Wilson v. Horizon Actuarial Services

Background

Carlos Dario Wilson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC; Unite Here, Local 2; Mike Casey; and Anand Singh. Wilson alleged that he formerly worked for the Union, that the Union hired Horizon to provide services to Union employees, and that Horizon experienced a data breach. He claimed that the breach caused or contributed to stalking, harassment, violence, identity theft, and sex trafficking by third parties. He also referred to alleged losses involving retirement accounts and family estates.

Horizon moved to dismiss in January 2026. Wilson did not file an opposition, so the court ordered him to explain why his claims against Horizon and the other defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Wilson timely responded. The court discharged that order and considered the issues raised in Horizon’s motion, which it stated also applied to the remaining defendants.

Jurisdiction and Proposed Federal Claims

The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because Wilson and Horizon were both alleged to be citizens of California. The court also found that Wilson had not clearly pleaded a federal claim. His complaint mentioned the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, but only while asserting a claim under a Georgia statute.

Wilson indicated that he wanted to amend the complaint to add a claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. Because he could no longer amend once as a matter of course after Horizon filed its motion, he would have needed the court’s permission.

The court considered the allegations in Wilson’s response and concluded that amendment would be futile. For purposes of the order, the court assumed that Wilson was a trafficking victim covered by the federal law. But it found that Wilson had not plausibly alleged that any defendant was a trafficking perpetrator. The court also found that he had not adequately alleged a beneficiary-liability theory, which would require showing that a defendant knowingly benefited from participating in a venture that the defendant knew or should have known violated the federal trafficking law.

As to Horizon, the court said Wilson’s allegations at most described a connection between Horizon’s alleged failure to protect his information and the trafficking. They did not allege that Horizon participated in a trafficking venture, knowingly benefited from that participation, or knew or should have known that the venture involved conduct prohibited by the federal law. The court similarly found no sufficient showing that any defendant could be liable under the proposed theory. Allegations about possible theft of retirement or inheritance assets did not describe conduct related to sex trafficking under that law.

Disposition

The court granted Horizon’s motion to dismiss because subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking. It also denied Wilson’s request for appointed counsel because he had not shown that he could plead a viable federal trafficking claim. The court directed the clerk to enter final judgment and close the case. The order discharged the earlier order to show cause and stated that it disposed of Docket No. 17.