In Precioso v. National Health Corporation, No. 3:24-cv-00561, Chief Judge Eli J. Richardson ruled that the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint sufficiently stated claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and various state and federal labor laws.
The plaintiffs, registered nurses, allege that defendants recruited hundreds of nurses in the Philippines to work at National Health Corporation facilities in the United States. The complaint asserts that defendants built multi-million-dollar businesses on the indentured servitude of these foreign nurses, who were allegedly lied to, underpaid, and forced to work in unsafe conditions.
According to the filing, defendants maintained control over the nurses by threatening baseless legal action, altering immigration status, and imposing serious financial harm if the nurses attempted to leave. The complaint cites illegal contracts that allegedly offered no way for nurses to terminate employment and demanded repayment of upwards of $40,000—often exceeding the nurses' net annual pay—if they stopped working for any reason.
The lawsuit brings multiple counts against the defendants. These include violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 et seq.), the federal RICO Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq.), the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981), the Tennessee Human Trafficking Act, the Georgia RICO Act, and fraud.
Specific claims regarding wage and hour violations target National Health Corporation under the Virginia Overtime Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiffs also assert claims for breach of contract against National Health Corporation, Jeffrey Smith, and Infinity Care Partners, LLC.
Defendants National Health Corporation, Jeffrey R. Smith, Maria Wong, Andrew Huckabay, and Rachel Kamau had moved to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs filed responses in opposition, and the defendants filed replies.
In its order, the court reviewed the parties' briefs and the Second Amended Complaint. Applying the standard that all factual allegations must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the court held that the plaintiffs had sufficiently stated claims upon which relief may be granted.
The court denied the motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 79, 98, 100), allowing the trafficking, racketeering, and labor claims to proceed to the next stage of litigation.