Human-rights groups were shocked in March by lawsuit allegations of horrific worker treatment on boats that supplied San Diego-based Bumble Bee Foods.
The canned-tuna giant, target of the suit, was appalled as well.
“Bumble Bee unequivocally condemns forced labor and takes allegations of forced labor in its supply chain seriously,” company lawyers say in a court filing Monday. “Indeed, when Bumble Bee learned of the allegations in the complaint, it promptly instructed its suppliers to cease purchasing from the vessels at issue.”
But the lawsuit by four Indonesian men is going after the wrong party, says the 34-page filing. And if Bumble Bee were found liable, it said, so might every other company that sources product from foreign entities.
“That limitless theory of liability would allow any manufacturer or retailer to be sued based on conduct by independent foreign actors anywhere in a global supply chain,” writes Vassi Iliadis, an attorney for Bumble Bee.
So Bumble Bee’s legal team is asking Judge Michael Anello in San Diego federal court to throw out the case. A hearing on that dismissal motion is set for Sept. 5 in downtown U.S. District Court — 221 West Broadway.
Agnieszka Fryszman, partner at Cohen Milstein representing the Indonesians, offered an initial view of the motion.
“Bumble Bee does not contest the key issue in the case: that the men were victims of forced labor. We look forward to responding in court,” Fryszman said Wednesday in a statement to Times of San Diego.
Hearing the case is an 81-year-old jurist nominated by President George W. Bush in 2008. In 2018, Anello assumed senior status, a form of semi-retirement.
He isn’t averse to tossing major lawsuits.
In 2016, Anello dismissed a securities fraud case brought by investors in SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. who said the company misled them about how the critical documentary “Blackfish” affected its theme parks’ financial performance and attendance.
“Anello said the investors failed to show that SeaWorld officials had deliberately made false statements, that ‘Blackfish’ alone caused attendance declines and that SeaWorld officials knew ‘Blackfish’ had caused attendance declines,” said one account. (Four years later, after an amended lawsuit was filed, SeaWorld settled the case by paying $65 million.)
Now it’s the 10th Avenue company’s turn to persuade the veteran judge.
“Allegations that Bumble Bee was generally aware of an industry-wide issue do not mean that Bumble Bee ‘had the ability to control’ the individual bad actors that harmed Plaintiffs or ‘was in the best position to do so,’” says the dismissal motion.
Among other things, Bumble Bee lawyers say the suit fails to state a claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, the federal law that seeks to combat human trafficking.
“That [law] authorizes a forced-labor victim to bring a civil suit ‘against the perpetrator (or whoever knowingly benefits … from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this chapter,” the motion says.
Part of the law allows individuals to sue those who obtained their labor by force and those who directly assist them.
But Bumble bee disputes that the law imposes liability at any stage in a “multi-tier supply chain.”
“Downstream purchases alone do not support liability under the TVPRA,” the company argues.
“Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that Bumble Bee knew or had reason to know of the violations that Plaintiffs allegedly suffered, or that Bumble Bee participated in a venture with the entities or people that Plaintiffs claim abused them — the vessel captains and Indonesian recruitment agencies,” the motion says.
Bumblee Bee calls the TVPRA claim “impermissibly extraterritorial because it seeks to impose civil liability on Bumble Bee for injuries suffered overseas at the hands of foreign actors. U.S. statutes are presumed not to apply to extraterritorial conduct, and nothing in the TVPRA defeats that presumption.
“Because Plaintiffs’ claim arises from events overseas, it may not be pursued in a U.S. court.”
Bumble Bee repeated that it strongly condemns forced labor and has enacted policies to promote responsible sourcing in its supply chain.
“But developing an effective, long-term solution would require the help of many actors, including governments,” its lawyers write. “The federal courts are the wrong forum for the forward-looking policy changes Plaintiffs seek against a single company. And neither the TVPRA’s civil remedy provision, nor state negligence law, is a proper vehicle for holding American companies that are the buyers of foreign goods liable for injuries allegedly inflicted abroad by foreign third-party suppliers on their foreign employees.”
Bumble Bee acknowledges — “as would any responsible seafood company” — that it has “more work to do” in combating forced labor in the global supply chain.
But the Indonesians should instead have sued the agencies that recruited them to the boats, their captains or even Bumble Bee’s parent company, FCF, the motion says.
(Bumble Bee says it’s a wholly owned subsidiary of Bumble Bee Holding Co., which is wholly owned by FCF Americas, which is wholly owned by Besford Limited, which is wholly owned by Skymax International Corp., which is wholly owned by FCF Co. LTD, a Taiwanese seafood conglomerate.)
“Plaintiffs did not sue these agencies or the people or entities that operated the foreign vessels on which they worked. Instead, they sued Bumble Bee, alleging violations of the TVPRA and California negligence law,” the motion says.
“Plaintiffs do not allege that Bumble Bee knew about Plaintiffs’ alleged abuse by the vessel captains and crew. Rather, Plaintiffs assert that they were ‘isolated far from land,’ and so had ‘little to no means of … even reporting[] their conditions.’”
Lawyers for the Indonesians — including ones based in San Diego and Washington — have until July 31 to answer the Bumble Bee brief, which cites more than 40 legal cases to buttress its motion.
