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:Mother Doe I v. Sheikh Hamdan Bin Rashid al Maktoum
ALL PLAINTIFFS:Mother Doe I individually and as parent and guardian for minor O.G., Mother Doe II and Father Doe II, individually and as parents and guardians for Minor R.M., Mother Doe III and Father Doe III, individually and as parents and guardians for Minor M.R., Mother Doe IV and Father Doe IV, individually and as parents for Minor A.M., Mother Doe V, individually and as parent and guardian for Minor S.M., Mother Doe X and Father Doe X, individually and as the personal representatives of the Estate of John Doe X, Minors John Does 1-10000, Mother Does 1-10000, Father Does 1-10000, Mother Roes 1-1000 and Father Roes 1-1000, individually and as survivors of deceased children.
ALL DEFENDANTS:Sheikh Hamdan Bin Rashid al Maktoum
CITATION:2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93758
DOCKET NUMBER:07-293-KSF
SOURCE:Lexis Search, Pacer
TYPE OF CASE:Civil
RELATED CASE CITATION:
TYPE OF TRIAL:
TRIAL JUDGE(S):Karl S. Forester
YEAR OF ARREST:
YEAR OF VERDICT:2008
TYPE OF COURT:Federal
STATE:Kentucky
FEDERAL DISTRICT:Eastern District Court
STATE COUNTY:
AGE OF VICTIM(S):Minor
NUMBER OF VICTIMS:200 +
GENDER OF VICTIM(S):Male
VICTIM'S COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:South Asia and Africa
METHOD OF ENTRY INTO THE U.S.:
WAS VICTIM CHARGED WITH A CRIME:
NUMBER OF DEFENDANT(S):1
GENDER OF DEFENDANT(S):Male
TYPE OF INDUSTRY:Labor
CASE CATEGORIZATION:Camel Racing
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:Engaging in Slavery/Slave Trade in Violation of the Law of Nations
FIRST CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FIRST CLAIM RESULT:Dismissed
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIRST CLAIM:
SECOND CLAIM:Conspiracy to Engage in, Aiding and Abetting, Intentionally Facilitating and/or Recklessly Disregarding Slavey/Slave Trade in Violation of the Law of Nations
SECOND CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
SECOND CLAIM RESULT:Dismissed
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SECOND CLAIM:
THIRD CLAIM:Primarily Engaging in, or Aiding and Abetting, Intentionally Facilitating and/or Recklessly Disregarding Forced Child Labor in Violation of the Law of Nations
THIRD CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
THIRD CLAIM RESULT:Dismissed
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR THIRD CLAIM:
FOURTH CLAIM:Battery
FOURTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FOURTH CLAIM RESULT:Dismissed
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FOURTH CLAIM:
FIFTH CLAIM:Assault
FIFTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FIFTH CLAIM RESULT:Dismissed
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIFTH CLAIM:
SIXTH CLAIM:Intentional and/or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
SIXTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
SIXTH CLAIM RESULT:Dismissed
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SIXTH CLAIM:
TOTAL AWARD:
APPEAL:No
EXPLANATION OF APPEAL:
APPELLATE OPINION CITATION:
HOLDING OF APPEALS COURT:
APPEAL STILL PENDING?:
SUMMARY:This class action arises from the trafficking of young boys from Africa and South Asia, aged 2-12 (approximately), as laborers in the camel racing industry in the United Arab Emirates and other Arab states. Young boys were abducted and/or sold and enslaved in camel training camps to work as trainers and jockeys under the eyes of overseers. The children are reportedly starved, beaten, sexually abused and forced to work under harsh and oppressive conditions. When the children reached their teen years, and become too big to ride as jockeys, they were abandoned (e.g., sent back to their homeland) without any education, resources or assistance. In addition to claims identified above, there were claims for wrongful death (Count VII) and survival (Count VIII). Ultimately, this case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the named defendant.
Approval Status:Approved
Approver Comments:
            
EDIT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Michigan Law Wordmark Print View