Gong v. Chevron Corporation

Background

The court had previously allowed Cun Gong Zhang to proceed without paying the filing fee and screened his original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court found that the original complaint failed to state a claim and permitted him to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint asserted claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), specifically 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589(a)(3) and 1589(b), against Chevron Corporation and its subsidiary, identified in the opinion as Unocal East China Sea Co. Ltd. (UECSL).

Zhang alleged that Beijing Maison Engineering and Technology Co. Ltd. sent him to Worley, which assigned him to UECSL to work on Chevron’s Chuandongbei project from 2011 through 2015. He alleged that he worked for four years without being paid by UECSL or Worley. He also alleged that the contract between Worley and UECSL was a fake service contract and a contract for human trafficking, and that Chevron and UECSL knowingly benefited from the alleged trafficking because of their unity of interest.

Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss a case brought by a person proceeding without paying the filing fee if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court explained that this screening uses the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make liability reasonably plausible, rather than relying only on labels, conclusions, or a bare recitation of legal elements.

Section 1589(a)(3) Claim

Section 1589(a)(3) prohibits obtaining labor or services through the abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process. The court stated that a claim under this provision requires allegations that the defendants used law or legal process for a purpose for which it was not designed, used it to pressure the plaintiff to provide labor, and obtained the labor because of that pressure.

Zhang alleged that the defendants abused contract law through a fake service contract and that Maison violated Chinese labor law by failing to sign an employment contract with him. The court held that the alleged Chinese labor-law violations did not support a plausible Section 1589(a)(3) claim. Even accepting the factual allegations as true, the court found they did not show that the defendants used or threatened to use law for an improper purpose, pressured Zhang to work, or received his work because of such pressure.

Section 1589(b) Claim

Section 1589(b) creates liability for a person or entity that knowingly benefits financially or receives something of value from participating in a venture that obtained labor through one of the methods prohibited by Section 1589(a), while knowing or recklessly disregarding that fact.

The court found that Zhang’s allegations that Chevron recklessly disregarded forced labor, profited substantially, and knowingly participated in and benefited from forced labor were conclusory. Because he did not provide supporting facts, the court held that the amended complaint did not plausibly state a beneficiary-liability claim under Section 1589(b).

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend because it failed to sufficiently allege a TVPRA claim under either Section 1589(a)(3) or Section 1589(b). Any amended complaint was due by July 11, 2025. The court stated that if Zhang did not file one by that date, judgment would be entered in the defendants’ favor. The order was signed by United States District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.