Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miranda Ditullio v. Josef F. Boehm

July 24, 2012

MIRANDA DITULLIO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOSEF F. BOEHM,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: John W. Sedwick United States District Judge

[Re: Motion at Docket 131]

ORDER AND OPINION

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 131, defendant Josef F. Boehm ("Boehm") moves for partial summary judgment asking the court to grant him a judgment as a matter of law on claims made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1595 by plaintiff Miranda Ditullio ("Ditullio"). Section 1595 provides a civil remedy for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, which prohibits sex trafficking of children. Ditullio responds at docket 144, and Boehm replies at docket 145. Oral argument was not requested, and it would not assist the court.

II. BACKGROUND

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Boehm pled guilty to conspiring to recruit minor females to engage in commercial sex acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1591 and conspiring to distribute cocaine base to minors in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 859(a). Boehm admitted that the facts set out in the plea agreement were true. Among other things, he admitted that he knowingly recruited M.D.--now known to be Ditullio--to engage in sex."*fn1

Ditullio's complaint sets out various state law claims, and a claim to recover damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1595 based on Boehm's violation of § 1591. This court previously denied Ditullio's motion for partial summary judgment and ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 1591 did not apply to conduct occurring before its December 19, 2003 effective date,*fn2 but granted Ditullio's motion for an interlocutory appeal.*fn3 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this court's conclusion with respect to the retroactivity of § 1595.*fn4

Boehm now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that he took no action involving Ditullio on or after December 19, 2003.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.*fn5 The moving party has the burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.*fn6 The moving party need not present evidence; it need only point out the lack of any genuine dispute as to material fact.*fn7 Once the moving party has met this burden, the non-moving party must set forth evidence of specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.*fn8

All evidence presented by the non-movant must be believed for purposes of summary judgment and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-movant.*fn9

However, the non-moving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must show that there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute to require a fact-finder to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.*fn10

IV. DISCUSSION

Relying on Ditullio's own deposition testimony, as well as a statement she gave to an Anchorage Police Department detective, Boehm argues that Ditullio was not victimized by Boehm on or after December 19, 2003. In response, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.