杏十八新茶分享

 

Ditullio v. Boehm

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Law
  • Date Filed: 11-07-2011
  • Case #: 10-36012
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge B. Fletcher for the Court; Circuit Judge Kleinfeld; Circuit Judge Callahan dissenting

Under the civil remedy provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 搂 1595, a victim may recover punitive damages since the provision 鈥渃reates a cause of action that sounds in tort and punitive damages are available in tort actions under common law.鈥 However, 搂 1595 does not apply retroactively to a perpetrator's conduct that occurs before 搂 1595's effective date.

Josef Boehm pled guilty to conspiracy to engage in human trafficking, and admitted to conspiring to provide controlled substances to minors to recruit them for sexual acts. Miranda Ditullio, one of Boehm鈥檚 victims, sued Boehm for compensatory and punitive damages under the civil remedy provision 搂 1595 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (鈥淭VPA鈥) based on Boehm鈥檚 TVPA violations spanning from late 2001 to December 22, 2003. Ditullio appealed the district court鈥檚 conclusion after an interlocutory appeal that 搂 1595 neither permits recovery of punitive damages nor applies retroactively. Under 搂 1595, a victim 鈥渕ay recover damages and reasonable attorneys fees鈥 in a civil suit against the perpetrator. Because the term 鈥渄amages鈥 in 搂 1595 is ambiguous, the Ninth Circuit turned to common law principles to determine the scope of 搂 1595鈥檚 remedies. In following the 鈥済eneral rule鈥 that the court should award 鈥渁ny appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought pursuant to a federal statute,鈥 the Court concluded that punitive damages are permissible under 搂 1595 of the TVPA since it creates 鈥渁 cause of action for tortious conduct that is ordinarily intentional and outrageous.鈥 Further, the Court reasoned that a punitive damages award is consistent with the TVPA鈥檚 aims of increasing protection for trafficking victims and punishing traffickers. Additionally, the Court held that 搂 1595 does not apply retroactively, because to hold otherwise would attach 鈥渘ew legal consequences to events completed prior to its enactment.鈥 In so doing, the Court rejected Ditullio鈥檚 argument that state law subjected Boehm to liability before 搂 1595鈥檚 effective date (December 19, 2003), since 搂 1595 creates liability for conduct not covered by the state law. REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part.

Advanced Search


Back to Top