United States District Court, D. Minnesota
N. ERICKSEN United States District Judge
Vang commenced this action in July 2012. The next month, she
filed an amended complaint that asserted claims against
Thiawachu Prataya, Chong Neng Xiong, Asian Community Special
Services, Inc., and several unidentified companies. Vang
asserted claims of child sex trafficking, child sex tourism,
and support of child sex tourism. Motions to dismiss were
filed in September and October 2012. Before Asian Community
Special Services' motion was heard, Vang and Asian
Community Special Services stipulated to the dismissal
without prejudice of her claims against Asian Community
Special Services. In November 2012, the Court denied Prataya
and Xiong's motion to dismiss.
early March 2013, a pretrial scheduling conference took
place. A couple of days later, the magistrate judge, noting
that numerous documents had been filed in error and that the
Court had been “besieged with questions requesting
legal advice, ” ordered the parties to meet with him on
a monthly basis “to ensure that the case proceeds and
is administered justly, speedily, and efficiently.”
Monthly status conferences took place from April to December
early January 2014, the magistrate judge held a settlement
conference that lasted 18 hours over the course of two days.
The parties reached a settlement agreement. On January 13,
2014, the magistrate judge ordered the parties to file
closing documents within 90 days. A status conference took
place in March 2014. The next month, the magistrate judge
extended the deadline for the filing of closing documents.
Two status conferences took place in May 2014. On May 28,
2014, the magistrate judge set July 14, 2014, as the deadline
to file closing documents. Given the judicial resources
already expended, the magistrate judge admonished the parties
that the deadline would not be extended and that no
additional status conferences regarding settlement would take
14, 2014, Vang and Xiong executed and filed a stipulation of
dismissal with prejudice. No stipulation of dismissal was
filed with respect to Prataya.
October 2014, Vang moved to enforce the settlement agreement
with respect to Prataya. In February 2015, the magistrate
judge recommended that Vang's motion be denied because
Prataya did not make a payment anticipated by the settlement
agreement and the parties had agreed that the action would
continue against a defendant who did not make the payment.
The Court denied Vang's motion in March 2015.
April 2015, the magistrate judge issued an amended pretrial
scheduling order that set July 17, 2015, as the deadline for
dispositive motions. On July 17, Vang improperly filed a
motion for summary judgment, and Prataya improperly filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment.
The documents filed on July 17 were marked “filed in
error.” On July 20, the parties refiled their
the motions were under advisement, Vang and Prataya moved to
stay the action to allow them to attempt to resolve their
dispute through a television show. The Court stayed the
action and ordered them to submit quarterly status reports.
December 2016, Vang moved to lift the stay, to renew the
parties' dispositive motions, and to obtain a scheduling
order for any amendments to the motions. The Court solicited
a response from Prataya, who moved to lift the stay, to renew
his motion, to obtain a scheduling order, and to deny
Vang's request for a scheduling order regarding
amendments to the motions.
Court lifts the stay and considers the parties'
dispositive motions on the papers previously submitted. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and
denies in part Prataya's motion for judgment on the
pleadings or for summary judgment. The Court denies
Vang's motion for summary judgment. The Court will notify
the parties of the case's placement on the trial calendar
in due course. See D. Minn. LR 39.1(a).
case arises out of events that took place approximately ten
years ago. In 2006, Prataya, who was born in 1963 and became
a citizen of the United States in 1994, traveled from the
United States to Laos, where he met Vang. At that time, she
was a teenager. They had sexual intercourse. As a result,
Vang became pregnant, and she gave birth to a child in 2007.
In 2009, Vang's father brought Vang to the United States.
In 2010, Prataya brought the child to the United States. Vang
and Prataya have since engaged in numerous disputes in state
court regarding orders for protection, custody of the child,
and child support. In 2012, Vang brought this action against
asserted that judgment on the pleadings should be entered in
his favor because the basis of Vang's claim of child sex
trafficking, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, does not apply
retroactively. See Saterdalen v. Spencer, 725 F.3d
838, 840-41 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of decision). According
to Prataya, the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2003 applies, and it does not
authorize extraterritorial application. He also asserted that
the basis of Vang's other claims, 18 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) (amended 2013), does not apply extraterritorially.
Finally, Prataya argued that summary judgment should be
entered in his favor insofar as Vang brought claims under
§ 2255 for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (2012)
(amended 2015), 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (2012), and 18 U.S.C.
§ 2423 (2012) (amended 2013 and 2015) because there is
no evidence in the record that Prataya violated the statutes.
See Thomas v. Heartland Emp't Servs. LLC, 797
F.3d 527, 529 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of decision).
response, Vang acknowledged that her claim of child sex
trafficking is based on the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2003. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1591(a), 1595 (2006) (amended 2008 and 2015).
She also asserted that the statutes on which she based her
claims are properly applied to Prataya. Finally, she asserted
that genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to
her claims that are based § 2423(c) and § 2423(e).
Vang's claim of child sex trafficking, the applicable