case 1:12-cv-03047

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-3047

HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS GROUP, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOUTHEAST COMMERCIAL CLEANING, L.L.C.,

Defendant

Civil Complaint

Plaintiff Hospitality Staffing Solutions Group, L.L.C., (“HSS”) complains of the damages

caused to it by Defendant Southeast Commercial Cleaning, L.L.C.’s (“SEC”) violations of the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, and in support states the

following:

Nature of Action

1. This is a Civil RICO suit based on SEC’s direct participation in a criminal

enterprise that produces false identification documents for illegal immigrants. (the “False

Document Enterprise.”). In the State of Colorado, SEC directly participates in the False

Document Enterprise by accepting employment applicants knowing that they lack employment

eligibility, referring such illegal immigrant work-candidates to document vendors who create

false identifications, and then by falsely attesting to the veracity of those identification

Case 1:12-cv-03047 Document 1 Filed 11/19/12 USDC Colorado of 14

2

documents on the illegal immigrant’s mandatory Form I-9. These actions constitute violations of

18 U.S.C. §§ 1028 and 1546, both of which are predicate offenses under RICO. See 18 U.S.C. §

1961.

2. HSS, a direct competitor of SEC, is harmed by SEC’s criminal conduct because

the False Document Enterprise permits SEC to staff itself with illegal labor that it would not be

able to obtain through legal means and to fulfill work contracts that SEC would otherwise not

have been able to fulfill. This has allowed SEC to take customers and work contracts away from

HSS, which SEC could only do because of its criminal conduct.

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

3. Plaintiff HSS is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its principal place of

business located at 100 Glenridge Point Pkwy Ne, Suite 400, Atlanta, GA 30342. HSS is a

staffing company. It maintains a workforce of individuals that it then contracts out to hotels and

other companies to provide, for example, housekeeping or grounds keeping services.

4. Defendant SEC is a Florida Limited Liability Company with its principal place of

business located at 2450 N. Powerline Rd., Suite 7, Pompano Beach, FL 33069. SEC is also a

staffing company, providing similar services as HSS. Among SEC’s business locations is an

operation in the Denver area of Colorado.

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331, because this RICO cause of action arises under federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

6. Venue is proper in this Court because the acts and omissions giving rise to this

claim occurred in Black Hawk and Denver, Colorado.


3

Factual Background

7. HSS and SEC are direct competitors in the hospitality staffing industry. Until

November 5, 2012, HSS provided staffing services for the Ameristar Casino Resort in Black

Hawk Colorado (“Ameristar”). On October 5, 2012, Ameristar notified HSS that it was going to

switch to utilizing SEC for its staffing needs. According to Ameristar, this was because HSS

was understaffed and over the budget Ameristar was willing to pay.

8. On or around October 21, 2012, SEC representatives began handing out flyers to

HSS employees at a bus stop where HSS workers who serviced the Ameristar property typically

gathered. The SEC representatives invited the HSS workers to apply with SEC to work at the

Ameristar property. The flyer had contact information for Gabriella Siles, and Jessica Winn,

both of whom are employees of SEC.

9. Around the same time, a supervisor for SEC named Francisco offered HSS

employee Gilberto Soto $100 for each HSS employee Soto was able to recruit on behalf of SEC.

When Soto asked about individuals without proper eligibility documents, Francisco told him not

to worry and that SEC would “take care of that.”

10. Gabriella Siles approached another HSS employee, Victor Herrera, in an attempt

to recruit him to work for SEC at the Ameristar hotel. Ms. Siles told Mr. Herrera that she knew

his documents were not valid, and that he had been hired by HSS prior to the company adopting

E-Verify, a program that detects new employees who are using false identifications. Mr. Herrera

also learned that Ms. Siles recruited another HSS employee, Luis Hernandez, and that she had

provided Mr. Hernandez with the telephone number of a female document vendor so he could

obtain the documentation to work for SEC.


4

11. On Monday, November 5, 2012, SEC conducted a job fair at 2828 South Speers in

Denver from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. HSS engaged a private investigative firm to learn more.

The private investigators sent a confidential informant using the name Francisco Jimenez to the

fair to investigate SEC’s practices. Upon arriving shortly before 2:00 p.m., Mr. Jimenez

observed several individuals waiting to be interviewed and was able to determine that Gabriella

Siles and Jessica Winn were accepting applications and conducting interviews of prospective

employees on behalf of SEC.

12. Mr. Jimenez proceeded to fill out an SEC application and was the last individual

interviewed by Jessica Winn. He informed her that his English capabilities were limited, but he

was interested in submitting an application for employment. Ms. Winn instructed Mr. Jimenez

to complete a Form I-9 and he immediately told her he had no eligibility documents with him.

She asked if he had any and he informed her he had an identification card at home but that it was

not valid. He further added that he and his wife had just moved to the area from Las Vegas

because they had difficulties with their documents at their previous place of employment. He

stated that he and his wife as well as another family member had experience in the industry and

were all interested in being employed by SEC.

13. Ms. Winn called Ms. Siles to the room, and told her that Mr. Jimenez did not have

any identification or documents. Ms. Siles asked Mr. Jimenez if he had identification and he

replied affirmatively as having it at home but told her as well that it was not good. Ms. Siles

then told Ms. Winn to tell Mr. Jimenez to call a person she referred to as “la senora” (the lady)

and she would help him within two days. Ms. Winn provided Mr. Jimenez with a green flyer


5

and placed an asterisk by Ms. Siles’ phone number. Ms. Winn instructed Mr. Jimenez to call

Ms. Siles at that number later to get further instructions.

14. During the early evening, Mr. Jimenez placed a call to Ms. Siles at the number

listed on the flyer but she did not answer. He left her a message explaining that he had spoken to

her earlier about employment at the hotel for his wife, cousin and himself. After she called back,

she informed him that she would call back the following day with the necessary information

because she didn’t have it with her. Five minutes later, however, she called him again and

provided him with the phone number for “Janet” at 720-369-3272. She told Mr. Jimenez that

Janet works for another employment agency but to give her a call and she would help him.

15. The telephone number 720-369-3272 is registered to Janet Atencio, who resides at

6151 Locust Street, Denver, CO 80202.

16. On November 6, 2012, Mr. Jimenez contacted Janet telephonically and advised

her he had spoken with Ms. Siles, who had in turned referred him to her. Mr. Jimenez told Janet

he was looking for employment for himself and his family but did not have the required

documents. Janet asked him if he knew English as she didn’t speak Spanish. Mr. Jimenez spoke

to her in broken English and informed her of his situation. Janet advised him to contact a

“Maria,” who works at 655 Broadway in Denver and she would be able to assist him with the

issue. She provided him with the phone number 303-296-6566.

17. Maria Saiz is a Customer Service Representative for a company called Allied

Forces, a temporary employment agency. She maintains an office at 655 Broadway, Suite 400

Denver, Colorado 80203.


6

18. As of November 16, 2012, SEC has hired at least seven former HSS employees

whose background checks reveal that they are undocumented aliens. For privacy concerns, the

complaint will identify these individuals as Jane or John Does.

19. Jane Doe 1, whose date of birth is August 1, 1992, presented to HSS a resident

alien card, A21xxxxxxx, for her identification and employment eligibility. Her resident alien

number relates to an adjustment applicant but would have been issued 20-30 years before she

was born. Her Social Security number would have been issued in Colorado, but there is no

record of this number actually being issued.

20. Jane Doe 2 presented to HSS a Social Security Number issued to someone other

than herself who was born in July 1930 and is now deceased.

21. Jane Doe 3 is using a Social Security Number that Court records and driver’s

license records indicate is also being used by another person.

22. Jane Doe 4 presented to HSS a Social Security Number issued to a woman of the

same name who currently resides in California.

23. Jane Doe 5 claims to be a U.S. citizen but took out her Social Security card when

she was 22 years old.

24. Jane Doe 6 presented to HSS a Social Security Number that has not actually been

issued.

25. Jane Doe 7 provided to HSS on her form I-9 a Social Security Number issued to

someone other than herself in the state of Colorado, who was born in December 1919 and is now

deceased.


7

26. John Doe 1 presented to HSS a Social Security Number issued in Puerto Rico and

associated with two other people. The current address of the social security number holder is in

Bayamon, Puerto Rico, and all other known residences are in Puerto Rico. Persons familiar with

John Doe 1 in Black Hawk Colorado state John is from Mexico.

27. John Doe 2 provided to HSS on his form I-9 a Social Security Number that would

have been issued in the State of California, but there is no record of it having actually been

issued.

28. John Doe 3, whose date of birth is July 2, 1991, presented to HSS a resident alien

card, A09 xxxxxxx, for his identification and employment eligibility. This resident alien number

relates to the IRCA-1986 legalization program and was issued prior to John Doe 3 being born.

His Social Security number was issued in North Dakota to someone other than himself.

29. These individuals were using false identifications when they were hired by HSS

between mid-2011 and mid-2012. It is highly unlikely that any of these individuals would have

become a legal resident authorized to work in the United States by the time they were hired by

SEC in October of 2012. It is therefore reasonable to infer that SEC has hired at least ten illegal

immigrants knowing that those immigrants’ identification documents were false.

The RICO Predicate Offenses

A. False Attestations on Form I-9.

30. HSS incorporates each preceding paragraph as though fully set forth herein.

31. Under RICO, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b) by falsely attesting to the veracity of

documents on a Form I-9 is a form of “racketeering activity” and therefore a qualifying predicate

offense. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).


8

32. 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b) makes it a crime to

(1) use an identification document, knowing (or having reason to know) that the document was not issued lawfully for the use of the possessor, (2) use an identification document knowing or having reason to know that the document is false, or (3) make a false attestation,

for the purpose of satisfying a requirement of section 274A(b) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act, which establishes the legal requirements for the I-9 Form.

33. Between October 2012 and November 2012, SEC hired at least 10 people,

identified above, who are confirmed to be illegal immigrants without valid work documents.

Those individuals were either using identification documents that were prepared for another

person, or using false identification documents.

34. As illustrated by the False Document Enterprise described above, SEC was at the

same time referring potential work-candidates who did not possess valid identification

documents to false document vendors to “take care” of their identification problem and allow

those candidates to work.

35. Accordingly, SEC actually knew, or at a minimum had reason to know, that those

10 work-candidates’ identification documents were false or not issued lawfully for use of the

work-candidate when SEC hired them. SEC therefore violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1546(b)(1) and (2)

at least 10 times when it used those false documents to hire the illegal immigrants and complete

the required Form I-9s.


9

36. SEC further violated 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b)(3) by falsely attesting to each illegal

immigrant’s Form I-9. In particular, an employee at SEC would have been required to falsely

attest, under penalty of perjury, the following:

I attest, under penalty of perjury, that I have examined the document(s) presented by the above-named employee, that the above-listed document(s) appear to be genuine and to relate to the employee named, that the employee began employment on (month/date/year) ________ and that to the best of my knowledge the employee is authorized to work in the United States.

B. Conspiracy to produce false identification documents


38. Under RICO, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1028 is a form of “racketeering activity” and

therefore a qualifying predicate offense. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).

39. 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a) prohibits:

(1)knowingly and without lawful authority producing an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document; (2)knowingly transferring an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority; (3)knowingly possessing with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents (other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication features, or false identification documents; (4)knowingly possessing an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States; (5)knowingly producing, transferring, or possessing a document-making implement or authentication feature with the intent such document-making implement or authentication feature will be used in the production of a false identification document or another document-making implement or authentication feature which will be so used;


10

(6)knowingly possessing an identification document or authentication feature that is or appears to be an identification document or authentication feature of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance which is stolen or produced without lawful authority knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without such authority; (7)knowingly transferring, possessing, or using, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; or (8)knowingly trafficking in false or actual authentication features for use in false identification documents, document-making implements, or means of identification; 40. Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 1028(f) prohibits any person from conspiring or

attempting to commit any of the above listed crimes.

41. SEC violated 18 U.S.C. § 1028(f) by conspiring with illegal document vendors,

such as Janet Atencio and Maria Saiz, to knowingly produce for, and transfer to, illegal

immigrants false identification documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(1)-(5). SEC

committed this predicate offense at least one time on November 2, 2012 when Gabriella Siles

referred Mr. Jimenez to Maria Saiz through Janet Atencio, who could help him with his lack of

proper identification.

42. SEC committed this predicate offense on at least one other occasion when

Gabriella Siles referred Luis Hernandez to a female document vendor who could “take care” of

his identification problem.

43. Additionally, it is reasonable to infer that SEC has committed this predicate

offense on other occasions as (1) Francisco, the SEC supervisor, represented to Gary Soto that

SEC would “take care” of any work candidates without proper identification documents that Mr.


11

Soto referred to SEC; (2) Gabriella Siles actively told work-candidates about document vendors

when they did not have valid identification documents, as indicated above; and (3) SEC hired at

least 10 workers all without valid identification documents.

44. Based on all of the above, it is also reasonable to infer that these criminal

violations will continue without court intervention.

COUNT ONE—VIOLATION OF 18 § 1962(c)


46. According to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person employed

by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or

foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such

enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”

47. RICO defines a “person” as “any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or

beneficial interest in property.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3). Accordingly, SEC is a person for the

purposes of the Act.

48. An “enterprise” is defined as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association

or legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal

entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). The False Document Enterprise is an association in fact between

SEC and the document vendors, such as Janet Atencio and Maria Saiz, for the common purpose

of supplying illegal immigrants with false identification documents. The False Document

Enterprise affects interstate or foreign commerce because it supplies false identification

documents to foreign citizens, permitting those individuals to work in this country illegally,

which jobs should be filled by legal United States residents.


12

49. Thus, SEC is associated with an enterprise that affects interstate or foreign

commerce, and SEC participates in or conducts the activities of the False Document Enterprise

through the pattern of racketeering activity described above, namely referring illegal immigrants

to false identification document vendors and then falsely attesting to the veracity of those

documents that SEC knows or has reason to know are false.

50. These underlying predicate acts of SEC and the False Document Enterprise are a

substantial and direct factor in causing harm to HSS. It has enabled SEC to illegally staff itself

with labor that it would be unable to obtain through legal means, and to fulfill work contracts

SEC would otherwise have been unable to fulfill. This has allowed SEC to take customers and

work contracts away from HSS, which SEC could only do because of its criminal conduct.

51. SEC was able to obtain the Ameristar contract in Colorado from HSS for this

reason. Ameristar terminated HSS and switched to SEC due to HSS being “understaffed” and

“over budget.” SEC would have been unable to staff itself at an adequate price point to acquire

the Ameristar contract, however, without participating in the False Document Enterprise. In fact,

no other party has a more direct, financial harm from this illegal enterprise than HSS.

Accordingly, HSS is harmed in its business “by reason of” SEC’s operation of the False

Document Enterprise and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), which is likely to continue without

court intervention. HSS is therefore entitled to recover treble damages, costs of the suit, and its

attorneys’ fees. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

52. On November 13, 2012, HSS disclosed the facts of the underlying predicate

offenses to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).


13

53. On November 19, 2012, ICE informed HSS that ICE had no present plans to

pursue an enforcement action against SEC or the document vendors.

54. Accordingly, HSS is without any other recourse to halt SEC’s criminal practices

that are harming HSS’s business, and no other injured party or victim has a greater incentive to

bring suit. See Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451, 457-58 (2006).

Prayer for Relief

55. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests this court enter judgment in its favor, and for other

relief, as follows:

56. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), judgment in an amount equal to three times the

damages HSS suffered by reason of SEC’s racketeering activity;

57. For appropriate attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c);

58. For the costs of this action;

59. For a jury trial;

60. For preliminary and permanent injunctions against defendant from perpetrating

the illegal predicate acts and any further racketeering activity through the False Document

Enterprise and to require them to terminate the employment of all illegal immigrants;

61. For any other relief the Court deems just and proper.


14

November 19, 2012

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Robert A. McNiel Robert McNiel TEXAS BAR NO. 24043814 MCNIEL BRAUER PLLC Campbell Centre I 8350 N. Central Expy, Ste. 935 Dallas, TX 76206 Tel: (214) 360-7432 – and – Mark D. Taylor (Application Pending) Matthew T. McCrary (Application Pending) BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 2300 Trammel Crow Center 2001 Ross Ave. Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 978-3000 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS GROUP, L.L.C.

Plaintiff’s Address: 100 Glenridge Point Pkwy Ne, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30342


case 1:12-cv-03047

Documents

social security number

female document vendor

winn instructed mr

qualifying predicate offense

false document enterprise

false identification documents

false identification document

valid identification documents