Martinez v. Calimlim, Case No. 08-CV-00810.
| Decision Date | 26 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 08-CV-00810. |
| Citation | 651 F.Supp.2d 852 |
| Parties | Irma MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. Jefferson N. CALIMLIM, Elnora M. Calimlim, Jefferson M. Calimlim, Christopher Jack Calimlim, Christina Calimlim, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Jerold S. Solovy, Reena R. Bajowala, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, M. Andrew Skwierawski, S. Todd Farris, Robert H. Friebert, Shannon A. Allen, Friebert Finerty & St. John SC, Milwaukee, WI, Martina E. Vandenberg, Sarah A. Maguire, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Andrew W. Erlandson, Hurley Burish & Stanton SC, Madison, WI, Julie L. Belanger, Mark D. Malloy, Leib & Katt LLC, Robert L. Gegios, William E. Fischer, Robert L. Gegios, William E. Fischer, Kohner Mann & Kailas SC, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
In May 2006, a federal jury convicted spouses, Drs. Jefferson N. and Elnora Calimlim (the "parent defendants"), of conspiring to obtain and obtaining forced labor and of conspiring to harbor and harboring an alien for private financial gain. The jury also convicted the parent defendants' son, Jefferson M. Calimlim ("Jefferson M."), of illegally harboring an alien. In the present civil action, the victim of the above-described offenses, plaintiff Irma Martinez, seeks damages from the parent defendants, Jefferson M. and other Calimlim children, Christopher ("Jack") Calimlim and Christina ("Tina") Calimlim (I will sometimes refer to the Calimlim children as the "children defendants").
Plaintiff alleges that the parent defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and that all defendants conspired to violate RICO; violated the Wisconsin Organized Crime Control Act ("WOCCA"); violated the Thirteenth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 1584, which criminalizes involuntary servitude; violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1590 and 1595 by trafficking plaintiff and violated 18 U.S.C. § 1589 and 1595 by extracting forced labor from plaintiff. Before me now are the parent defendants' motions to dismiss counts one through four and stay counts five and six, and the children defendants' motions to dismiss counts two through six or alternatively for a more definite statement.
Plaintiff alleges that the parent defendants, with the collusion of Elnora Calimlim's parents in the Philippines, unlawfully trafficked her from the Philippines into the United States. Plaintiff further alleges that after bringing her to the United States, the parent defendants essentially enslaved her, i.e., forced her to work for them for little or no pay, concealed her presence in their home and severely curtailed her access to the outside world. Plaintiff further alleges that the children defendants assisted their parents in conducting these unlawful activities and did so after they became adults. Plaintiff further alleges that she was unlawfully held in defendants' home for nineteen years and that her confinement ended only after the FBI raided the house and discovered her. I will discuss plaintiff's allegations in more detail in the course of this decision.
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Where a defendant files a motion to dismiss after filing an answer, as at least one defendant has in the present case, I treat the motion as a request for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Such a request serves the same function as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and is governed by the same standard. See Republic Steel Corp. v. Pa. Eng'g Corp., 785 F.2d 174, 182 (7th Cir.1986).
To state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the complaint need only contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8 does not require "detailed factual allegations," but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me type accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is context-specific. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. I assume the veracity of all well-pleaded factual allegations and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id. at 1950. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows me to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 1949.
As stated, plaintiff alleges that the parent defendants violated RICO. Congress enacted RICO in an effort to combat organized long-term criminal activity. Midwest Grinding Co., Inc. v. Spitz, 976 F.2d 1016, 1019 (7th Cir.1992). Title 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) makes it unlawful "for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise ... to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity." See United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981). Under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), a private individual may bring a civil action for a violation of § 1962(c). To prevail in a civil action alleging a violation of § 1962(c), a plaintiff must establish that the defendant participated in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. Jennings v. Auto Meter Products, Inc., 495 F.3d 466, 472 (7th Cir.2007). The parent defendants argue that plaintiff fails to allege the elements of a claim. For the reasons that follow, I disagree.
An enterprise can be "any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity." 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) (2009). An association-in-fact enterprise is "a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct." Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524. An association-in-fact enterprise must have at least three structural features: a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit such associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose. Boyle v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2237, 2244, 173 L.Ed.2d 1265 (2009).
An enterprise is not limited to groups whose crimes are sophisticated, diverse, complex, or unique. Id. at 2246. Nor is it limited to "business-like entities." Id. at 2243. It need not have a hierarchical structure or a "chain of command." Id. at 2245. Decisions may be made on an ad hoc basis and by any number of methods. Id. Furthermore, members of the group need not have fixed roles but may perform different roles at different times. Id. Nor must the group have a name, regular meetings, dues, established rules and regulations, disciplinary procedures, or induction or initiation ceremonies. Id. Although proof of a pattern of racketeering activity does not necessarily establish the existence of an enterprise (and vice versa), the evidence used to prove the pattern of racketeering activity and that which establishes an enterprise "may in particular cases coalesce." Id.
An individual can participate in the conduct of an enterprise by directing it or by being a lower-rung participant under the direction of management. See Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 178-79, 113 S.Ct. 1163, 122 L.Ed.2d 525 (1983); MCM Partners, Inc. v. Andrews-Bartlett & Assoc., Inc., 62 F.3d 967, 977-78 (7th Cir.1995).
In the present case, plaintiff alleges that the Calimlim family constituted an association-in-fact enterprise and that the parent defendants participated in the conduct of this enterprise by directing its activities. I conclude that under Boyle, plaintiff alleges a RICO enterprise and participation in the enterprise by the parent defendants.1 Plaintiff alleges the structural features necessary to the existence of an association-in-fact enterprise: purpose, relationships, and longevity. She alleges that the purpose of the alleged enterprise was to obtain, maintain and conceal plaintiff's involuntary labor. Plaintiff also alleges relationships: that the parent defendants cooperated with each other in conducting the enterprise and directed their children's enterprise-furthering activities. Plaintiff also alleges longevity, namely that the enterprise unlawfully held her captive and extracted her involuntary labor over a period of nineteen years. Thus, plaintiff alleges that the parent defendants participated in the affairs of an enterprise.
In 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), Congress identified a large number of criminal acts that can constitute racketeering activity. In the present case, plaintiff alleges that the parent defendants committed a number of such acts, including mail fraud, wire fraud, trafficking, harboring, and extracting forced labor
To plead mail or wire fraud, plaintiff must allege that the parent defendants (1) devised a scheme to defraud, (2) intended to defraud, and (3) used the mails or interstate wires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 (2009); United States v. Leahy, 464 F.3d 773, 786 (7th Cir.2006). In addition, plaintiff must allege with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud. Fed. R.Civ.P. 9(b). Plaintiff's pleading satisfies these requirements. She alleges that the parent defendants devised a scheme intended to defraud her of her earnings and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.H. Ins. Co. v. Ace Ina Holdings Inc.
...conduct of an enterprise by directing it or by being a lower-rung participant under the direction of management.” Martinez v. Calimlim, 651 F.Supp.2d 852, 857 (E.D.Wis.2009). Accordingly, Class Defendants' motion to dismiss Count One of the amended complaint on the grounds of failure to all......
-
Gilbert v. U.S. Olympic Comm., U.S. Taekwondo, Inc.
...from discovering alleged sexual abuse insufficient to state a claim under § 1591(d)). The USOC also cites to Martinez v. Calimlim, 651 F. Supp. 2d 852 (E.D. Wis. 2009), which determined that a § 1590(b) violation has been plausibly alleged when an individual obstructed a federal investigati......
-
Mojsilovic v. Oklahoma ex rel. Bd. of Regents for the Univ. of Okla., CIV-14-886-R
...Plaintiffs, as required by § 1590. See Shuvalova v. Cunningham, 2010 WL 5387770, *4 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 22, 2010); Martinez v. Calimlim, 651 F.Supp.2d 852 (E.D.Wis. 2009)(listing elements of a § 1590 claim to include "knowingly recruited, harbored, transported, provided or obtained a person for ......
-
Pringle v. Garcia
...blood or marriage, and it's hard to conceive of a more quintessential type of relationship than that. See, e.g., Martinez v. Calimlim, 651 F. Supp. 2d 852, 858 (E.D. Wis. 2009) (holding that familial relationships are sufficient); Dexia Credit Local v. Cuppy, No. 10 C 1563, 2010 WL 3257873,......