Angga et al v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC

- 1 - 25cv583
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AKHMAD, et. al,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BUMBLE BEE FOODS, LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-00583-BAS-DEB
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
EX PARTE REQUEST TO SUBMIT
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL
AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OR
INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
(ECF No. 44)
Pending before the Court is an Ex Parte Request to File a Notice of Supplemental
Authority (ECF No. 44) submitted by Plaintiffs Akhmad, Angga, Muhammad Sahrudin,
and Muhammad Syafi’i in support of its opposition to Defendant Bumble Bee Foods,
LLC’s motion for reconsideration and interlocutory review (ECF No. 36).
The proposed supplemental authority is the Ninth Circuit's decision in Ratha v.
Rubicon Resources (Ratha III), No. 23-55299 (9th Cir. Feb. 20, 2026) which Plaintiffs
claim is relevant to analyzing the extraterritorial application and the relevant mens rea
standard of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1589, 1595 et seq. in this action (ECF No. 44). Defendant responded, contesting that
Case 3:25-cv-00583-BAS-DEB Document 47 Filed 03/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

- 2 - 25cv583
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ratha III does not directly address either the extraterritorial application or the relevant
mens rea standard for Plaintiffs’ TVPRA claims in this action (ECF No. 45). 	However,
Defendant also states that Ratha III highlights that “important issues concerning the
TVPRA’s scope” remain—which Defendant admits is, at least, contextually relevant to
their request for this Court to certify certain TVPRA issues for interlocutory review (id. at
3:6-12).
Based on the above, the Court finds sufficient basis to GRANT for Plaintiffs’ Ex
Parte Request to File Notice of Supplemental Authority (ECF No. 44). The Court further
cautions that, under its Standing Order § 4.F, Plaintiffs “may file a notice of supplemental
authority [including] a copy of the order or opinion and any case-identifying information”
but “may not include any argument in the notice.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 5, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:25-cv-00583-BAS-DEB Document 47 Filed 03/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2