A.B. et al v. Jacobs Solutions Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 23-cv-02660-RMR-CYC
F.C., A.B., D.D.R., L.V., Ra.G, R.S., J.D.C.,
W.C., G.G., R.C., D.L., E.I., M.G., E.C., Rh.P.,
L.L., J.J.G., R.V., R.L., A.S., E.A., J.V., A.C.,
A.G., A.A., R.A., Ro.L., Ro.P., S.N., B.M., G.T.,
J.B., E.D.C., V.A., Re.D., C.S., Ra.D., M.R.,
L.P. I.E., M.A., Ro.D., A.D., Ri.D., Rod.O.,
M.D.L., Ri.O., En.C., Ron.O., G.S., B.D., C.C., and
N.C.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.,
CH2M HILL COMPANIES, LTD., and
CH2M HILL INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
______________________________________________________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge.
Defendants Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.; CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd.; and CH2M Hill
International, Ltd. move for interlocutory appeal, ECF No. 79, of this Court’s Order denying in
part their motion to dismiss (the “Order”), F.C. v. Jacobs Sols. Inc., 790 F. Supp. 3d 1158 (D.
Colo. 2025). The Order set out in detail the background of this case, with which the Court
assumes familiarity. In particular, the defendants move to appeal the Court’s conclusion that the
private right of action in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (the “TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C.
§ 1595, applies extraterritorially. F.C., 790 F. Supp. 3d at 1179–85.
A “district judge” may authorize interlocutory appeal of an order when he or she finds
“that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for
Case No. 1:23-cv-02660-RMR-CYC Document 119 filed 02/03/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 5

2
difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). “Appeals under this statute are
‘traditionally disfavored,’” Townsend v. Toro Co., No. 1:22-cv-00743-RMR-JPO, 2024 WL
6915533, at *3 (D. Colo. July 15, 2024) (quoting Vallario v. Vandehey, 554 F.3d 1259, 1262
(10th Cir. 2009)), and “exceedingly rare,” id. (quoting Carbajal v. Keefer, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1065,
1068 (D. Colo. 2014)), because they “are necessarily disruptive, time-consuming, and expensive
for the parties and the courts.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Whether to grant interlocutory
appeal lies in the discretion of the district court, “and such relief ‘should be reserved for rare and
extraordinary cases.’” Id. (quoting In re Richard D. Van Lunen Charitable Found., No. 22-cv-
02309-REB, 2023 WL 4706758, at *3 (D. Colo. July 24, 2023)). “[T]he party seeking the
interlocutory appeal ‘has a heavy burden to show that exceptional circumstances’ warrant
immediate appellate review.” Id. (quoting Hawaii ex rel. Louie v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 921
F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1065 (D. Haw. 2013)).
The parties agree that the Order involves a controlling question of law and that an appeal
could materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. ECF No. 80 at 3 n.1. The only
element of section 1292(b)’s requirements that they contest is whether there is substantial ground
for difference of opinion.
There, the defendants do not meet their burden. “To determine if a ‘substantial ground for
difference of opinion’ exists under § 1292(b), courts must examine to what extent the controlling
law is unclear.” Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010). “District judges
have not been bashful about refusing to find substantial reason to question a ruling of law, even
in matters of first impression.” 16 Wright & Miller’s Federal Practice & Procedure § 3930 (3d
ed. 2025). “Courts traditionally will find that a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists
Case No. 1:23-cv-02660-RMR-CYC Document 119 filed 02/03/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 5

3
where ‘the circuits are in dispute on the question and the court of appeals of the circuit has not
spoken on the point, if complicated questions arise under foreign law, or if novel and difficult
questions of first impression are presented.’” Couch, 611 F.3d at 633 (quoting 3 Federal
Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 3:212 (2010)).
None of those circumstances are present. The only two circuits to speak on the
extraterritoriality of the TVPRA’s civil cause of action agree with this Court, even if the Fifth
Circuit’s treatment of the issue is more of a passing remark than a detailed analysis. See Roe v.
Howard, 917 F.3d 229, 239–43 (4th Cir. 2019); Adhikari v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 845
F.3d 184, 204–05 (5th Cir. 2017). This is not, then, a question where “the four circuits that have
offered opinions on the issue have split evenly,” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Boellstorff,
540 F.3d 1223, 1224 (10th Cir. 2008), or one where “federal circuit courts of appeal[] have
called the holding of” a relied-upon Tenth Circuit precedent “into question.” Atl. Richfield Co. v.
NL Indus., Inc., No. 20-cv-00234-NYW-KAS, 2023 WL 5333756, at *6 (D. Colo. Aug. 18,
2023). There is no issue of foreign law in interpreting the TVPRA. And it is not a matter of first
impression; even in 2016, there was an “overwhelming majority of courts” that shared this
Court’s conclusion. F.C., 790 F. Supp. 3d at 1181 (quoting Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co.,
Ltd., No. CV 16-4271-JFW (ASx), 2016 WL 11020222, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2016)). Nor do
the defendants seriously argue that the traditional grounds justify an interlocutory appeal here.
Instead, they point to two decisions from a single out-of-circuit district judge to carry the
weight of their burden, ECF No. 79 at 5–6 (citing Doe I v. Apple Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03737 (CJN),
2021 WL 5774224, at *14 (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2021), aff’d, 96 F.4th 403 (D.C. Cir. 2024), and Mia
v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 1:22-cv-02353 (CJN), 2025 WL 752564, at *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 10,
2025)), as well as a third decision that found Doe I to be “persuasive.” Xu Lun v. Milwaukee
Case No. 1:23-cv-02660-RMR-CYC Document 119 filed 02/03/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 5

4
Elec. Tool Corp., No. 24-cv-0803-BHL, 2025 WL 3443536, at *14 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 1, 2025); see
ECF No. 102.1 And to be sure, there are occasions on which “conflicting positions” in different
district courts along with a lack of “definitive guidance” can provide sufficient difference in
opinion to warrant interlocutory appeal. Shire LLC v. Sandoz Inc., No. 07-cv-00197-PAB-CBS,
2008 WL 5120728, at *2 (D. Colo. Dec. 5, 2008). But “just because the authorities are not
unanimous on a question of law does not mean a court must find that substantial grounds for
difference of opinion exist.” Dekeyser v. Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc., No. 08-C-488, 2009 WL
750278, at *3 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 20, 2009) (citing North Carolina ex rel. Howes v. W.R. Peele, Sr.
Trust, 889 F. Supp. 849, 852 (E.D.N.C. 1995)). Thus, “differences in opinion among district
courts outside the governing circuit do not require a finding of substantial grounds,” United
States ex rel. A1 Procurement, LLC v. Thermcor, Inc., 173 F. Supp. 3d 320, 323 (E.D. Va. 2016),
and “it is not enough” even “that the only other case on point reached the opposite conclusion.”
Freedom Transp., Inc. v. Navistar Int'l Corp., No. 2:18-CV-02602-JAR-KGG, 2020 WL 108670,
at *3 (D. Kan. Jan. 9, 2020). So it is here: the existing circuit authority is unanimous, and the
district court decisions that conflict with this Court’s opinion do not create substantial grounds
for difference of opinion. Indeed, Xu Lun does not engage with this Court’s reasoning at all,
despite post-dating it; had it done so, it may have been unnecessary to address the
extraterritoriality question there at all, given that the primary TVPRA “offender” was a Hong
Kong corporation outside of the ambit of 18 U.S.C. § 1596(a)’s scope of extraterritorial
jurisdiction. See Xu Lun, 2025 WL 3443536, at *1; see also F.C., 790 F. Supp. 3d at 1183–84.
1 A fourth cited decision, Doe v. MG Freesites, Ltd., No. 7:21-cv-00220-LSC, 2024 WL
5339485, at *18 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 19, 2024), never squarely addressed extraterritoriality because it
held that the plaintiff’s case involved a domestic application of the TVPRA.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02660-RMR-CYC Document 119 filed 02/03/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 5

5
The short of it is that while there is some conflict in the district courts in the
interpretation of the TVPRA, it falls short of substantial ground for difference of opinion.
Because this case was reassigned to a district judge after the Order pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(a), the final authority on interlocutory appeal belongs to the district
judge. See Vitols v. Citizens Banking Co., 984 F.2d 168, 169–70 (6th Cir. 1993). Accordingly,
the Court RECOMMENDS2 that the Defendants’ Motion for Certification for Interlocutory
Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), ECF No. 79, be DENIED.
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026 at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung
United States Magistrate Judge
2 Be advised that all parties shall have fourteen days after service hereof to serve and file any
written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is
assigned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings
or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not
consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. A party’s failure to file such written
objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party
from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and
recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676–83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved
party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are
accepted or adopted by the District Court. Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir.
2008) (quoting Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)). Finally, all parties
must consult and comply with the District Judge’s practice standards for any specific
requirements concerning the filing and briefing of objections.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02660-RMR-CYC Document 119 filed 02/03/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 5