Francisco v. Susano

3 Citing cases

  1. Wang v. Gold Mantis Constr. Decoration (CNMI), LLC

    705 F. Supp. 3d 1190 (D.N. Mar. I. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    However, some courts have awarded punitive damages at a 2:1 ratio, or even higher, for TVPRA violations. See, e.g., Arreguin v. Sanchez, 398 F. Supp. 3d 1314, 1319, 1329 (S.D. Ga. 2019) (awarding punitive damages of $176,532.48, in a 2:1 ratio with compensatory damages, to 13 workers from Mexico who were recruited under false promises, worked for little to no pay, and were subjected to deplorable living conditions for ranges of 6 to 32 days, in manners very similar to the Plaintiffs in this case); Doe, 2012 WL 3834867, at *5 (awarding $2 million in punitive damages despite $1,306,468 in compensatory because case involved forceful rape and sexual assault); Francisco v. Susano, No. 10-cv-00332-CMA-MEH, 2013 WL 4849109, at *3-4 (D. Colo. Sept. 10, 2013) (awarding punitive damages of $10,000 per day in amounts over at least ten times the compensatory damages for plaintiffs forced to work between 19 to 39 days); Magnifico, 2012 WL 5395026, at *1-2 (awarding punitive damages of approximately $9 million, at 2:1 ratio, to 18 plaintiffs from the Philippines and the United States subjected to forced labor); Aguilar v. Imperial Nurseries, No. 07-cv-0193, 2008 WL 2572250, at *1 (D. Conn. May 28, 2008) (awarding 2:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages to 12 Guatemalan workers who suffered similar forced labor conditions). Although the Court recognizes that some district courts have awarded a 2:1 ratio in TVPRA cases, the Court finds that awarding punitive damages in a 1:1 ratio with compensatory damages is more appropriate in this matter.

  2. Gilbert v. U.S. Taekwondo, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 18-cv-00981-CMA-MEH (D. Colo. May. 29, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    "The TVPRA prohibits recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing, or obtaining by any means any person for labor or services in violations of laws prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude." Francisco v. Susano, No. 10-cv-00332-CMA-MEH, 2013 WL 4849109, at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 10, 2013). Section 1595 provides a civil remedy, pursuant to Section 1590, against "[w]hoever knowingly . . . transports . . . any person for labor or services in violation of this chapter."

  3. Evans v. Loveland Auto. Invs., Inc.

    Civil Action No. 13-cv-2415-WJM-KMT (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2015)   Cited 7 times

    See Jiao v. Shi Ya Chen, 2007 WL 4944767, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2007) ("Where a plaintiff is entitled to damages under both federal and state wage law, a plaintiff may recover under the statute which provides the greatest amount of damages"); see also Mason v. Okla. Turnpike Authority, 115 F.3d 1442, 1459 (10th Cir. 1997) ("If a federal claim and a state claim arise from the same operative facts, and seek identical relief, an award of damages under both theories will constitute double recovery"), overruled on other grounds by TW Telecom Holdings Inc. v. Carolina Internet Ltd., 661 F.3d 495 (10th Cir. 2011). Rather, although Plaintiffs are entitled to bring claims under both the FLSA and Colorado Wage Claim Act, Redmond v. Chains, Inc., 996 P.2d 759, 764 (Colo. App. 2000), they may recover damages only on the statute which provides the greatest relief. Shi Ya Chen, 2007 WL 4944767, at *17; see also Francisco v. Susano, 2013 WL 4849109, *4 (D. Colo. Sep. 10, 2013). In this case, the Colorado Wage Claim Act provides Plaintiffs larger damages.