Gilbert v. U.S. Olympic Comm.

• Decision Date: 27 September 2019
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 18-cv-00981-CMA-MEH
• Parties: Heidi GILBERT, Amber Means, Mandy Meloon, Gabriela Joslin, Kay Poe, and Jane Does 6 – 50, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, USA Taekwondo, Inc., Steven Lopez, Jean Lopez, and John Does 1 – 5, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

423 F.Supp.3d 1112

Heidi GILBERT, Amber Means, Mandy Meloon, Gabriela Joslin, Kay Poe, and Jane Does 6 – 50, Plaintiffs,

v.UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, USA Taekwondo, Inc., Steven Lopez, Jean Lopez, and John Does 1 – 5, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-cv-00981-CMA-MEH

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

Signed September 27, 2019

Jonathan Charles Little, Saeed & Little LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Karen Mor Hen, Daniel A. Lipman, Parker Lipman, LLP, Denver, CO, Larkin Evans Walsh, Rex A. Sharp, Ryan Carleton Hudson, Sarah Tankard Bradshaw, Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Prairie Village, KS, Lauren Cerri, Mark John Boskovich, Robert Allard, Corsiglia, McMahon & Allard, LLP, San Jose, CA, Stephen J. Estey, Estey & Bomberger, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Jacqueline Raquel Guesno, Jackson Lewis PC, Lillian L. Alves, Nathan Andrew Huey, Thomas Baker Quinn, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Denver, CO, Howard Lee Jacobs, Lauren Amy Brock, Lindsay Scott Brandon, Howard L. Jacobs, Law Offices of, Westlake Village, CA, Josh Adam Marks, Kathleen Teresa Alt, Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP, Boulder, CO, for Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MARCH 6, 2019 RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the March 6, 2019 Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part three motions to dismiss: (1) Defendants Steven Lopez and Jean Lopez's (together, the "Lopez Defendants") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 106); (2) Defendant United States Olympic Committee's ("Defendant USOC") Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Class Action Allegations (Doc. # 108); and (3) Defendant USA Taekwondo, Inc.'s ("Defendant USAT") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 109). (Doc. # 218.) Plaintiffs and all Defendants object to portions of the Recommendation. (Doc. ## 224–27.) For the reasons described below, the Court affirms and adopts in part and rejects in part the Recommendation, and it grants in part and denies in part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

The Recommendation thoroughly recites the factual and procedural background of this dispute and is incorporated herein by reference. (Doc. # 218.) See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Accordingly, this Order will reiterate only what is necessary to address the parties' Objections to the Recommendation.

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Briefly, Plaintiffs are elite female taekwondo athletes who competed on behalf of the United States at international sporting events, including the Olympics. (Doc. # 68 at 2.)

Defendant USOC is the federally chartered corporation with "exclusive jurisdiction" over "all matters pertaining to United States participation in the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, and the Pan-American Games." 36 U.S.C. § 220503(3)(A) ; 36 U.S.C. § 220502(a) ; see also (Doc. # 68 at 17.) Congress has empowered Defendant USOC to "organize, finance, and control the representation of the United States in ... the Olympic Games" and other sanctioned competitions directly or through a sport's national governing body and to "facilitate, through orderly and effective administrative procedures, the resolution of conflicts or disputes that involve any of its members and any amateur athlete, coach, ... national governing body, or amateur sports organization and that arise in connection with their eligibility for and participation" in protected international competitions. 36 U.S.C. §§ 220505(c)(3), (5).

Defendant USAT is the national governing body ("NGB") for the sport of taekwondo, recognized and regulated by Defendant USOC pursuant to 36 U.S.C. § 220505(c)(4). (Doc. # 68 at 17, 21.) It is a not-for-profit federation that, like the NGBs of scores of other sports, is charged with sponsoring and arranging amateur athletic competitions in the sport. See 36 U.S.C. §§ 220501(b)(3), (8). It also selects American taekwondo athletes, officials, and coaches to participate in the Olympics and similar elite, international competitions. (Doc. # 68 at 22.)

Defendant Jean Lopez was the head coach of the American taekwondo teams at the 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 Olympic Games, and Defendant Steven Lopez, his brother, is a three-time Olympic taekwondo medalist for the United States. (Id. at 19.) Plaintiffs describe Defendant Steven Lopez as "taekwondo's biggest star" and state that in the 2000s, he and Defendant Jean Lopez, along with their other siblings, were known across the country "as the ‘First Family’ of taekwondo." (Id. at 9.)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants inflicted on them and other American female taekwondo athletes "forced labor and services, sex trafficking, and other travesties." (Id. at 2.) They contend that the Lopez Defendants, "the primary perpetrators," "raped numerous female taekwondo athletes" and that Defendant USOC and Defendant USAT (together, the "Institutional Defendants") facilitated the Lopez Defendants' sex crimes and "protected [the Lopez brothers] from law enforcement and suspension by Team USA." (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs' claims arise from two time periods:

[F]irst, the underlying forced labor and services and sex trafficking of Plaintiffs ... from 1997 to 2010, and second, the cover-up of this misconduct, ... which occurred from 2006 to 2008 and then from 2015 to 2018.

(Id. at 5.) They contend that during the second time period, Defendants USOC and USAT "formed an enterprise (along with the Lopez [Defendants] ) to obstruct and interfere with efforts to prosecute or remove the Lopez brothers from taekwondo" and that Defendants' obstructionist conduct included making "false and corrupting statements to Congress." (Id. )

B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs initiated this litigation against Defendants on April 25, 2018, see (Doc. # 1), and have twice amended their Complaint, see (Doc. ## 6, 64, 68). Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC"), filed August 24, 2018, is the operative pleading. (Doc. # 68.) Plaintiffs assert 21 causes of action against Defendants and the United States Center for SafeSport ("SafeSport").¹ (Id. ) The Court organizes the claims into three categories:

Claims Arising Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA") , Pub. L. No. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1466 (2000) (codified as amended in scattered sections 8, 18, and 22 U.S.C.)²

1. Claim 1: Plaintiff Mandy Meloon's claim of forced labor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589(a), 1595(a), and 2255, against Defendant Steven Lopez;

2. Claim 2: Plaintiff Mandy Meloon's claim of sexual exploitation, transportation, and illegal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2243, 2421, 2422, 2423(a) – (c), and 2255, against Defendant Jean Lopez;

3. Claim 3: Plaintiff Gaby Joslin's claim of forced labor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589(a) and 1595(a), against Defendant Steven Lopez;

4. Claim 4: Plaintiff Gaby Joslin's claim of forced labor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589(b) and 1595(a), against Defendant USAT;

5. Claim 5: Plaintiff Gaby Joslin's claim of trafficking with respect to forced labor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1590(a) and 1595(a), against Defendant Steven Lopez and Defendant USAT;

6. Claim 6: Plaintiff Gaby Joslin's claim of sex trafficking of children, or by force, fraud, or coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1) and 1595(a), against Defendant Steven Lopez and Defendant USAT;

7. Claim 7: Plaintiff Gaby Joslin's claim of benefitting from a venture that sex traffics children, or by force, fraud, or coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(2) and 1595(a), against Defendant USAT;

8. Claim 8: Plaintiff Amber Means's claim of forced labor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589(a), 1595(a), and 2255, against Defendant Steven Lopez;³

9. Claim 9: Plaintiff Amber Means's claim of forced labor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589(b) and 1595(a), against the Institutional Defendants;

10. Claim 10: Plaintiff Amber Means's claim of trafficking with respect to forced labor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1590(a), 1595(a), and 2255, against Defendant Steven Lopez;

11. Claim 11: Plaintiff Amber Means's claim of sex trafficking of children, or by force, fraud, or coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), 1595(a), and 2255, against the Lopez Defendants and the Institutional Defendants;

12. Claim 12: Plaintiff Amber Means's claim of benefitting from a venture that sex traffics children, or by force, fraud, or coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(2), 1595(a) and 2255, against the Institutional Defendants;

13. Claim 13: Plaintiff Amber Means's claim of sexual exploitation, transportation, and illegal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2242, 2421, 2422, 2423(a) – (c), and 2255, against Defendant Steven Lopez;

14. Claim 14: All Plaintiffs' claim of obstruction, attempted obstruction, and interference with enforcement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1590(b), 1591(d), 1595(a), and 2255, against the Institutional Defendants and SafeSport;⁴

Claim Arising Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") , 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 – 68

15. Claim 15: All Plaintiffs' claim of violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), against all Defendants;

Claims Arising Under State Common Law

16. Claim 16: All Plaintiffs' claim of negligent supervision against the Institutional Defendants;

17. Claim 17: All Plaintiffs' claim of negligent retention against the Institutional Defendants;

18. Claim 18: All Plaintiffs' claim of defamation against the Lopez Defendants and Defendant USAT;

19. Claim 19: All Plaintiffs' claim of negligence against the Institutional Defendants and SafeSport; 20. Claim 20: All Plaintiffs' claim of gross negligence against the Institutional Defendants and SafeSport; and

21. Claim 21: All Plaintiffs' claim of outrageous conduct against Defendant USOC and SafeSport.

See (id. at 139–84.) Plaintiffs...