The University of Michigan Law School

         The University of Michigan Law School
 
HomeClinical ProgramsHuman Trafficking CasesCase 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:Emmanuel Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Brothers
ALL PLAINTIFFS:Emmanuel Ellul, Valerie Carmack, Hazel Goulding
ALL DEFENDANTS:The Congregation of Christian Brothers, The Order of the Sisters of Mercy, Mercy International Association, Catholic Religious Order Does 1 - 10
CITATION:0
DOCKET NUMBER:09 Civ. 10590
SOURCE:Bloomberg, Lexis Search
TYPE OF CASE:Civil
RELATED CASE CITATION:
TYPE OF TRIAL:
TRIAL JUDGE(S):Paul A. Crotty
YEAR OF ARREST:
YEAR OF VERDICT:
TYPE OF COURT:Federal
STATE:New York
FEDERAL DISTRICT:Southern District Court
STATE COUNTY:
AGE OF VICTIM(S):Minor
NUMBER OF VICTIMS:3 +
GENDER OF VICTIM(S):Female and Male
VICTIM'S COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:Britain, Malta
METHOD OF ENTRY INTO THE U.S.:
WAS VICTIM CHARGED WITH A CRIME:No
NUMBER OF DEFENDANT(S):5
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:Child Trafficking in violation of Customary International Law
FIRST CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FIRST CLAIM RESULT:Dismissed
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIRST CLAIM:
SECOND CLAIM:Forced and Unpaid Child Labor in violation of Customary International Law
SECOND CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
SECOND CLAIM RESULT:Dismissed
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SECOND CLAIM:
THIRD CLAIM:Slavery or Involuntary Servitude in violation of Customary International Law
THIRD CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
THIRD CLAIM RESULT:Dismissed
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR THIRD CLAIM:
FOURTH CLAIM:Unjust Enrichment
FOURTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FOURTH CLAIM RESULT:Dismissed
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FOURTH CLAIM:
FIFTH CLAIM:Breach of Fiduciary Duty
FIFTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
FIFTH CLAIM RESULT:Dismissed
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIFTH CLAIM:
SIXTH CLAIM:Conversion
SIXTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:
SIXTH CLAIM RESULT:Dismissed
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SIXTH CLAIM:
TOTAL AWARD:
APPEAL:Yes
EXPLANATION OF APPEAL:Appealed Judgment
APPELLATE OPINION CITATION:
HOLDING OF APPEALS COURT:
APPEAL STILL PENDING?:Yes
SUMMARY:According to a class action complaint, Plaintiffs were citizens of Britain and Malta who were taken from their countries of origin when they were minors and shipped to Australia to work on agricultural farms owned and operated by Defendants. Plaintiffs brought suit under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of Customary International Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant organizations removed Plaintiffs from their native lands and told Plaintiffs their parents had deceased. The organizations told Plaintiffs' parents that they were to be educated in Australia and then would be returned home after completing their education. Plaintiffs allege that, when they arrived at the farms and continuing thereafter, they were subjected to corporal punishment and threats of physical violence and forced to perform arduous work several hours a day for seven days of the week. Plaintiffs allege they received no education, but that the Defendant organizations accepted educational subsidies for Plaintiffs' schooling, that any identification documentation they had were confiscated and they were routinely hired out to labor at other farms by the Defendant organizations. All Plaintiffs were school-age minors at the time of the challenged actions. Plaintiffs' class action was dismissed for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction and also on statute of limitation grounds. Plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the Second Circuit in April 2011.
Approval Status:Approved
Approver Comments:
            
EDIT

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan Law Wordmark Print View