S. v. Ali

Background

S.S. alleged that she was trafficked and forced to work for the defendants. According to the complaint, she married Wahab Falak in Pakistan, moved to the United States after receiving a green card, and had no family or friends in the United States other than Wahab and his family. She alleged that Nuzhat Ali encouraged her to leave her computer-science studies and obtain cosmetology training because she would earn money working at Nuzhat’s California salon, Zen Salon.

S.S. alleged that after she arrived, defendants confiscated her passport and kept her green card, forced her to work without pay at Zen Salon and in defendants’ homes, and required her to clean, cook, do laundry, provide childcare, and perform other household tasks. She alleged that she worked long hours, received no meal or rest breaks, and was not paid wages or allowed to keep customer tips. She also alleged threats, physical abuse, restrictions on leaving the residence and communicating with others, and threats of deportation or harm to her reputation if she resisted or tried to leave. She alleged that she escaped on February 14, 2021.

The complaint asserted ten causes of action, including claims under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, California’s human-trafficking statute, California wage and hour laws, California’s law concerning recruitment through false statements, and California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Service of Process

Khubaib Falak moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), which allows dismissal for insufficient service of process. S.S. submitted evidence that a process server left the summons and complaint with Wahab Falak at 3238 Highpointe Court in Richmond, California, on October 11, 2023.

The court held that S.S. made an initial showing that the address was Khubaib Falak’s dwelling or usual place of abode. The court relied in part on Wahab’s acceptance of service for Khubaib but refusal to accept service for Aleena Falak, and on the absence of sufficient evidence rebutting that showing. The court therefore denied Khubaib Falak’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process.

Federal and California Trafficking Claims

The court denied dismissal of the federal trafficking claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1589. As to Nuzhat Ali, the court found that S.S. alleged specific threats and physical force used to obtain her labor. As to the other defendants, the court concluded that S.S. plausibly alleged beneficiary liability—liability for knowingly benefiting from a venture that obtained labor through prohibited means.

The court also denied dismissal of the California human-trafficking claim under California Civil Code § 52.5. The court found that S.S.’s allegations about restricted movement and communication, confiscated documents and phone access, threats and violence, defendants’ alleged awareness, and defendants’ benefit from her work supported an inference that defendants intended to obtain forced labor.

Labor Claims

The court denied dismissal of S.S.’s third through eighth claims, which alleged unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, waiting-time penalties, and unlawful taking of gratuities. Under the California standard discussed by the court, a person may be an employer by controlling wages, hours, or working conditions, by allowing the work to occur despite having the power to prevent it, or through a common-law employment relationship.

The court found that S.S. plausibly alleged that Nuzhat Ali, Aleena Falak, and Veena Falak controlled her work, and that Khubaib Falak and Rukhsar Ali knew about and had the power to prevent the work performed in their home. The court rejected the argument that naming the salon meant only the salon, rather than the individual defendants, could be responsible.

Recruitment Through Misrepresentation

The court granted dismissal of S.S.’s ninth claim under California Labor Code §§ 970 and 972, which concerns inducing someone to move for work through knowingly false representations. The court concluded that S.S. identified statements allegedly made by Nuzhat Ali but did not allege when or how the statements were communicated, as required by the rule requiring fraud allegations to be stated with particularity. The court also found insufficient factual support for treating Nuzhat as an agent of the other defendants.

The court granted S.S. leave to amend this claim against all defendants and required any amended complaint to be filed within 21 days.

Unfair Competition Claim

The court denied dismissal of the tenth claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law as to all defendants except Wahab Falak because the underlying California labor claims remained viable. The court granted dismissal of the claim against Wahab Falak, with leave to amend, because the claim depended on the underlying labor-law allegations against him.

Disposition

The court denied Khubaib Falak’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. It denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Specifically, it granted dismissal of the ninth claim against all defendants and the tenth claim against Wahab Falak, while denying dismissal of all other claims. The court allowed amendment of the dismissed claims within 21 days. Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley signed the order.