FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEO RATHA; SEM KOSAL; SOPHEA No. 18-55041 BUN; YEM BAN; NOL NAKRY; PHAN SOPHEA; SOK SANG, D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellants, 2:16-cv-04271- JFW-AS v. PHATTHANA SEAFOOD CO., LTD.; OPINION S.S. FROZEN FOOD CO., LTD.; RUBICON RESOURCES, LLC; WALES AND CO. UNIVERSE LTD., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted September 13, 2019 Pasadena, California Filed February 25, 2022 Before: Marsha S. Berzon, Ryan D. Nelson, and Bridget S. Bade, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Bade 2 RATHA V. PHATTHANA SEAFOOD SUMMARY * Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in an action brought under the civil remedy provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1595, by Cambodian villagers who alleged that they were trafficked into Thailand and subjected to forced labor at seafood processing factories. Assuming without deciding that § 1595 may apply extraterritorially, the panel held that plaintiffs did not present a triable issue on the requirements for such application or on the merits of their claims. 18 U.S.C. § 1596 authorizes extraterritorial application of the TVPRA for specific criminal trafficking offenses. The panel assumed without deciding that § 1595 permits a private cause of action for extraterritorial violations of the substantive provisions listed in § 1596 so long as § 1596’s other requirements are satisfied. As to two foreign company defendants, the panel held that plaintiffs’ claims against Phatthana Seafood Co. Ltd. failed because Phatthana was not “present in the United States” at any time relevant to this lawsuit as § 1596 requires. Because the success of plaintiffs’ claims against S.S. Frozen Food Co. Ltd. depended on the success of their claims against Phatthana, their claims against S.S. Frozen also * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. RATHA V. PHATTHANA SEAFOOD 3 failed. The panel held that even assuming § 1596 requires foreign companies to possess nothing more than minimum contacts with the United States, plaintiffs did not establish that Phatthana or S.S. Frozen had sufficient contacts with the United States to meet that standard. The panel held that the record did not support either specific or general jurisdiction as a basis for finding minimum contacts. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ argument that Phatthana and S.S. Frozen were present in the United States through an agency relationship or joint venture with defendant Rubicon Resources LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in California. As to defendants Rubicon and Wales and Co. Universe Ltd., a Thai company registered to conduct business in California, the panel held that plaintiffs failed to produce evidence establishing a triable issue of defendants’ liability under § 1595 on a theory that they knowingly benefitted from Phatthana’s alleged human trafficking and forced …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals