Keo Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co., Ltd.

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants in a TVPRA civil action brought by Cambodian villagers alleging forced labor at Thai seafood factories. Assuming § 1595 may apply extraterritorially, the court held that foreign corporate defendants were not "present in the United States" under § 1596(a)(2) because they lacked physical presence and minimum contacts, and that domestic defendants did not knowingly benefit from the alleged violations—attempted benefit is insufficient, and generalized knowledge of industry abuses does not satisfy the "knew or should have known" standard. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time.

Holdings

1. Phatthana was not 'present in the United States' because it had no physical presence, and even under a minimum contacts standard, Plaintiffs failed to establish specific or general jurisdiction. S.S. Frozen's claims fail because they depend on Phatthana's presence.
2. Rubicon did not knowingly benefit because an attempt to benefit is insufficient; the statute requires actual benefit, not attempted benefit.
3. Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue that Wales knew or should have known of violations before February 23, 2012, and Wales did not benefit after that date.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the civil remedy provision of the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. § 1595, applies extraterritorially to foreign conduct.
2. Whether foreign defendants Phatthana and S.S. Frozen were 'present in the United States' as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1596(a)(2) for extraterritorial application.
3. Whether Rubicon and Wales knowingly benefitted from participation in a venture that they knew or should have known engaged in TVPRA violations.

Disposition

affirmed