Rubicon Resources v. Ratha
A company called Rubicon Resources markets and sells seafood and purports to fully control the production process for that seafood. Rubicon attempted to sell seafood produced by Phatthana Seafood Co., another company owned by Rubicon’s co-founder. This seafood was the product of human trafficking and forced labor: Phatthana trafficked Cambodian villagers to Thailand, confiscated their passports, forced them to work under harsh conditions, and threatened them with arrest. In light of these known concerns about Phatthana Seafood’s practices, Rubicon was not successful when it tried to sell the seafood.
In 2016, trafficking victims who worked at Phatthana’s factory sued Rubicon, Phatthana, and other defendants, alleging violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA). The district court granted Rubicon’s motion for summary judgment on three separate bases, including that the TVPRA does not impose liability when a defendant attempts to profit, but does not succeed in profiting, from goods that are the known product of human trafficking or forced labor. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment as to Rubicon on only that one basis.
In response, Congress passed an amendment to make clear that the TVPRA includes attempt liability. The plaintiffs promptly filed in the district court a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen the case. The court denied the motion, relying on (1) the two additional bases from its original judgment and (2) its conclusion that the amendment was not retroactive. The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed. The court held that the clarifying amendment was retroactive and that the alternative bases in the district court’s decision were incorrect as a matter of law. It then applied a long-established six-factor analysis to conclude that the plaintiffs had shown extraordinary grounds to reopen the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).
Rubicon filed a petition seeking Supreme Court review. Public Citizen Litigation Group, serving as co-counsel in the Supreme Court, drafted the the brief in opposition to the petition.