Fei Fei Fan v. Yanyao Jiang

1

FEI FEI FAN, Plaintiff, v. YANYAO JIANG and WEI WU, Defendants.

No. 3:21-CV-00458-RCJ-CLB

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 9, 2023

ORDER

ROBERT C. JONES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Fei Fei Fan (“Fan”) brings this Action against Yanyao Jiang (“Jiang”) for an alleged sex trafficking scheme that the Jiang put her through. Jiang asks this Court to dismiss the Action for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court grants Jiang's request and will dismiss Fan's action for failure to state a claim. For that reason, the Court will dismiss Fan's Motion for Writ Attachment. (ECF No. 4).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from an affair that Jiang had with Fan while Jiang was married to Wu. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Sometime in 2006 Fan came to the U.S. from China to earn her master's degree from the University of Nevada, Reno (“UNR”). (Id.) Fan came to the U.S. on an F1 student visa and worked as a student employee under Jiang, who was a tenured Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at UNR. (Id.) Fan not only worked under Jiang, but he also served as her thesis advisor for her master's degree, so the two spent a good amount of time together. (Id. at 4).

Fan alleges that Jiang created a hostile workplace environment for F1 students. (Id. at 4). Allegedly, Jiang intimidated his student employees to strike fear in their hearts that they would lose their status as a researcher and a student, which would strip them of their F1 status. (Id.) This allegedly made matters worse for Fan because her family could not support her, so she was reliant on the stipend that Jiang paid her. (Id. at 4-5). Without a way to afford her lifestyle or stay in the U.S Fan allegedly became completely subordinate to Jiang. (Id. at 4). Jiang allegedly abused this relationship and forced Fan to go beyond her role as a research assistant to watch Jiang's children. (Id. at 6). Fan alleges that Jiang recognized the subordination and forced Fan to enter into a sexual relationship in the fall of 2006. (Id. at 1-2).

Fan alleges that Jiang “raped and abused Fan sexually and emotionally” during her master's studies. (Id. at 2). While she was earning her master's degree, Fan alleges that Jiang used his position of power to sexually abuse and rape her because he knew that she could not speak up. (Id. at 4-5). Fan alleges that Jiang gave her chlamydia in 2007, but she allegedly did not provide his identity to the health clinic out of fear that she would expose Jiang's abuse. (Id. at 6). Fan left UNR in 2008, but she alleges that Jiang still initiated and insisted on cyber sex “and Jiang ignored Fan's crying during sexual intercourse.” (Id. at 7).

When Fan decided to return to UNR, she was on an H1 visa as a tenure-track Assistant Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department. (Id. at 7). As an H1 visa holder, Fan needed to remain employed at UNR to stay in the U.S. (Id.) Jiang was allegedly assigned as Fan's mentor and tenure committee supervisor, allegedly creating the same type of subordinate relationship ripe for abuse. (Id.) The sexual abuse allegedly continued until Fan approached Jiang and threatened to report the abuse in 2019. (Id.)

Fan received permanent residency in April of 2020, at which time she decided to inform Wu of Jiang's abuse. (Id at 8). Jiang allegedly responded with a threat of “physical harm after learning that Fan sent Wu” a text message informing her of Jiang's alleged abuse. (Id.) In May of 2020, Wu allegedly “confronted Fan by outrageously knocking at the door of Fan's apartment.” (Id.) Fan did not open the door because she allegedly feared Wu would physically harm her even though Wu had made not threat to do so. (Id.) Fan threatened to call 911 and Wu left Fan's apartment building. (Id.)

Fan alleges that Jiang continued to threaten Fan in May of 2020. (Id. at 8-9). Allegedly, “Jiang notified Fan over the phone that Wu hated Fan ... that Fan needed to protect herself from physical harm [that] Wu wanted to sue Fan for sexual bribery [and that] Wu would notify [the] [t]enure [c]ommittee.” (Id.) In July of 2020, Jiang and Fan allegedly met at a park to discuss the situation and Jiang continued to threaten Fan. (Id.) Later that month, Jiang's attorney allegedly sent Fan a cease-and-desist letter. (Id. at 9). In August of 2020, Jiang allegedly berated Fan for the situation outside of her office at UNR.^[1] (Id.) Fan further alleges that Jiang threatened to end her life “via text, via phone, and via a recently retired” professor. (Id.) “On January 29, 2021, Fan filed a Title IX complaint against Jiang with UNR.” (Id.)

Jiang filed a request for a protective order against Fan shortly after Fan filed the Title IX complaint. (Id. at 9). Jiang alleged that Fan vandalized his office, Fan was mentally unstable, Fan purchased a gun with nefarious intent, and the sexual relationship was consensual. (Id.) The protective order was not granted, but Fan alleges that the process damaged Fan's professional reputation, employment opportunities, and psychological condition. (Id. at 9-10). Fan alleges that Jiang also slandered Fan in the workplace. (Id. at 10).

In October of 2021, Fan brought this Action against Jiang for alleged sex trafficking under federal and state law, forced labor under federal law, trafficking into servitude under federal and state law, intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law, and defamation under state law. (ECF No. 1). Jiang and Wu both moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF Nos. 5, 7).

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) mandates that a court dismiss a cause of action that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint does not give the defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the court will take all material allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9^th Cir. 1986). The court, however, is not required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).

A formulaic recitation of a cause of action with conclusory allegations is not sufficient; a plaintiff must plead facts pertaining to his own case, making a violation “plausible,” not just “possible.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”). That is, a plaintiff must not only specify or imply a cognizable legal theory, but also must allege the facts of the plaintiff's case so that the court can determine whether the plaintiff has any basis for relief under the legal theory the plaintiff has specified or implied, assuming the facts are as the plaintiff alleges. Id. The Court may dismiss or strike a claim with prejudice where “the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS

Fan fails to allege facts sufficient to give rise to a claim upon which relief can be granted. Jiang's alleged conduct while morally reprehensible, does not meet the legal standard for forced labor and sex trafficking. Fan's federal causes of action are improper, leaving purely state law claims. For that reason, the Court will dismiss the action against Jiang for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Motion for Writ Attachment because it is moot. (ECF No. 4).

I. Sex Trafficking

Fan claims that Jiang engaged in sex trafficking from the time that Jiang recruited Fan to UNR in 2006, to when she left campus in 2008. 18 U.S.C. § 1591. The conduct at issue here is not sex trafficking and it occurred outside the statute of limitations.

Under the federal statute prohibiting sex trafficking, plaintiffs must bring an action alleging a “commercial sex act” with a connection to “interstate or foreign commerce.” Id. The definition of “commercial sex act” includes “any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 1591(e)(3). Congress noted that “trafficking in persons is not limited to the sex industry,” and that “traffickers lure women and girls into their networks through false promises of decent working conditions at relatively good pay as nannies, maids, dancers, factory workers, restaurant workers, sales clerks, or models.” Pub. L. No. 106-386 § 102, 114 Stat. 1488 (2000).

A. 2006 to 2008 Conduct

Under the 12(b)(6) liberal standards, Jiang engaged in a “commercial sex act” from 2006 to 2008. Fan alleges that Jiang hired her in 2006 and agreed to pay her wages. (ECF No. 1 at 1011). The complaint's allegations do not make it clear whether he said she needed to perform sexual acts for the wages. In fact, the complaint's language leaves the Court wondering if Fan even asserts that Jiang mandated sex acts in exchange for wages. The complaint states that Jiang “paid for Fan's sexual services during work time using federal grants.” (Id.) The Court reads that to mean that she...