Bucco v. W. Iowa Tech Cmty. Coll.

• Decision Date: 16 August 2021
• Docket Number: C21-4001-LTS
• Citation: 555 F.Supp.3d 628
• Parties: Jacqueline De Britto BUCCO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WESTERN IOWA TECH COMMUNITY COLLEGE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

555 F.Supp.3d 628

Jacqueline De Britto BUCCO, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.WESTERN IOWA TECH COMMUNITY COLLEGE, et al., Defendants.

No. C21-4001-LTS

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

Signed August 16, 2021

Amy Rachelle Beck, Paige Ellen Fiedler, Fiedler Law Firm, PLC, Johnston, IA, Devin C. Kelly, Roxanne Barton Conlin, Roxanne Conlin & Associates, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiffs Jacqueline De Britto Bucco, Antonio Diego Barbosa Coutinho, Ana Paula Oliveira De Souza Costa, Vinicius Assad De Magalhaes, Brian De Souza Melo, Marcos Vinicius Morais Pinto, Silmar Da Silva Reis, Cesar Priester Rosa, Jr., Leila Silva Freire Soares.

Elizabeth Shoemaker Van Arkel, Holly M. Logan, Sarah Friedricks, Scott M. Brennan, Spencer Matthew Willems, Dentons Davis Brown PC, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants Western Iowa Tech Community College, Juline Albert, Rosana Salgado Burright, Terry Murrell, Terry Yi, James Zuercher, Lilly Castro.

Sarah J. Millsap, Brock Joseph Pohlmeier, Pro Hac Vice, Jackson Lewis PC, Omaha, NE, for Defendants Premier Services, Inc., Nancy Albrecht.

Elizabeth Ralph, Pro Hac Vice, Matthew J. Cannon, Pro Hac Vice, Greenberg Traurig PA, Chicago, IL, Ryland Lee Deinert, Klass Law Firm LLP, Sioux City, IA, for Defendant Royal Canin USA, Inc.

Matthew Dixon, Ryan T. Brown, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Chicago, IL, Kelsey R. Heino, Goosmann Law Firm, Sioux City, IA, for Defendant Tur-Pak Foods, Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before me on motions (Docs. 31, 32, 35 and 39) to dismiss filed by defendants Premier Services, Inc. d/b/a J&L Enterprises and d/b/a J&L Staffing and Recruiting (J&L) and Nancy Albrecht¹ (together, the J&L defendants); Tur-Pak Foods, Inc. (Tur-Pak); Royal Canin USA, Inc. (Royal Canin); and Julie Albert, Rosana Salgado Burright, Lilly Castro, Terry Murrell, Terry Yi, James Zuercher and Western Iowa Tech Community College (WITCC) (together, the WITCC defendants). Plaintiffs have filed a resistance (Doc. 58) to the motions with separate briefs as to each set of defendants. See Docs. 59, 60, 61, 62. Defendants have filed replies. See Docs. 68, 73, 74, 75. Oral argument is not necessary. See Local Rule 7(c).

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The following allegations from the First Amended Complaint (FAC) (Doc. 15) are accepted as true for purposes of the motions to dismiss:

Plaintiffs are citizens of Brazil² and participants in the J-1 visa program at WITCC. This program was represented to plaintiffs as a two-year program in which they would study at WITCC and complete internships related to their field of study at no more than 32 hours per week. After plaintiffs arrived in the United States, they were assigned jobs at either the Royal Canin or Tur-Pak plants. Royal Canin manufactures high-end pet food and Tur-Pak packs and assembles food products. Plaintiffs allege these jobs: (1) had no educational value, (2) were completely unrelated to their intended fields of study and (3) required working more than 32 hours a week. They allege defendants told them if they were unable to work due to illness, they would be removed from the visa program and sent home. They state Royal Canin and Tur-Pak paid $15 per hour for the labor plaintiffs provided, yet plaintiffs received only $7.25 per hour. The rest of their earnings went to WITCC and J&L. Plaintiffs were enrolled in classes at WITCC but were segregated from the general student population and took classes only with other Brazilians and Chileans who were part of the visa program.

In November 2019, the United States Department of State investigated the visa program at WITCC. On November 19, 2019, it interviewed several students participating in the program. After these interviews, plaintiffs were prohibited from working at Royal Canin and Tur-Pak. Because they were no longer working, plaintiffs did not have money to buy food and WITCC instructed the students to utilize local food pantries. WITCC ended the visa program in January 2020 and asked the students to vacate student housing in February and March of 2020.

The FAC describes circumstances unique to each of the 10 individual plaintiffs including how they heard about the visa program, their intended fields of study, representations made to them about the program by WITCC representatives, where they worked, the nature of their work, their hours and pay and when they left WITCC housing. See Doc. 15 at 6-16. Plaintiffs allege the following claims:

• Count I – Forced labor and trafficking for forced labor under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), including violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581, 1589, 1590, 1595 (against all defendants)

• Count II – Violations of 29 U.S.C. § 201, Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages (against defendants Royal Canin and Tur-Pak)

• Count III – Violations of the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law (against defendants Royal Canin and Tur-Pak)

• Count IV – Violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (against all defendants)

• Count V – Conspiracy to commit violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (against all defendants)

• Count VI – Violation of the 13th Amendment (against all defendants)

• Count VII – Denial of right to procedural and substantive due process under the Iowa State Constitution Article I, § 9 (against all defendants)

• Count VIII – Fraudulent misrepresentation (against all defendants)

• Count IX – Negligent misrepresentation (against all defendants)

• Count X – Unjust enrichment (against all defendants)

• Count XI – Breach of written contract (against WITCC)

• Count XII – Tortious bad faith breach of contract or denial of contract (against WITCC)

• Count XIII – Tortious infliction of emotional distress (against all defendants)

Doc. 15.

III. APPLICABLE STANDARDS

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize a pre-answer motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court has provided the following guidance in considering whether a pleading properly states a claim:

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." As the Court held in [ Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ], the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require "detailed factual allegations," but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Id. , at 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (citing Papasan v. Allain , 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) ). A pleading that offers "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders "naked assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual enhancement." Id. , at 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. , at 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Id. , at 556, 127 S. Ct. 1955. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Ibid. Where a complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ " Id. at 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (brackets omitted).

Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 677-78, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

Courts assess "plausibility" by " ‘draw[ing] on [their own] judicial experience and common sense.’ " Whitney v. Guys, Inc. , 700 F.3d 1118, 1128 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ). Also, courts " ‘review the plausibility of the plaintiff's claim as a whole, not the plausibility of each individual allegation.’ " Id. (quoting Zoltek Corp. v. Structural Polymer Grp. , 592 F.3d 893, 896 n.4 (8th Cir. 2010) ). While factual "plausibility" is typically the focus of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, federal courts may dismiss a claim that lacks a cognizable legal theory. See, e.g., Somers v. Apple, Inc. , 729 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2013) ; Ball v. Famiglio , 726 F.3d 448, 469 (3d Cir. 2013) ; Commonwealth Prop. Advocates, L.L.C. v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. , 680 F.3d 1194, 1202 (10th Cir. 2011) ; accord Target Training Intern., Ltd. v. Lee , 1 F. Supp. 3d 927 (N.D. Iowa 2014).

In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, ordinarily the court "cannot consider matters outside the pleadings without converting the motion into a motion for summary judgment." McMahon v. Transamerica Life Ins. , No. C17-149-LTS, 2018 WL 3381406, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Iowa July 11, 2018) ; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On the other hand, when a copy of a "written instrument" is attached to a pleading, it is considered "a part of the pleading for all purposes," pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c). Thus, when the pleadings necessarily embrace certain documents, I may consider those documents without turning a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Id.

When a complaint does not state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, the court must consider whether it is appropriate to grant the pleader an opportunity to replead. The rules of procedure permit a party to respond to a motion to dismiss by amending the challenged pleading "as a matter of course" within 21 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Thus, when a motion to dismiss highlights deficiencies in a pleading that can be cured by amendment, the pleader...