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:Roy Magnifico v. Roberto Villanueva
ALL PLAINTIFFS:Roy Magnifico, Roma Lim, Rezza Real, Jeanette Halup, Bonifacio Ramos, Lucille Liwag, Ross Ripotola, Raul Rueda, Aries Caluy, Aris Ordonez, Ritchie Relampagos, Percival De Quiros, Jose Auingan, Denlit Fausto, Cesar Ramos, Irene David, Arnold Laxamanam Robert Bautista
ALL DEFENDANTS:Roberto Villanueva, Redelina Fernandez Star One Staffing, Inc., Star One Staffing International, Mary Jane Hague, John Carruthers, Ruth Carruthers
CITATION:2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45509
DOCKET NUMBER:9:10-cv-80771
SOURCE:Bloomberg, Lexis Search
TYPE OF CASE:Civil
RELATED CASE CITATION:
TYPE OF TRIAL:Judge
TRIAL JUDGE(S):Hon. Kenneth L. Ryskamp
YEAR OF ARREST:
YEAR OF VERDICT:2011
TYPE OF COURT:Federal
STATE:Florida
FEDERAL DISTRICT:Southern District Court
STATE COUNTY:
AGE OF VICTIM(S):Adult
NUMBER OF VICTIMS:15 +
GENDER OF VICTIM(S):Female and Male
VICTIM'S COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:Phillipines
METHOD OF ENTRY INTO THE U.S.:H-2B visa
WAS VICTIM CHARGED WITH A CRIME:No
NUMBER OF DEFENDANT(S):7
GENDER OF DEFENDANT(S):
TYPE OF INDUSTRY:Labor
CASE CATEGORIZATION:Hotel Industry, Restaurant/Bar 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:Forced labor
FIRST CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:18 U.S.C. § 1589
FIRST CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIRST CLAIM:
SECOND CLAIM:Human Trafficking
SECOND CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:18 U.S.C. § 1590
SECOND CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SECOND CLAIM:
THIRD CLAIM:28 U.S.C. § 1350
THIRD CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:Involuntary Servitude and Forced Labor
THIRD CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR THIRD CLAIM:
FOURTH CLAIM:Alien Tort Claim for Human Trafficking
FOURTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:28 U.S.C. § 1350
FOURTH CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FOURTH CLAIM:
FIFTH CLAIM:Conducting a RICO Enterprise
FIFTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:18 U.S.C. § 1962
FIFTH CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR FIFTH CLAIM:
SIXTH CLAIM:Civil Remedy for Criminal Practices
SIXTH CLAIM US/STATE CODE CITATION:Fla. State. § 772.101
SIXTH CLAIM RESULT:
DAMAGES AWARDED FOR SIXTH CLAIM:
TOTAL AWARD:
APPEAL:
EXPLANATION OF APPEAL:
APPELLATE OPINION CITATION:
HOLDING OF APPEALS COURT:
APPEAL STILL PENDING?:
SUMMARY:Plaintiffs, citizens of the Philippines, filed a civil complaint alleging violations of forced labor and human trafficking in addition to violations of both federal and state fair labor laws. The claims in the complaint were upheld against a motion to dismiss. According to the complaint, Defendants used false promises, fraudulent visa applications and misrepresentations regarding the terms and conditions of their employment to induce Plaintiffs to perform work for Defendants at various hotels and restaurants in Florida and New York. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants forced them to work long hours for little to no compensation and to live in severely overcrowded housing. Defendants allegedly coerced Plaintiffs to perform labor under these conditions by representing that they had close relationships with Philippine and United States officials and by threatening Plaintiffs with arrest, deportation, incarceration and cancellation of their visas if they complained or attempted escape.
Approval Status:Approved
Approver Comments:
            
EDIT

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan Law Wordmark Print View