Celeste Borys, et al. v. Timothy Ballard, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah ruled on Aerial Recovery Inc.’s motion to dismiss claims brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The court dismissed the direct forced-labor liability claim against Aerial Recovery but allowed claims for indirect forced-labor liability and direct and indirect sex-trafficking liability to proceed. The decision applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) pleading standards.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that they performed labor and sexual services through coercion, but failed to plausibly allege that Aerial Recovery itself knew the labor was coerced. The direct forced-labor claim against Aerial Recovery was therefore dismissed.
2. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Aerial Recovery knowingly benefited from a venture involving the Couples Ruse and knew or should have known that the venture would employ forced labor.
3. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Aerial Recovery was directly liable for sex trafficking because it knowingly participated in portraying the Couples Ruse as a legitimate anti-trafficking method despite knowing that it had no legitimate operational basis, thereby using fraud to cause Plaintiffs to engage in commercial sex acts.
4. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Aerial Recovery was indirectly liable for sex trafficking because it participated in and benefited from the Couples Ruse venture and knew or should have known that the venture involved transporting Plaintiffs to obtain sexual services.
5. Allegations that Plaintiffs were transported to international destinations where they were subjected to sexual conduct as part of the Couples Ruse plausibly satisfied the transportation component of 18 U.S.C. § 1591.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Aerial Recovery directly violated 18 U.S.C. § 1589 by knowingly obtaining Plaintiffs' labor through coercion or threats of serious harm.
2. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Aerial Recovery was indirectly liable under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 and 1595 because it knowingly benefited from a venture that it knew or should have known involved forced labor.
3. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged direct liability under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595 for sex trafficking based on Aerial Recovery's alleged fraudulent representation of the Couples Ruse.
4. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged indirect liability under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595 because Aerial Recovery benefited from and knew or should have known that the venture involved sex trafficking.
5. Whether the alleged transportation of Plaintiffs to international destinations for sexual conduct satisfied the transportation element of 18 U.S.C. § 1591.

Disposition

other