Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

F.C., A.B., D.D.R., L.V., Ra.G., R.S., J.D.C., W.C., G.G., R.C., D.L., E.I., M.G., E.C., Rh.P., L.L., J.J.G., R.V., R.L., A.S., E.A., J.V., A.C., A.G., A.A., R.A., Ro.L., Ro.P., S.N., B.M., G.T., J.B., E.D.C., V.A., Re.D., C.S., Ra.D., M.R., L.P., I.E., M.A., Ro.D., A.D., Ri.D., Rod.O., M.D.L., Ri.O., En.C., Ron.O., G.S., B.D., C.C., and N.C. v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC., CH2M HILL COMPANIES, LTD., and CH2M HILL INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

District Court, D. Colorado

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:23-cv-02660

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (12.3K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Regina M. Rodriguez

Civil Action No. 23-cv-02660-RMR-CYC

F.C., A.B., D.D.R., L.V., Ra.G., R.S., J.D.C.,

W.C., G.G., R.C., D.L., E.I., M.G., E.C., Rh.P.,

L.L., J.J.G., R.V., R.L., A.S., E.A., J.V., A.C.,

A.G., A.A., R.A., Ro.L., Ro.P., S.N., B.M., G.T.,

J.B., E.D.C., V.A., Re.D., C.S., Ra.D., M.R.,

L.P. I.E., M.A., Ro.D., A.D., Ri.D., Rod.O.,

M.D.L., Ri.O., En.C., Ron.O., G.S., B.D., C.C., and

N.C.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.,

CH2M HILL COMPANIES, LTD., and

CH2M HILL INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,

Defendants.

                    ORDER                                        

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung, ECF No. 119, entered February 3, 2026, addressing
Defendants’ Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1292 (b) (the “Motion for Interlocutory Appeal”), ECF No. 79. On February 17, 2026,
Defendants filed a timely Objection, ECF No. 126. On March 10, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an
untimely Response to Defendants’ Objection. ECF No. 184. See Fed. R. of Civ. P.
72(a)(2) (“A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy.”). The Court STRIKES Plaintiffs' untimely Response for failure to
comply with Fed. R. of Civ. P. 72(a)(2).

This case involves violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act (the “TVPA”). Plaintiffs are migrant workers who were employed to construct stadiums
and other projects for the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. Defendants were hired to
manage the construction projects. Defendants did not directly employ Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
were employed by Qatari contractors hired to do the actual construction work. Plaintiffs
allege that they were trafficked to Qatar and were forced to work under inhumane
conditions. Plaintiffs allege Defendants participated and benefited from the venture in

violation of the TVPA. Before the case was reassigned to the undersigned on October 8,
2025, Magistrate Judge Chung issued, on June 26, 2025, a thorough and well-reasoned
order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint (the “MTD Order”). ECF No. 69. On July 28, 2025, Defendants filed
their Motion for Interlocutory Appeal. ECF No. 79. Defendants seek to appeal the Court’s
conclusion that the private right of action in the TVPA applies extraterritorially. Magistrate
Judge Chung recommends that the Motion for Interlocutory Appeal be denied because
Defendants failed to meet their burden to demonstrate there is a substantial ground for a
difference of opinion under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b). Defendants disagree. For the reasons
stated below, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ Objection and ADOPTS the

Recommendation.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

This Court is required to make a de novo determination of the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to which a specific objection has been made, and it may accept, reject,
or modify any or all of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 (b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of
the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). “[A] party’s
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and
specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate
review.” United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir.

1996).

II. ANALYSIS

Magistrate Judge Chung states the correct legal standard for the Court to certify
an issue for interlocutory appeal. ECF No. 119 at 2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, a district
court may certify an issue for interlocutory appeal if three criteria are met: (1) the order
involves a “controlling question of law”; (2) there is “substantial ground for difference of
opinion” as to the resolution of the question; and (3) certification “may materially advance
the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b). Plaintiffs concede the first
and third elements, agreeing that whether the TVPA’s civil remedy applies
extraterritorially is a controlling question of law and that an answer to that question may

materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation. Defendants argue that
Magistrate Judge Chung erred in finding no substantial ground for a difference of opinion
under § 1292(b).

Defendants argue that the “Recommendation understates the importance of the
clear divergence of district courts on the extraterritoriality issue.” ECF No. 126 at 6.
Defendants cite five cases they believe demonstrate the divergence of the question of
extraterritoriality. Pavlovich v. Palmer, No. 25-10263-NMG, 2026 WL 353496, at *4 (D.
Mass. Feb. 6, 2026) and Pavlovich v. Gaiman, No. 25-CV-78-JDP, 2025 WL 2819372, at
*7 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 3, 2025) both deal with the same set of facts that make it distinct from
this case. In the Pavlovich cases, the plaintiff is a citizen of New Zealand. The defendants,
divorced U.S. Citizens domiciled in New Zealand, hired the plaintiff as a nanny. The

events took place in New Zealand. Here, we have allegations of a U.S.-based company
benefiting from the trafficking of over 50 workers from one country to another. Moreover,
neither court in the Pavlovich case took the time to conduct the extensive analysis
Magistrate Judge Chung did in his MTD Order on the extraterritoriality issue. In Palmer,
the Court declined to reach the merits of Defendant’s “motions to dismiss for failure to
state a claim and for inapplicable extraterritorial conduct under the [TVPA]” because the
Court dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds, holding New Zealand is the
more interested forum. Palmer, 2026 WL 353496, at *1 n. 1, *4. Palmer is under appeal
with the First Circuit. Pavlovich v. Palmer, 26-1151 (1st Cir. Feb. 13, 2025). The same is
true for Gaiman. Pavlovich, 2025 WL 2819372, at *8 (“The case is [dismissed] without

prejudice under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.”).

Defendants also cite to Doe I v. Apple Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03737 (CJN), 2021 WL
5774224, at *14-16 (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2021) and Mia v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 1:22-CV-
02353 (CJN), 2025 WL 752564, at *6-8 (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2025), which were decided by
the same judge. Doe I dealt with the mining of cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, which is used by Defendants, all tech companies, in their products. The D.C.
Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint, but not because it found
that the TPVA did not apply extraterritorially. Instead, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district
court’s dismissal because the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that “the Tech
Companies participated in a venture because there is no shared enterprise between the
Companies and the suppliers who facilitate forced labor.” Doe 1 v. Apple Inc., [96 F.4th

403, 415](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9481114/john-doe-1-v-apple-inc/#415) (D.C. Cir. 2024). The D.C. Circuit specifically declined to address the district
court’s holding that the TVPA does not apply extraterritorially despite receiving an amicus
curiae brief on the issue. Id. at 414 n. 4. Finally, Defendants cite to Lun v. Milwaukee Elec.
Tool Corp., No. 24-CV-0803-BHL, 2025 WL 3443536, at *7-14 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 1, 2025).
The Court agrees that the facts in Lun are more analogous to this case than the Pavlovich
cases. In Lun, the plaintiff, a prisoner in China, was forced to make gloves for a U.S.
Company. The district court dismissed the claims against the U.S. Company because it
found “the TVPA's criminal provisions apply extraterritorially, but its civil remedy does
not.” Id. at *1. Lun is under appeal with the Seventh Circuit. Xu Lun v. Milwaukee Electric
Tool Corporation, et al, 25-3347 (7th Cir., Dec. 31, 2025).

Defendants do not directly contest the assertion that the majority of the courts that
have addressed this issue have found that the TPVA’s civil claims apply extraterritorially.
Since Defendants filed their Objection, another district court has joined the majority. See
A.A. v. Omnicom Grp., Inc., No. 25-CV-3389 (JMF), 2026 WL 504904, at *17 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb. 24, 2026) (denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs' TPVA claims
predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 1589 because the predicate offense applies extraterritorially).
As Defendants note, in A.A., the plaintiffs “advance claims based on substantially the
same underlying conduct as in this case, this time alleging venture theories of liability
against public relations companies that advised on the Qatar World Cup.” ECF No. 126
at 126.

Defendants also argue that the “Recommendation erred in overstating purported
agreement at the appellate level on the extraterritoriality question.” ECF No. 126 at 2. The

Court does not agree. In 2017, the Fifth Circuit held that “[n]othing in the text of the pre-
2008 TVPRA or in the text of § 1596 indicates that a plaintiff was allowed to sue for
extraterritorial violations of the TVPRA before 2008,” implying that the 2008 Amendment
allowed plaintiffs to sue for extraterritorial violations for events that occurred after 2008.
Adhikari v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 845 F.3d 184, 202 (5th Cir. 2017). In 2019, the
Fourth Circuit did a thorough analysis of the structure and history of the TVPA and
concluded that the civil remedy provision of the TVPA applies extraterritorially. Roe v.
Howard, 917 F.3d 229, 240-41 (4th Cir. 2019). In 2022, the Ninth Circuit “assume[d]
without deciding that § 1595 may apply extraterritorially.” Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood
Co., 35 F.4th 1159, 1164 (9th Cir. 2022). In 2024, the D.C. Circuit declined to take up the

issue. Doe 1, 96 F.4th 403, 415 n.4. Now the First and Seventh Circuits will have an
opportunity to weigh in. See Palmer, 2026 WL 353496, at *4; Lun, 2025 WL 3443536, at
*7-14. This is hardly a circuit split. Defendants have not convinced the Court that
Magistrate Judge Chung’s decision was not guided by previous decisions. Defendants
also argue that the “Recommendation [] does not engage with the novel and difficult
nature of the extraterritoriality question.” ECF No. 126 at 8. The fact that Magistrate Judge
Chung dedicated over ten pages of his 46-page MTD Order to the extraterritoriality issue
demonstrates that he did engage with the novel and difficult nature of the extraterritoriality
issue. See ECF No. 69 at 19-29.

The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Chung that certification of the issue as to
the extraterritoriality of the TPVA is not appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b). The
question presented for certification must be difficult, novel, and involve “a question on

which there is little precedent or one whose correct resolution is not substantially guided
by previous decisions.” In re Grand Jury Proc. June 1991, 767 F. Supp. 222, 226 (D.
Colo. 1991). “It is the duty of the district judge . . . to analyze the strength of the arguments
in opposition to the challenged ruling when deciding whether the issue for appeal is truly
one on which there is a substantial ground for dispute.” Max Daetwyler Corp. v. Meyer, 575 F.Supp. 280, 283 (E.D. Pa.1983). The Court is unpersuaded that a substantial ground
for difference of opinion exists here. Further, an interlocutory appeal in this matter is likely
to prolong the matter, which has already been pending for two-and-a-half years. See
Townsend v. Toro Co., No. 1:22-CV-00743-RMR-JPO, 2024 WL 6915533, at *3 (D. Colo.
July 15, 2024) (citing Goldberg v. UBS AG, 690 F. Supp. 2d 92, 101 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)).

Accordingly, Defendant’s Objection is overruled, Magistrate Judge Chung correctly
denied Defendants’ request for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b).
lll. © CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, and in the Recommendation, it is ORDERED as
follows:
1. Defendants’ Objection to Recommendation of Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 126,
is OVERRULED;
2. Plaintiffs’ Response to the Defendants’ Objection to the Magistrate Judge's
Recommendation, ECF No. 129, is STRICKEN;
3. The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 119, is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; and
4. Defendants’ Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (b) is DENIED.
DATED: March 20, 2026
BY THE COURT:

                                 REGINA M. RODRIGUEZ 
                                 United States District Judge