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:Jane Doe I v. Lakireddy Bali Reddy
ALL PLAINTIFFS:Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Lakshmi and Jarmanti Prattipati as Parents and Successors in Interest of Chanti Jyotsna Devi Prattipatti, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe IV, Jane Doe V, Jane Doe VI, Jane Doe VII, Jane Doe VIII, Sreekanth Kollipara
ALL DEFENDANTS:Lakireddy Bali Reddy, Vijay Kumar Lakireddy, Prasad Lakireddy, Jayaprakash Reddy Lakireddy, Venkateswara Reddy Lakireddy, the businesses they controlled and/or operated, including Pasand Madras Cuisine, Pasand, Inc., Lakireddy Investment Co., L.B. Reddy Estate Co., Jay Construction, Active Tech Solutions, Vani Computer Solutions, Lakireddy Bali Reddy d/b/a Reddy Realty Co.
CITATION:2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26120, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30792 <br>
DOCKET NUMBER:C 02-05570 WHA
SOURCE:Bloomberg, Lexis Search, News Article
TYPE OF CASE:Civil
RELATED CASE CITATION:United States v. Lakireddy Bali Reddy
TYPE OF TRIAL:
TRIAL JUDGE(S):William Alsup
YEAR OF ARREST:2002
YEAR OF VERDICT:2004
TYPE OF COURT:Federal Court
STATE:California
FEDERAL DISTRICT:Northern District Court
STATE COUNTY:
AGE OF VICTIM(S):Adult and Minor
NUMBER OF VICTIMS:11 +
GENDER OF VICTIM(S):Female and Male
VICTIM'S COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:India
METHOD OF ENTRY INTO THE U.S.:
WAS VICTIM CHARGED WITH A CRIME:
NUMBER OF DEFENDANT(S):13
GENDER OF DEFENDANT(S):Female and Male
TYPE OF INDUSTRY:Labor and Sex
CASE CATEGORIZATION:Other Sex Industry, Domestic Servant, Restaurant/Bar Industry, Technology Industry, Property Maintenance
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:Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
FIRST CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:29 U.S.C.S. § 201 et seq.
FIRST CLAIM RESULT:Settled
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIRST CLAIM:
SECOND CLAIM:Pattern of Racketeering
SECOND CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)
SECOND CLAIM RESULT:Settled
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SECOND CLAIM:
THIRD CLAIM:Violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA)
THIRD CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:28 U.S.C. § 1350
THIRD CLAIM RESULT:Settled
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR THIRD CLAIM:
FOURTH CLAIM:Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime
FOURTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:California Labor Code §1194 and §1197, 8 C.C.R. §§11040, 11050, and 11150
FOURTH CLAIM RESULT:Settled
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FOURTH CLAIM:
FIFTH CLAIM:Sexual Abuse of Minors
FIFTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FIFTH CLAIM RESULT:Settled
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIFTH CLAIM:
SIXTH CLAIM:Violations of the Thirteenth Amendment, Anti-Peonage Act, California Education Code Section 48200
SIXTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:United States Const. amend. XIII, 42 USC 1994
SIXTH CLAIM RESULT:Dismissed
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SIXTH CLAIM:
TOTAL AWARD:
APPEAL:
EXPLANATION OF APPEAL:
APPELLATE OPINION CITATION:
HOLDING OF APPEALS COURT:
APPEAL STILL PENDING?:
SUMMARY:Defendants, a group of related individuals, recruited victims from India for forced labor by promising them educational and employment opportunities if the victims came to the U.S. Defendants fraudulently obtained passports and visas for victims and transported them to the U.S. Most of the victims were minor females who were forced into domestic servitude through physical and verbal abuse, including repeated sexual assaults. The victims were forced to work long hours for little or no pay. This civil suit was brought on behalf of a class on Indian citizens. Several of the charges were dismissed, and the remaining charges were settled.
Approval Status:Approved
Approver Comments:
            
EDIT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Michigan Law Wordmark Print View