

This Court has jurisdiction over the alleged violations of international law pursuant to the

Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350.
386.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, and Fernandez subjected

Plaintiffs to involuntary servitude and/or forced labor, which are violations of the law of nations
including customary international law as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties
and other international instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other
authorities.

55

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 56 of 94

387.

The Convention Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labor defines forced labor as “all

work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for
which said person has not offered himself voluntarily.”25
388.

The above-named Defendants engaged in acts including, but not limited to, manipulation

of legal documents, psychological coercion, abuse and threatened abuse of the legal process, and
threats of physical force to exact work or service from the Plaintiffs which the Plaintiffs had not
offered voluntarily.
389.

Aiding and abetting involuntary servitude and forced labor is also in violation of the law

of nations and treaties of the United States and is actionable under the Alien Tort Statute, 28
U.S.C. § 1350.
390.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, and Fernandez aided and

abetted the imposition of involuntary servitude and/or forced labor by directing, ordering,
conspiring to commit, or aiding the imposition of involuntary servitude and/or forced labor.
391.

Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be

determined at trial and any other relief deemed appropriate.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”)
28 U.S.C. § 1350
Human Trafficking
(Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, Fernandez)
392.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.

25

Art. 2, May 1, 1932, 39 U.N.T.S. 55
56

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 57 of 94

393.

Plaintiffs who are all aliens bring this claim against Defendants Star One, Star One

International, Villanueva, and Fernandez.
394.

This Court has jurisdiction over the alleged violations of international law pursuant to the

Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350.
395.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, and Fernandez engaged in

human trafficking, which is a violation of the law of nations including customary international
law as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international
instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.
396.

The leading international instrument on the subject defines human trafficking as:
[T]he recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, 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.26

397.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, and Fernandez 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 the threat of force, coercion, fraud,
deception, and the abuse of power and/or a position of vulnerability.
398.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, and Fernandez trafficked

Plaintiffs for the purposes of obtaining forced labor or services.
399.

Aiding and abetting human trafficking is also in violation of the law of nations and

treaties of the United States and is actionable under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350.

26

The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and
Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Crime, art. 1,
Nov. 15, 2003, 55 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 60, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (Vol. I) (2001) 40
I.L.M. 335.
57

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 58 of 94

400.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, and Fernandez aided and

abetted human trafficking by directing, ordering, conspiring to commit, or aiding human
trafficking.
401.

Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be

determined at trial and any other relief deemed appropriate.
FIFTH AND SIXTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1692(d)
Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act
Fla. State. § 772.101 et. seq.
(Defendants Star One, Star One International, Hague, Villanueva and Fernandez)

402.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
403.

Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendants Star One, Star One International, Hague,

Villanueva and Fernandez (the “RICO Defendants”).
404.

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) and Fla. Stat. § 772.104.

405.

Plaintiffs are “persons” with standing to sue within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

406.

J.E.S., Jean Batarilan, Defendants J. Carruthers and R. Carruthers, and RICO Defendants

Star One, Star One International, Hague, Villanueva, and Fernandez constitute an association-infact, and therefore an enterprise (the “RICO Enterprise”) within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §
1961(4) and Fla. Stat. § 772.102(3).
The RICO Enterprise
407.

The RICO Enterprise is a business relationship between J.E.S., Jean Batarilan,

Defendants J. Carruthers and R. Carruthers, and RICO Defendants Star One, Star One

58

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 59 of 94

International, Hague, Villanueva, and Fernandez with the common purpose to profit by
recruiting, obtaining, processing, and providing consistent low-cost labor of Filipino H-2B guest
workers to work in the United States.
408.

The RICO Enterprise is engaged in interstate commerce in that its activities and

transactions relating to recruiting, obtaining, processing, and providing a consistent, low-cost
Filipino workforce for Star One Defendants involved the international and interstate movement
of workers which affects interstate commerce state and international borders and frequently
requires travel and communication across state and international lines.
409.

Star One Defendants partnered with J.E.S., a labor recruitment and training company

headed by Jean Batarilan, to serve as their agent and to recruit workers in the Philippines.
410.

Defendant R. Carruthers, and RICO Defendants Villanueva, Fernandez and Hague, who

were agents, officers and employees of Star One Defendants, traveled to the Philippines to assist
J.E.S. in securing workers and their visas.
411.

Once recruits were selected by Star One Defendants, upon information and belief, J.E.S.

facilitated their visa and hiring process in the Philippines.
412.

When the Filipino guestworkers, including Plaintiffs, arrived in the United States, they

were placed in jobs, housed, transported and paid by Star One Defendants.
413.

Villanueva, Fernandez, and Ravelo primarily supervised, directed and controlled the

workers’ daily activities.
414.

Upon information and belief, Hague and J. Carruthers oversaw the functioning of

Villanueva, Fernandez, Ravelo and the Star One Defendants.
RICO Defendants’ Roles in the Enterprise

59

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 60 of 94

415.

Defendant Star One is the company that designated J.E.S. as its agent in the Philippines,

applied for visas, recruited, employed and paid Filipino guestworkers, and, upon information and
belief, entered into contracts with the country clubs and hotels where the guestworkers were
placed. Upon information and belief, Defendant Star One also employed Villanueva, Fernandez
and Ravelo.
416.

Defendant Star One International is the company that recruited, employed and paid

Filipino guestworkers, and entered into contracts with the country clubs and hotels where the
guestworkers were placed. Defendant Star One International also employed Villanueva,
Fernandez and Ravelo.
417.

Defendant Villanueva facilitated recruitment and placement of guestworkers and helped

supervise guestworkers in the United States.
a. Defendant Villanueva communicated with J.E.S. to coordinate and facilitate the
recruitment of guestworkers.
b. He directly recruited, interviewed and offered employment to the workers in the
Philippines and United States.
c. In the United States, upon information and belief, Defendant Villanueva
participated in securing contracts with country clubs and hotels where Star One
Defendants employed Plaintiffs and other Filipino guestworkers.
d. He also helped to oversee the control, housing, transportation, training, placement
and employment of the guestworkers.
e. Defendant Villanueva used threats, document-holding, retaliation and other means
of intimidation to control the workers and compel their labor.

60

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 61 of 94

418.

Defendant Fernandez participated in the recruitment and training of the guestworkers in

the Philippines and United States and helped supervise guestworkers in the United States.
a. Defendant Fernandez helped to oversee the control, housing, transportation,
training, placement and employment of the guestworkers.
b. Defendant Fernandez used threats, retaliation and other means of intimidation to
control the guestworkers and compel their labor.
419.

Defendant Hague assisted with recruitment and overseeing the operations of the

Enterprise.
a. Defendant Hague filed visa applications and labor certifications on behalf of Star
One and communicated with Consular officials to secure visas for the Filipino
guestworkers.
b. Defendant Hague designated J.E.S. as Star One’s agent in the Philippines.
c. Defendant Hague communicated with the POEA, a Philippine government
agency, about the recruitment of guestworkers for Star One Defendants.
d. Upon information and belief, she traveled to the Philippines to meet with U.S.
Consular officials and participate in the recruitment of the guestworkers.
e. Upon information and belief, in the United States, Defendant Hague oversaw the
operation of Star One Defendants.
f. She also signed Plaintiffs’ paychecks on behalf of Star One Defendants.
420.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, Fernandez and Hague

conducted or participated in, and/or conspired to conduct or participate in, the affairs of the
RICO Enterprise through a pattern of numerous acts of racketeering activity in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and 1962(d) and Fla. Stat. § § 772,101(3) and (4), related by their common

61

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 62 of 94

purpose to profit by recruiting, obtaining, processing, and providing consistent, low-cost labor of
Filipino H-2B guest workers to work in the United States.
421.

Specifically, Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, Fernandez and

Hague conducted or participated in, and/or conspired to conduct or participate in, the affairs of
the RICO Enterprise by engaging in the following predicate acts of racketeering activity under
18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and criminal activity under Fla. Stat. § 772.102(1):
a. Forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589;
b. Trafficking in persons for the purpose of forced labor and involuntary servitude in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1590 and Fla. Stat. § 787.06;
c. Unlawful conduct with respect to documents in furtherance of trafficking in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1592(a);
d. Immigration document fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546;
e. Mail and wire fraud in sending fraudulent visa applications to the U.S.
Department of Labor and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343 respectively and Fla. Stat. § 817.034; and
f. Interstate and foreign travel to further their unlawful scheme in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1952.
422.

The Enterprise, as well as each RICO Defendant, received monetary benefits from
defrauding, exploiting and trafficking Plaintiffs and other Filipino guestworkers. Their
benefits were primarily in the form of recruitment fees, increased profits and income.
Predicate Acts
Forced Labor: 18 U.S.C. § 1589

62

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 63 of 94

423.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, Fernandez willfully, knowingly,

and intentionally committed and/or conspired to commit multiple predicate acts of forced labor
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589 as discussed in Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief.
424.

From approximately spring 2006 to November 2007, Star One Defendants, Villanueva

and Fernandez used threats of serious harm and threatened abuse of the legal process to obtain
the labor of Plaintiffs and other Filipino workers.
425.

Star One Defendants, through their agents Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez, caused

Plaintiffs and other guestworkers to work excessive hours for unlawfully low wages by
threatening them with arrest and deportation, cancellation of their visas, and refusal to renew
their visas.
426.

During 2007, Star One Defendants, through their agent Defendant Villanueva, withheld

updated copies of many Philippines Plaintiffs’ I-94 cards.

Defendant Villanueva kept the

original copies of the I-94s, and refused to provide them to the Plaintiffs they were issued to, in
violation of U.S. law.
427.

These predicate acts of forced labor furthered the common purpose of the RICO

Enterprise to profit by recruiting, obtaining and providing low-cost Filipino labor to work in the
United States.
Trafficking in Persons for the Purposes of Forced Labor and Involuntary Servitude:
18 U.S.C. § 1590 and Fla. Stat. § 787.06
428.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, and Fernandez willfully,

knowingly, and intentionally committed and/or conspired to commit multiple predicate acts of
trafficking for the purposes of forced labor and involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1590 and Fla. Stat. § 787.06 as discussed in Plaintiffs’ Second Claim for Relief.

63

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 64 of 94

429.

From approximately February 2006 through December 2006, Star One Defendants,

through their agents Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez, and in collaboration with J.E.S.,
recruited, obtained, harbored, transported and provided Plaintiffs and other Filipino guestworkers
for forced labor and involuntary servitude.
430.

RICO Defendants recruited and obtained Plaintiffs and other guestworkers throughout

2006.
a. Throughout 2006, upon information and belief, J.E.S. coordinated and hosted
meetings between guestworkers and Defendants Villanueva, Fernandez, and
Hague, who were acting on behalf of Star One Defendants to recruit guestworkers
to work for Star One.
b. RICO Defendants met with U.S. Plaintiffs and other guestworkers in Florida in
spring 2006, and traveled to the Philippines to meet with Philippines Plaintiffs
and additional potential recruits throughout 2006.
c. RICO Defendants recruited and obtained Plaintiffs and other guestworkers on
behalf of all other Defendants using misrepresentations regarding working
conditions and wages.
431.

From approximately March 2006 to November 2007, Star One Defendants, through their

agents Ravelo and Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez, harbored and transported Plaintiffs and
other Filipino guestworkers for the purposes of forced labor and involuntary servitude.
a. Upon information and belief, these Defendants obtained two houses in Miami,
Florida, one house in Boca Raton, Florida, two houses in Glen Head, New York,
and two houses in Roslyn Heights, New York (collectively “Star One Housing”)
in which to house Plaintiffs and other Filipino guestworkers.

64

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 65 of 94

b. Ravelo and Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez resided in these houses with
Plaintiffs and other guestworkers.
432.

From approximately March 2006 to November 2007, Star One Defendants, through their

agent Defendant Villanueva and other agents of Star One, also transported Plaintiffs and other
Filipino guestworkers from the Star One Housing to their job sites at country clubs and hotels
and from one job site to another.
a. In approximately May 2006, Star One Defendants, through their agent Defendant
Villanueva and other agents of Star One, transported U.S. Plaintiffs and other
Filipino workers from Florida to New York to work in country clubs and banquet
halls.
b. Between approximately April and May 2007, these Defendants transported most
of the Philippines Plaintiffs and other Filipino guestworkers from Florida to New
York for the same purpose.
c. RICO Defendants also transported some Plaintiffs to job sites without their
consent and threatened serious harm and/or abuse of the legal process if they
complained or attempted to refuse to work.
d. When Plaintiffs were transported to New York, they were similarly threatened.
433.

Between approximately March 2006 and November 2007, RICO Defendants provided

Plaintiffs and other Filipino guestworkers to country clubs, hotels, and banquet halls in Florida
and New York.
434.

RICO Defendants subsequently subjected Plaintiffs and other guestworkers to forced

labor and involuntary servitude as stated in Paragraphs 402-406.

65

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 66 of 94

435.

These predicate acts of trafficking for forced labor and involuntary servitude furthered the

goal of the RICO Enterprise to profit by recruiting, obtaining and providing low-cost Filipino
labor to work in the United States.
Unlawful Conduct with Respect to Documents in Furtherance of Trafficking:
18 U.S.C. § 1592(a)
436.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, and Fernandez willfully,

knowingly, and intentionally committed and/or conspired to commit predicate acts of unlawful
conduct with respect to documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1592(a) as discussed in Plaintiffs’
Second Claim for Relief.
437.

Throughout 2007, RICO Defendants, through their agent Villanueva, withheld the

updated copies of many of the Philippines Plaintiffs’ I-94 cards, mailed to Star One by U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services to document the renewal of their visas.
438.

These predicate acts of unlawful conduct with respect to documents furthered the goal of

the RICO Enterprise to profit by recruiting, obtaining and providing low-cost Filipino labor to
work in the United States.
Immigration Document Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1546
439.

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Hague, and Villanueva in the RICO

Enterprise fraudulently obtained H-2B visas by knowingly making false claims and statements
about the nature and location of the work and the wage to be paid in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1546. The false claims and statements were made willfully, knowingly, and intentionally.
440.

Defendant Star One submitted an Application for Alien Employment Certification, a form

that must be submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor in order to secure H-2B guestworkers,
signed by Defendant Hague on February 28, 2006, that contained material misrepresentations.

66

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 67 of 94

441.

By signing the form, Defendant Hague certified that the 31 guestworkers sought would be

employed as waiters and waitresses at Boca Woods Country Club.
442.

Defendant Hague also certified that each employee would work one shift per day, five

days per week.
443.

On Star One Defendants’ September 7, 2006 Petition for Nonimmigrant Workers, signed

by Defendant Hague and submitted to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendant
Star One similarly certified that Plaintiffs Auingan, Bautista, De Quiros, Real, Magnifico, B.
Ramos and Ordonez would work at Boca Woods Country Club as waiters and work full-time,
earning $271.12 per week.
444.

In a letter accompanying this petition, Defendant Hague also stated that Star One had

been unable to fill the available positions with U.S. workers despite actively seeking workers in
the U.S.
445.

However, once they arrived in Florida, Defendants failed to place any of the Plaintiffs at

Boca Woods Country Club or to pay Plaintiffs their promised wages.
446.

Defendants also compelled Plaintiffs to work in positions other than as waiters, to work

multiple shifts, and to work more than five days per week, all in direct violation of the
certifications, described in the preceding paragraphs, made by Star One to the federal
government.
447.

Upon information and belief, Star One Defendants submitted other Applications for Alien

Employment Certification and Petitions for Nonimmigrant Workers on behalf of Plaintiffs and
other guestworkers containing misrepresentations during approximately the same time period.

67

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 68 of 94

448.

These predicate acts of immigration document fraud furthered the goal of the RICO

Enterprise to profit by recruiting, obtaining and providing low-cost Filipino labor to work in the
United States.
Mail Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and Fla. Stat. § 817.034
449.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants Star One, Star One International,

Hague, and Villanueva fraudulently obtained H-2B visas.

Defendants also made, and/or

conspired to make, false promises regarding immigration benefits in a scheme calculated to
defraud Plaintiffs out of money and to coerce Plaintiffs into remaining in the employ of Star One
Defendants.
450.

Defendants used the mails on numerous occasions during 2006 to further these fraudulent

schemes.
451.

Upon information and belief, the fraudulent applications for labor certification and H-2B

visas described in Paragraphs 439-448 were submitted to the Department of Labor and U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services by the U.S. Postal Service or commercial carrier.
452.

Defendant Hague sent a letter dated August 27, 2006 to the POEA and J.E.S. that

included fraudulent information regarding conditions of Star One Defendants’ employment, as
detailed in Paragraph 70, by the U.S. postal service or commercial carrier.
453.

These willful, knowing, and intentional acts constitute mail fraud in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1341 and Fla. Stat. § 817.034.
454.

These predicate acts of mail fraud furthered the goal of the RICO Enterprise to increase

profits by recruiting, obtaining and providing low-cost Filipino labor to work in the United
States.

68

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 69 of 94

Wire Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and Fla. Stat. § 817.034
455.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants Star One, Star One International,

Hague, and Villanueva fraudulently obtained H-2B visas.

Defendants also made, and/or

conspired to make, false promises regarding immigration benefits in a scheme calculated to
defraud Plaintiffs out of money and to coerce Plaintiffs into remaining in the employ of Star One
Defendants.
456.

Defendants used wire communications via telephone, fax, and/or email on numerous

occasions to further these schemes.
457.

Upon information and belief, during 2006, Defendant Villanueva sent emails to J.E.S.

describing the job openings for guestworkers at Star One.
458.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Villanueva also sent emails to potential recruits

describing the available jobs at Star One during 2006.
459.

In October 2006, Defendant Hague sent an email to the Nonimmigrant Visa Chief at the

U.S. Embassy in the Philippines, explaining that she was in the Philippines with R. Carruthers
and wanted to meet with the Nonimmigrant Visa Chief to request his assistance in scheduling a
group interview for 30 applicants whose H-2B petition had been granted.
460.

These willful, knowing, and intentional acts constitute wire fraud in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1343 and Fla. Stat. § 817.034.
461.

These predicate acts of wire fraud furthered the goal of the RICO Enterprise to increase

profits by recruiting, obtaining and providing low-cost Filipino labor to work in the United
States.
Unlawful Acts in Support of Racketeering Enterprises through Interstate and Foreign Travel:
18 U.S.C. § 1952

69

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 70 of 94

462.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants Star One, Star One International,

Hague, Villanueva and Fernandez regularly engaged in, and/or conspired to engage in, interstate
and foreign travel to carry on their unlawful activities.
463.

With the assistance and coordination of J.E.S., Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez

traveled repeatedly to the Philippines between approximately June 2006 and October 2006 to
recruit and train Filipino workers.
464.

Defendant Villanueva conducted in-person interviews with each Philippines Plaintiff and

other applicants in the Philippines and discussed their conditions and terms of employment.
465.

Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez also conducted trainings in the Philippines for

those Plaintiffs and other recruits who they determined did not have experience in the food
service industry.
466.

In approximately October 2006, Defendant Hague traveled to the Philippines, along with

Ruth Carruthers, to meet with Philippines Plaintiffs and other newly hired Filipino guestworkers
on behalf of Star One Defendants, and to meet with U.S. consular officials in the Philippines to
arrange a group interview of Philippines Plaintiffs and other guestworkers for processing of their
visa petitions.
467.

Star One Defendants, through their agents Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez,

transported Plaintiffs from Florida to New York.
a. In approximately May 2006, Star One Defendants, through their agents
Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez, transported Plaintiffs Caluya, Ripotola, C.
Ramos, and Rueda (collectively “U.S. Plaintiffs”) and other Star One Defendants’
employees from Florida to New York, where they would be placed in country
clubs and hotels in Nassau County.

70

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 71 of 94

b. Defendant Villanueva oversaw this transfer of workers.
c. During approximately April and May 2007 Defendants transported most of the
Philippines Plaintiffs and other guestworkers from Florida to New York.
Defendant Villanueva oversaw this transfer.
d. Throughout approximately 2006 and 2007, Ravelo, Defendants Villanueva and
Fernandez all traveled between Florida and New York to assist in the supervision
of Plaintiffs and other workers on behalf of Star One Defendants.
468.

These willful, knowing, and intentional acts violated 18 U.S.C. § 1952.
Pattern of Related Racketeering Acts

469.

The predicate acts of racketeering activity described above constitute a “pattern of

racketeering activity” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) and a “pattern of criminal activity” as
defined in Fla. Stat. § 772.102(4).
470.

The predicate acts were related to the enterprise. In carrying out the common purpose of

the RICO Enterprise to profit by recruiting, obtaining and providing low-cost Filipino labor for
work in the United States, Defendants in the RICO Enterprise utilized fraudulent recruitment
methods and tactics designed to compel involuntary labor.
471.

Defendants in the RICO Enterprise repeatedly and systematically utilized mail fraud, wire

fraud, immigration document fraud, and interstate and foreign travel to recruit Plaintiffs and
other Filipino nationals and secure visas for them to work in the United States.
472.

Once Plaintiffs were in the United States, Defendants engaged in additional unlawful

conduct, including forced labor, trafficking in persons, and unlawful conduct with respect to
documents in furtherance of trafficking.

71

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 72 of 94

473.

Defendants engaged in the racketeering activity described in this Complaint repeatedly,

beginning as early as March 2006 through at least November 2007 with respect to approximately
70 Filipino workers.
474.

Defendants engaged in these acts to obtain Plaintiffs’ labor and compel Plaintiffs to

continue working in exploitative working conditions for unlawfully low wages.
475.

Defendants in the RICO Enterprise relied on the racketeering acts described in this

Complaint to conduct their regular business activities.

The above-named Defendants’

racketeering acts have similar purposes: to profit from the fraudulent recruitment and forced
labor of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals, and to recruit, obtain, provide, and
maintain a consistent Filipino H-2B guestworker labor force in the United States for Star One
Defendants.
476.

Defendants’ acts have yielded similar results and caused similar injuries to Plaintiffs,

including payment of high fees, assumption of interest-bearing debt, lost work opportunities, and
lost or unpaid wages.
477.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, the racketeering acts have similar participants:

Defendants Star One, Star One International, Villanueva, Fernandez and Hague.
478.

As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants directed their racketeering activities

at similar victims: Filipino workers seeking overseas employment.
479.

Defendants’ acts have similar methods of commission, such as common recruitment

tactics, relatively consistent practices with respect to collecting payments from Plaintiffs, use of
similar employment practices and policies with respect to Plaintiffs, and similar methods of
coercion and control of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals.
Conspiracy

72

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 73 of 94

480.

Starting around 2006, RICO Defendants devised, implemented and coordinated a scheme

to profit from recruiting, providing and obtaining low-cost Filipino labor through the H-2B
guestworker program.
481.

RICO Defendants conspired to obtain guestworkers to place in various country clubs and

hotels in Florida and New York by filing fraudulent applications for H-2B visas.
482.

Defendants also conspired to defraud the U.S. government, and to defraud and exploit

Filipino guestworkers by using misrepresentations regarding working conditions and pay to
recruit workers, and by unlawfully underpaying and overworking the guestworkers.
483.

RICO Defendants knowingly agreed to the overall objective of the conspiracy to increase

profits by recruiting and exploiting low-cost Filipino laborers, and agreed to commit various
predicate acts in furtherance of that scheme.
484.

In order to successfully perpetrate their scheme, Star One Defendants utilized Defendants

Villanueva and Fernandez, and formed a partnership with J.E.S. to recruit and process Filipino
guestworkers. Star One Defendants also hired Ravelo to work with Villanueva and Fernandez to
supervise, direct, and control the guestworkers once in the United States.
485.

As evidence of the conspiracy, Defendant Hague, on behalf of Star One Defendants, filed

various fraudulent petitions for labor certification with the Department of Labor, and for H-2B
visas with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in 2006.
486.

As explained in Paragraphs 418-427439-448, the petitions filed by Defendant Hague

included false information, including a statement of Star One’s inability to recruit U.S. workers;
the location of the employment site for the 30 guestworkers; a work schedule of one shift per
day, five days per week; and wages of $271.12 per week

73

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 74 of 94

487.

In order to further effectuate the conspiracy, Defendants acquired houses to place

Plaintiffs and other guestworkers and selected agents to supervise, direct, and control the
guestworkers in each house, including Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez.
488.

Star One Defendants, through their agent Defendant Villanueva, withheld the I-94 cards

of Plaintiffs and other guestworkers whose visas were renewed.
489.

As evidence of the conspiracy, Defendant Hague, on behalf of Star One, acknowledged in

a January 10, 2008 letter to Star One’s immigration attorney, that Defendants had been in
possession of several of Plaintiffs’ I-94 cards prior to their escapes from Star One.
490.

The conspiracy also required that RICO Defendants underpay and overwork the

guestworkers in order to profit from their labor.
491.

As evidence of the conspiracy, Defendant Hague, on behalf of Star One Defendants,

signed paychecks throughout 2006 and 2007 for Plaintiffs and other guestworkers that did not
include full payment for the hours Plaintiffs and other guestworkers worked.
492.

The payment summaries produced by Star One Defendants and distributed to Plaintiffs

and other guestworkers by Ravelo and Defendant Villanueva show that Defendants also made
unlawful deductions from the wages of Plaintiffs and other guestworkers and failed to pay the
minimum wage and overtime payments required by Florida, New York, and federal law.
493.

As a result of the conspiracy, Defendants have obtained profits through the exploitations

of Plaintiffs and other guestworkers.
Injury
494.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Star One, Star One International, Hague,

Villanueva and Fernandez’s willful, knowing, and intentional acts discussed in this section,
Plaintiffs have suffered injuries including, but not limited to, payment of exorbitant recruitment

74

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 75 of 94

fees for job application, visas, and other immigration and recruitment-related services; interest on
debts assumed by Plaintiffs to pay such fees; lost and unpaid wages, lost employment
opportunities; and other pecuniary and/or losses to real or personal property.
495.

Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial,

including treble damages and/or threefold the amount gained from human trafficking, and
attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action and any other relief deemed appropriate.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)
29 U.S.C. § § 201 et seq.
(All Defendants)
496.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
497.

Plaintiffs bring this claim against all Defendants.

498.

This claim is brought under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

499.

Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 206(b) by failing to pay Plaintiffs the applicable federal

minimum wage for all hours worked.
500.

Defendants violated 29 U.S.C. § 207 by failing to pay Plaintiffs overtime for all hours

worked in excess of forty each week.
501.

Defendants failed to reimburse Philippines Plaintiffs within their first week of

employment for visa fees and other recruitment-associated expenses, which were primarily for
the benefit of Defendant employers. Because Defendants failed to do so, Philippines Plaintiffs
were not paid all wages free and clear during their first week of work, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §
206(a)(1).

75

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 76 of 94

502.

Plaintiffs’ housing and transportation were primarily for the benefit of Defendant

employers.
503.

Defendants’ unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs’ wages for housing, food, and

transportation cumulatively brought Plaintiffs’ wages below the statutory minimum.
504.

Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs for each hour of work that they performed.

505.

Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with tips designated for them or to include those

tips when calculating their regular rate of pay for the purposes of determining the proper
overtime rate.
506.

Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs their federally-mandated minimum and overtime

wages were willful violations of the FLSA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).
507.

Defendants either knowingly violated the FLSA or disregarded the very possibility that

they were violating the FLSA. Defendants were aware of the FLSA’s requirements but failed to
take the necessary affirmative actions to comply with these requirements.
508.

As a result of the above violations, Plaintiffs suffered damages.

509.

Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their unpaid minimum and overtime wages, plus an

equal amount in liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

76

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 77 of 94

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Florida Minimum Wage Act
Section 24, Article X of the Florida Constitution & Fla. Stat. § 448.110
(All Defendants)
(As to Philippines Plaintiffs only)
510.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
511.

Philippines Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendants.

512.

This claim is brought under Fla. Stat. § 448.110(6)(a).

513.

At all times relevant to this action, Philippines Plaintiffs were “employees” of Defendants

within the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 448.109(1)(a).
514.

At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were “employers” of Philippines Plaintiffs

within the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 448.109(1)(a).
515.

At all times relevant to this action, Philippines Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants.

516.

Defendants violated Fla. Stat. § 448.110 by failing to pay Philippines Plaintiffs the

applicable Florida minimum wage for all hours worked in Florida.
517.

Defendants failed to prominently display the required notice advising employees of their

right to be paid the FL minimum wage in violation of Fla. Stat. § § 448.109(2) & (3).
518.

Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs their FL wages were willful violations of the FMWA

within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).
519.

Defendants either knowingly violated the FMWA or disregarded the very possibility that

they were violating the FMWA. Defendants were aware of the FMWA’s requirements but failed
to take the necessary affirmative actions to comply with these requirements.
520.

As a result of the above violations, Philippines Plaintiffs suffered damages.

77

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 78 of 94

521.

Philippines Plaintiffs sent Defendants a written notice of their claim in accordance with

Fla. Stat. § 448.10(6).
522.

Defendants failed to pay the total amount of unpaid wages or otherwise satisfy the claim

to Plaintiffs’ satisfaction within 15 days of receipt of the written notice.
523.

Philippines Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their unpaid minimum wages, plus an

equal amount in liquidated damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
New York Labor Law – Minimum Wages
N.Y. Lab. L. § § 190 et seq. and § § 650 et seq.
12 NY COMP. CODES R. & REGS. TIT. § 137-1.2
(All Defendants)
(As to Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos only)
524.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 346 as if set forth fully herein.
525.

Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos bring this claim against all

Defendants.
526.

This claim is brought under NY Lab. L. § 663(1) and 12 NY COMP. CODES R. & REGS.

TIT. § 137-1.2.

527.

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos

were “employees” of Defendants within the meaning of NY Lab. L. § 651(5) and 12 NY COMP.
CODES R. & REGS. TIT. § 137-3.2(a).
528.

At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were “employers” of Plaintiffs Rueda,

Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos within the meaning of NY Lab. L. § 651(6) and “employers in
the restaurant industry” within the meaning of 12 NY COMP. CODES R. & REGS. TIT. § 137-1.1.

78

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 79 of 94

529.

Defendants willfully violated NY Lab. L. § 652 by failing to pay Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya

and De Quiros the applicable New York minimum wage for all hours worked in the restaurant
industry while in New York.
530.

Defendants made unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros and C.

Ramos’ wages for housing, food, and transportation in violation of NY Lab. L. § 193 and 12 NY
COMP. CODES R. & REGS. TIT. § 137-2.5.
531.

Defendants’ unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C.

Ramos’ wages cumulatively brought Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos’ wages
below the statutory minimum.
532.

As a result of the above violations, Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos

suffered damages.
533.

Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros and Cesar R. are entitled to an award of their unpaid

minimum wages, plus an equal amount to one-quarter of their unpaid minimum wages in the
form of liquidated damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and prejudgment interest.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
New York Labor Law – Overtime
N.Y. Lab. L. § § 650 et seq.
12 NY COMP. CODES R. & REGS. TIT. § 137-1.3
(All Defendants)
(As to Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos only)
534.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
535.

Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros and C. Ramos bring this claim against all

Defendants.

79

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 80 of 94

536.

This claim is brought under NY Lab. L. § 663(1) and 12 NY COMP. CODES R. & REGS.

TIT. § 137-1.3.

537.

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos

were “employees” of Defendants within the meaning of NY Lab. L. § 651(5) and 12 NY COMP.
CODES R. & REGS. TIT. § 137-3.2(a).
538.

At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were “employers” of Plaintiffs Rueda,

Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos within the meaning of NY Lab. L. § 651(6) and “employers in
the restaurant industry” within the meaning of 12 NY COMP. CODES R. & REGS. TIT. § 137-1.1.
539.

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos

were employed by Defendants within the meaning of NY Lab. L. § 651.
540.

Defendants willfully violated 12 NY COMP. CODES R. & REGS. TIT. § 137-1.3 by failing to

pay Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros and C. Ramos overtime wages for all hours worked in
excess of forty-four per week which they were entitled to receive under NY Lab. L. § 652 for
work performed in New York.
541.

As a result of the above violations, Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos

suffered damages.
542.

Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos are entitled to an award of their

unpaid overtime wages, plus an equal amount to one-quarter of their unpaid minimum wages in
the form of liquidated damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and prejudgment interest.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
New York Labor Law – Spread of Hours
N.Y. Lab. L. § § 650 et seq.
12 NY COMP. CODES R. & REGS. TIT. § 137-1.7
(All Defendants)

80

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 81 of 94

(As to Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos)
543.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
544.

Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos bring this claim against all

Defendants.
545.

Under New York law, an employee is entitled to an extra hour of wages for any day when

the employee’s “spread of hours” exceeds 10 hours. 12 NY COMP. CODES R. & REGS. TIT. § 1371.7.
546.

This claim is brought under NY Lab. L. § 663(1) and 12 NY COMP. CODES R. & REGS.

TIT. § 137-1.7.

547.

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos

were “employees” of Defendants within the meaning of NY Lab. L. § 651(5) and 12 NY COMP.
CODES R. & REGS. TIT. § 137-3.2(a).
548.

At all times relevant to this action, Defendants were “employers” of Plaintiffs Rueda,

Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos within the meaning of NY Lab. L. § 651(6) and “employers in
the restaurant industry” within the meaning of 12 NY COMP. CODES R. & REGS. TIT. § 137-1.1.
549.

Defendants regularly required Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos to

work in excess of 10 hours a day during their employment. Defendants had full knowledge that
they were requiring Plaintiffs to work above and beyond 10 hours per day.
550.

Defendants did not provided the required additional compensation for any days during

which Plaintiffs’ spread of hours exceeded 10 hours.
551.

As a result of the above violations, Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos

suffered damages.

81

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 82 of 94

552.

Plaintiffs Rueda, Caluya, De Quiros, and C. Ramos are entitled to an award of all spread

of hours payments in the form of one hour of additional pay at the minimum wage rate for each
day in which they had a spread of hours in excess of 10 hours, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs and prejudgment interest.
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Breach of Contract
(Defendants Star One, Star One International, Hague,
J. Carruthers, R. Carruthers, Villanueva)
Philippines Plaintiffs
553.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
554.

Philippines Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendants Star One, Star One

International, Hague, J. Carruthers, R. Carruthers, and Villanueva.
555.

Defendants, through their agents, employees, and/or representatives, offered, and

Philippines Plaintiffs accepted, to obtain and maintain their immigration status, to provide
employment as waiters and waitresses in the United States for six months at a wage rate of six
dollars seventy-eight cents ($6.78) per hour, to provide overtime pay at 1.5 times the regular
wage rate for work over eight hours per day or over six days per week, to provide free housing,
food and transportation in the United States, to provide them with allowances, to provide free
transportation to Florida, and to provide free return transportation to the Philippines.
556.

Philippines Plaintiffs advanced consideration for the promises set out in the employment

contract in that Philippines Plaintiffs paid fees to Defendants and their agents and/or
representatives and left work and their families in the Philippines and traveled to the United
States.

82

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 83 of 94

557.

Philippines Plaintiffs paid large sums of money, many entered into interest-bearing debts,

surrendered other employment opportunities, incurred other financial losses, and performed work
for Defendants.
558.

Plaintiffs performed all of the conditions, covenants and promises in accordance with the

terms and conditions of the agreements.
559.

Defendants failed to comply with their obligations under the contractually-binding

agreements entered into with Philippines Plaintiffs.
560.

As a direct result of Defendants’ breach, Philippines Plaintiffs suffered and continue to

suffer damages.
561.

Philippines Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any and all damages available to them in an

amount to be proven at trial.
U.S. Plaintiffs
562.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
563.

U.S. Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendants Star One, Star One International,

Hague, J. Carruthers, R. Carruthers, and Villanueva.
564.

Defendants, through their agents, employees, and/or representatives, offered, and U.S.

Plaintiffs accepted, to obtain and maintain H-2B visas for them, file residency petitions to secure
them lawful permanent residency, to provide employment at $7.00 per hour for work as waiters,
to provide overtime pay at 1.5 times the regular wage rate for work over eight hours per day or
over six days per week, provide free food and housing, free transportation to and from the
housing to the work site, and to provide free return transportation to the Philippines.

83

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 84 of 94

565.

Plaintiff Ramos was promised an hourly wage of somewhere between $10.00 and $12.00

per hour.
566.

As part of their contractual obligations, Defendants, through their agents, employees,

and/or representatives, further offered and Plaintiff Ripotola accepted, to provide him with a
return ticket to the Philippines prior to the termination of his visa, and petition to bring him back
to the United States.
567.

U.S. Plaintiffs advanced consideration for the promises set out in the employment

contract in that Plaintiffs left work and their existing visas to work for Defendants.
568.

In reasonable and justifiable reliance on these agreements, U.S. Plaintiffs surrendered

other employment and immigration opportunities and performed work for Defendants.
569.

Defendants failed to comply with their obligations under the contractually-binding

agreements entered into with U.S. Plaintiffs.
570.

As a direct result of Defendants Star One, Star One International, Hague, J. Carruthers, R.

Carruthers, and Villanueva’s breach, U.S. Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer damages.
571.

U.S. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any and all damages available to them in an amount

to be proven at trial.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation
(All Defendants)
572.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
573.

Plaintiffs bring this claim against all Defendants.

84

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 85 of 94

574.

Prior to and at the time of executing an employment contract and throughout the period of

employment, Defendants, individually and through their agents, employees, and/or
representatives, knowingly and/or negligently made materially false and deceptive statements
and representations about existing facts, and knowingly and/or negligently made materially false
and deceptive statements and representations about future actions with no intent to fulfill those
promises to Plaintiffs, regarding the nature and terms and conditions of employment and the
obtaining and maintenance of immigration status and employment authorization in the United
States.
575.

Defendants knowingly and/or negligently failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs

regarding the nature, terms and conditions of employment and the obtaining and maintenance of
immigration status and employment authorization in the United States.
576.

Defendants intended that the false statements made by Defendants and/or their agents,

employees, and/or representatives would induce Philippines Plaintiffs to pay large recruitment
fees, leave their homes and jobs in the Philippines and travel to the United States to work for
Defendants, and to remain in Defendants’ employ.
577.

Defendants intended that the false statements made by Defendants and/or their agents,

employees, and/or representatives would induce U.S. Plaintiffs to leave their homes, existing
jobs and forego their existing work authorization in the United States to work for Defendants,
and to remain in Defendants’ employ.
578.

Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the representations of Defendants and their agents,

employees and/or representatives and had no reason to believe that their representations were
false.

85

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 86 of 94

579.

Plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the representations of Defendants and their agents,

employees and/or representatives.
580.

As a direct and proximate result of the representations of Defendants and their agents,

employees and/or representatives, Plaintiffs have been injured.
581.

Philippines Plaintiffs believed these representations, and in reasonable and justifiable

reliance on the representations of Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives,
Philippines Plaintiffs paid large sums of money, entered into interest-bearing debts, surrendered
other employment opportunities, incurred other financial losses, continued working for
Defendants to their detriment without receiving fair compensation for their labor, suffered
emotional injury, incurred legal liabilities and harm to their present and future immigration and
employment status, and suffered other injuries.
582.

U.S. Plaintiffs believed these representations, and in reasonable and justifiable reliance on

the representations of Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives U.S.
Plaintiffs surrendered other employment and immigration opportunities, incurred financial
losses, continued working for Defendants to their detriment without receiving fair compensation
for their labor, suffered emotional injury, incurred legal liabilities and harm to their present and
future immigration and employment status, and suffered other injuries.
583.

Defendants showed willful, conscious, wanton, and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’

rights and for the deleterious consequences and unjust hardship placed upon Plaintiffs as a result
of the representations of Defendants and their agents, employees and/or representatives.
584.

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any and all damages available to them in an amount to be

proven at trial.
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

86

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 87 of 94

Unjust Enrichment
(All Defendants)
585.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
586.

Plaintiffs bring this claim against all Defendants.

587.

By performing labor for Star One, as alleged supra, Plaintiffs conferred benefits on

Defendants.
588.

Defendants had knowledge of the benefits conferred on them by Plaintiffs’ labor, and

Defendants accepted and retained those benefits.
589.

Plaintiffs engaged in labor for Defendants with the expectation of being compensated at

the contractual wage and overtime rates for that labor.
590.

It would be inequitable for the Defendants to be permitted to retain such benefits without

paying Plaintiff the value of the benefits conferred.
591.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

87

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 88 of 94

FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez)
592.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
593.

Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendants Villanueva and Fernandez.

594.

Defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct with intent to cause Plaintiffs

severe emotional distress and/or with a reckless disregard for the high probability that severe
emotional distress would occur.
595.

Defendants’ conduct which intentionally inflicted emotional distress included, but is not

limited to, verbal abuse, the use of threats and coercion to force Plaintiffs to continue working
for Defendants, including threats of arrest and deportation, the manipulation of the legal process
to force continued labor, the withholding of immigration documents, and the failure to provide
adequate food and housing.
596.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and

continue to suffer severe emotional distress.
597.

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any and all damages available to them in an amount to be

proven at trial.
SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
(All Defendants)
598.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 346 as if set forth fully herein.

88

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 89 of 94

599.

Plaintiffs bring this claim against all Defendants.

600.

Defendants negligently engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct towards Plaintiffs

and caused Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress.
601.

Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs’ recruiters, employers and landlords to

provide safe housing and work conditions, and it was foreseeable that verbal abuse; the use of
threats and coercion to force Plaintiffs to continue working for Defendants, including threats of
arrest and deportation; the manipulation of the legal process to force continued labor; the
withholding of immigration documents; causing harm to Plaintiffs’ immigration status; the
refusal to pay contractually defined wages; and the failure to provide adequate food and housing
would cause Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress.
602.

Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs by negligently engaging in the conduct

described herein.
603.

As a proximate result of this conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress,

including emotional reactions such as fear, humiliation, anxiety, depression, helplessness, and
anger.
604.

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Negligent Supervision and Retention
(Defendants Star One, Star One International, Hague, J. Carruthers, and R. Carruthers)

605.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs 1 through 366 as if set forth fully herein.
606.

Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendants Star One, Star One International, Hague, J.

Carruthers, and R. Carruthers.

89

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 90 of 94

607.

Defendants were negligent in supervising and retaining their employees, Defendants

Villanueva and Fernandez.
608.

The above-named Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs to monitor Defendants Villanueva

and Fernandez to ensure they properly performed their duties, to be aware of their unfitness for
their positions with Star One Defendants, and to take corrective action in light of said unfitness.
609.

Plaintiffs were within the foreseeable zone of risk created by the negligent supervision

and retention of Villanueva because Villanueva’s job was to recruit, supervise, house, feed and
transport Defendants’ employees, including Plaintiffs.
610.

Plaintiffs were within the foreseeable zone of risk created by the negligent supervision

and retention of Fernandez because, upon information and belief, Fernandez’s job was to assist
in recruiting, supervision, housing, feeding, and transporting Defendants’ employees, including
Plaintiffs.
611.

Defendants breached these duties by failing to adequately monitor Villanueva and

Fernandez’s performance, failing to investigate Plaintiffs’ and other employee’s complaints
regarding Villanueva and Fernandez, and by failing to take corrective action in light of
knowledge Defendants had, or should have had, regarding Villanueva and Fernandez’s unfitness
for the job.
612.

In their positions with Star One Defendants, Villanueva and Fernandez caused injury to

Plaintiffs, including but not limited to: inducing Philippines Plaintiffs to incur recruitment and
travel-related expenses and travel to the United States to work for Star One through fraudulent or
negligent misrepresentations of the terms and conditions of employment; inducing U.S. Plaintiffs
to forego their lawful employment and immigration status in the U.S. to work for Star One
through fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations of the terms and conditions of employment,

90

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 91 of 94

including the ability to provide continued work authorization; causing harm to Plaintiffs’
immigration status; unlawfully retaining some Plaintiffs’ immigration documents; forcing or
coercing Plaintiffs into working against their will; failing to pay Plaintiffs properly; housing and
transporting Plaintiffs in unsafe and overcrowded conditions; and causing them severe emotional
distress by threatening Plaintiffs with arrest, detention, deportation, loss of their immigration
status, and litigation; subjecting them to verbal abuse; and forcing or coercing Plaintiffs into
working long hours with insufficient rest.
613.

Plaintiffs’ injuries occurred, in part, on premises secured by Defendants for the purpose

of housing Defendants’ employees, including Plaintiffs.
614.

Defendants were aware, or should have been aware, of Villanueva and Fernandez’s

harmful and unlawful conduct.
615.

Defendants were made aware of Villanueva and Fernandez’s harmful conduct by multiple

complaints from Defendants’ employees, including Plaintiffs Real and Relampagos, made
directly to Defendants Hague and J. Carruthers.
616.

A reasonably prudent person would have investigated or taken corrective action against

Villanueva and Fernandez in light of employee complaints regarding conduct described herein
because these complaints were directly related to Villanueva and Fernandez’s fitness for their
positions with Star One Defendants.
617.

Defendants’ breach of their duties to monitor Villanueva and Fernandez and to take

corrective action when notified of their unfitness for their positions was a proximate cause of
Plaintiffs’ injuries.
618.

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

91

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 92 of 94

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
a. Declaratory and injunctive relief;
b. Compensatory damages;
c. Punitive damages;
d. Treble damages as authorized by RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c);
e. Treble damages or threefold the amount gained from human trafficking as authorized by
Fla. Stat. § 772.104(1) and (2).
f. Liquidated damages as authorized by the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216, the FMWA, Fla. Stat. §
448.110(c), and NY Lab. L. § 663(1);
g. Attorneys fees and costs;
h. Such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on each and every claim set forth herein.

Respectfully submitted, this 28th day of February, 2011.

/s/ Gregory Schell
Gregory S. Schell
Florida Bar Number 287199
Migrant Farmworker Justice Project
FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
508 Lucerne Avenue
Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819
Telephone:
(561) 582-3921
Facsimile:
(561) 582-4884
Email:
Greg@Floridalegal.org

92

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 93 of 94

/s/ Annie Smith
Annie Smith
Visiting Associate Clinical Professor of Law
George Washington University Law School
International Human Rights Clinic
2000 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052
Telephone: (202) 994-7659
Facsimile: (202) 994-4693

/s/ Theresa Harris
Theresa Harris, Executive Director
/s/ Allison Lefrak
Theresa Harris, Litigation Director
/s/ Lynsay Gott
Lynsay Gott, Program Director
World Organization for Human Rights USA
2029 P Street NW, Suite 202
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 296-5702
Facsimile: (202) 296-5704
Counsel for Plaintiffs

93

 Case 9:10-cv-80771-KLR Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2011 Page 94 of 94

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 18, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being
served this day on Marlene Quintana Esq. via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing
generated by CM/ECF and on Defendant Roberto Villanueva by first class mail, postage prepaid,
to 4699 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33127.

By: __/s/_ Gregory S. Schell______
Gregory S. Schell, Esq.

94