Skip Navigation LinksHome > Clinical Programs > Human Trafficking Cases > Case Display

Case View

 

 Case Documents

 
There are no documents to display for this case.

 

 Case Links - links to external documents

 
Link to Document

 
Case Details

  
CASE NAME:John Doe I v. Moises Rodriguez
ALL PLAINTIFFS:John Does I-IV
ALL DEFENDANTS:Moises Rodriguez, Maria Rodriguez, individually, and in his official capacity, Andrew L. Grant, individually, and in his official capacity, and Grant Family Farms, Inc, a Colorado corporation
CITATION:2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15061
DOCKET NUMBER: 06-cv-00805 - LTB
SOURCE:Lexis Search
TYPE OF CASE:Civil
RELATED CASE CITATION:
TYPE OF TRIAL:
TRIAL JUDGE(S):Lewis T. Babcock
YEAR OF ARREST:2005
YEAR OF VERDICT:2009
TYPE OF COURT:Federal Court
STATE:Colorado
FEDERAL DISTRICT:District Court
STATE COUNTY:
AGE OF VICTIM(S):Adult
NUMBER OF VICTIMS:5 +
GENDER OF VICTIM(S):Male
VICTIM'S COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:Mexico
METHOD OF ENTRY INTO THE U.S.:
WAS VICTIM CHARGED WITH A CRIME:No
NUMBER OF DEFENDANT(S):
GENDER OF DEFENDANT(S):Female and Male
TYPE OF INDUSTRY:Labor
CASE CATEGORIZATION:Agricultural Industry
FIRST CHARGE:
FIRST CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FIRST CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:
FIRST CHARGE SENTENCE:
SECOND CHARGE:
SECOND CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:
SECOND CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:
SECOND CHARGE SENTENCE:
THIRD CHARGE:
THIRD CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:
THIRD CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:
THIRD CHARGE SENTENCE:
FOURTH CHARGE:
FOURTH CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FOURTH CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:
FOURTH CHARGE SENTENCE:
FIFTH CHARGE:
FIFTH CHARGE US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FIFTH CHARGE VERDICT/PLEA:
FIFTH CHARGE SENTENCE:
CORE TERMS:
SENTENCING OPINION CITATION:
LENGTH OF GREATEST SENTENCE:
RESTITUTION REQUIRED:
FINE IMPOSED:
FORFEITURE IMPOSED:
FIRST CLAIM:Fair Labor Standards Act Violations
FIRST CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:29 USC 206
FIRST CLAIM RESULT:Liable
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIRST CLAIM:
SECOND CLAIM:Migrant and Seasonal Workers Protection Act Violations
SECOND CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:29 USC 1821
SECOND CLAIM RESULT:Liable
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SECOND CLAIM:
THIRD CLAIM:Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) Violations
THIRD CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
THIRD CLAIM RESULT:Liable
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR THIRD CLAIM:
FOURTH CLAIM:Trafficking Victims Protection Act Violations
FOURTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:18 USC 1589
FOURTH CLAIM RESULT:Liable
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FOURTH CLAIM:
FIFTH CLAIM:
FIFTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FIFTH CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIFTH CLAIM:
SIXTH CLAIM:
SIXTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
SIXTH CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SIXTH CLAIM:
TOTAL AWARD:$7,872,310.98
APPEAL:
EXPLANATION OF APPEAL:
APPELLATE OPINION CITATION:
HOLDING OF APPEALS COURT:
APPEAL STILL PENDING?:
SUMMARY:Defendants contracted with smugglers to bring Plaintiffs across the US-Mexico border in order to work on their farms in Colorado.  When they reached their living quarters, the "compound," the Plaintiffs were informed that they owed a debt of $1300 to the Defendants for their transportation costs.  In Colorado, Plaintiffs lived 4-6 to a room, and some people were forced to sleep on the floor each night.  The water on the compound was undrinkable.  The bathrooms and showers were grossly inadequate and the entire compound was infested with insects.
The farms on which Plaintiffs worked were 60 to 90 minutes away from the compound.  Between traveling and working on the crops, Plaintiffs were on duty for over 16 hours, 6 or 7 days a week.  Plaintiffs believed that they would be found and harmed if they left the Defendants' company; they also believed that if they left, their co-workers would be forced to pay off their debts.  Defendants also brought guns to work, and at least once, fired the gun to prove that it worked.  Defendants were insulting, threatening and harmful to Plaintiffs, in order to keep them in fear.
Plaintiffs were paid once a month, and their pay was reduced through a variety of illegal deductions for rent, cleaning, tools, travel, the repayment of the smuggling fee, etc.  Social Security was also deducted, fraudulently, since none of the Plaintiffs had Social Security numbers.  The number of hours each Plaintiff worked was rounded down--with many days clocking in at exactly 12 hours.
In October of 2005, Plaintiffs escaped from the Defendants and started this action.  In 2009, the court entered a default judgment for Plaintiffs.
Approval Status:Approved
Approver Comments:
            
EDIT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Michigan Law Wordmark Print View