## Facts

- Elma Manliguez, a Filipino national, worked as a domestic servant for Martin and Somanti Joseph in Malaysia and traveled with them to New York in late 1998.
- The Josephs allegedly induced her to obtain a tourist visa by having her represent she was going on vacation and was paid regularly.
- After arrival, the Josephs allegedly took and retained her passport despite requests for its return.
- Manliguez alleged she worked about 18 hours per day with no days off, received inadequate food and personal-care items, was isolated, and was confined in the home.
- She alleged she was verbally abused and paid about $1,050 for roughly two years of work.
- In October 2000, she escaped with neighbors’ help and later filed suit in 2001 asserting federal and state claims, including involuntary servitude, Alien Tort Claims Act claims, and tort and wage-related claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a cognizable civil claim for involuntary servitude based on 18 U.S.C. § 1584.
2. Whether the involuntary servitude, Alien Tort Claims Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conversion claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitations.
3. Whether the complaint stated plausible claims for conversion and deprivation of overtime compensation under Rule 12(b)(6).
4. Whether fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation were pled with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b).

## Decision

- The court denied the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion in full.
- The court held the challenged claims were not time-barred under the applicable limitations periods and accrual rules.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged conversion and a wage/overtime deprivation theory sufficient to proceed past the pleading stage.
- The court held the fraud-based claims satisfied Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement.
- The court allowed all claims to proceed to further litigation.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court assumes the truth of well-pleaded factual allegations and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
- A civil damages action may be recognized for conduct violating 18 U.S.C. § 1584 where allegations plausibly describe coercion amounting to involuntary servitude.
- Limitations analysis depends on selecting the correct analogous limitations period and determining accrual; ongoing coercive conduct may be treated as continuing through the plaintiff’s escape or through the last actionable act.
- Alien Tort Claims Act claims may be assessed under a ten-year limitations period commonly borrowed from the Torture Victim Protection Act.
- Conversion is plausibly pled where a defendant is alleged to wrongfully retain the plaintiff’s property and refuse to return it upon demand.
- Fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation must identify the speaker, the misstatements or omissions, the time and place, and how the plaintiff relied, to satisfy Rule 9(b).

## Conclusion

The court permitted a domestic worker’s federal and state claims to go forward, rejecting timeliness and pleading challenges and recognizing that the alleged confiscation of documents, confinement, and coercive working conditions could support a civil involuntary-servitude claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1584 at the motion-to-dismiss stage.


Manliguez v. Joseph, 226 F. Supp. 2d 377 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)