United Nation of Islam Lawsuit Against Ex-Member Dismissed as Seeking Lifelong "Indentured Servitude"

From Woods v. Ross, decided Monday by Judge Daniel Crabtree (D. Kan.):

Pro se plaintiffs Ephraim Woods, Jr., Fatimah Muhammad, Dwight Johnson, and Raasikh Robertson are individual members of a community once known as the United Nation of Islam (UNOI). Plaintiffs each filed a lawsuit against former UNOI members Kendra Ross and her mother, Cheryl Ross, in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. They alleged claims for (1) breach of contract, and (2) defamation. After removing the cases to federal court, Kendra moved to dismiss the claims against her. The court granted those motions and dismissed her from each case. But because Cheryl didn't appear in any of those actions and didn't sign any filings made in them, the court took no action on plaintiffs' claims against Cheryl.

Cheryl still hasn't appeared in these cases. So, the Clerk of our Court has entered default against her. Now before the court are plaintiffs' Motions for Default Judgment against Cheryl Ross in each of their respective cases. Plaintiffs also have filed Motions for a Hearing.

Even though Cheryl is in default, plaintiffs aren't entitled to a default judgment. That's because each one of the Complaints fails to state a claim against her. So, the court denies plaintiffs' Motions for Default Judgment and their related Motions for a Hearing. And, because no amendment could salvage plaintiffs' claims against Cheryl, the court dismisses these cases with prejudice….

These cases are a spin-off of an earlier case in this court, Ross v. Jenkins, No. 17-2547 (D. Kan.). In that case, Kendra Ross filed a lawsuit against Royall Jenkins and several corporate successors in interest to The United Nation of Islam, Inc. She alleged several violations of state and federal human trafficking laws and labor laws. Defendants failed to appear in that case. The court then held a hearing where Kendra adduced evidence of her claims and damages. After concluding that Kendra's evidence sufficed to establish her claims, the court granted Kendra default judgment and awarded her nearly $8 million in damages.

Later, plaintiffs in these cases—filing suit as individual members of the former UNOI— alleged that Kendra had breached a purported membership agreement with the community and defamed the community when she filed her federal lawsuit. Specifically, they argue that Kendra entered a membership agreement with the UNOI as a child.

Under this purported agreement, plaintiffs allege, the UNOI would provide Kendra with food, shelter, and education in exchange for Kendra's lifelong servitude to the community. Plaintiffs allege that by leaving the community and later demanding payment for her work in the community, Kendra breached the membership agreement. They also allege Kendra defamed the UNOI and the community when she filed her federal lawsuit, when she was interviewed on NBC's Today Show, and when A&E aired an episode about UNOI on a show called "Cults and Extreme Belief."

Notably, plaintiffs make no specific allegations against Kendra's mother, Cheryl. They allege only that she entered into the membership agreement on Kendra's behalf. In essence then, plaintiffs contend that their breach of contract claim against Kendra extends to Cheryl simply because she's Kendra's mother. Plaintiffs don't allege that Cheryl independently breached the membership agreement. Nor do they allege that Cheryl had anything to do with Kendra's alleged defamatory statements….

Kendra removed these cases to federal court and moved to dismiss all the claims asserted against her. On July 21, 2021, the court granted Kendra's motions and dismissed her from these cases…. But, after the court's Order dismissing Kendra from the cases, plaintiffs didn't do anything with their claims against Cheryl, who remained a defendant….. Plaintiffs … ask[] for a default judgment against Cheryl. They also objected to the court's Order dismissing Kendra from the case….

A default judgment is not automatic. Even after entry of default against a defendant, "it remains for the court to consider whether the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does not admit mere conclusions of law." In other words, plaintiffs must still "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." …

The remaining claims in these lawsuits target Cheryl Ross, claiming she is liable to plaintiffs for her daughter's alleged breach of a membership agreement with the UNOI, of which plaintiffs are members. Under the alleged agreement, UNOI would provide Kendra with food, shelter, and education in exchange for Kendra's lifelong servitude to the community. Plaintiffs allege that by leaving the community and later demanding payment for her work, Kendra breached the membership agreement. And—liberally construing plaintiffs' claim—because Kendra "received the benefits of" the membership agreement while she was "a minor under Mother Cheryl Ross' jurisdiction[,]" then Cheryl is liable for Kendra' alleged breach. There are several reasons why plaintiffs' allegations fail to state a claim for breach of contract….

First, plaintiffs don't allege that they personally have had a contract with Cheryl. Plaintiffs allege a convoluted theory about how Cheryl joined the UNOI and how she entered a membership agreement with the community for herself and on Kendra's behalf. But even accepting those allegations as true, plaintiffs fail to allege that they are parties to this purported membership agreement between Cheryl and the UNOI….

Second, plaintiffs don't allege that Cheryl breached the agreement. Their allegations focus only on Kendra—claiming she violated the membership agreement by leaving the UNOI and filing a federal lawsuit against the community. Nevertheless, plaintiffs contend, because Kendra was under Cheryl's "jurisdiction[,]" Cheryl is responsible for Kendra's acts. But the court already has determined that plaintiffs haven't alleged any facts that, if true, could make Kendra's actions (or omissions) a breach of the contract. Instead, plaintiffs simply plead conclusions—e.g., Kendra "breached a contract with the community"—and those won't suffice. In short, plaintiffs haven't alleged any facts capable of supporting a finding or inference of a "breach" by Kendra that plaintiffs could hold Cheryl responsible for. And plaintiffs don't allege that Cheryl independently breached the membership agreement. So, without any allegation of breach, plaintiffs fail to state a breach of contract claim against Cheryl under Kansas law.

Third, and last, the purported membership agreement is unconscionable and thus unenforceable. Other members of the UNOI have filed nearly identical lawsuits against Kendra and Cheryl Ross in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. And in dismissing those lawsuits, the court put it well: "An agreement where members 'volunteer' to work for the community, and are in breach when they choose to leave, can only be read as commanding servitude for a modicum of shelter and food. As a contract for indentured servitude, the claim is unconscionable on its face." Robertson v. Ross (D. Md. 2021) (applying Kansas law and dismissing plaintiff's breach of contract claim with prejudice).

The court agrees with the District of Maryland in Robertson and concludes that any purported agreement between the UNOI and Cheryl Ross for food and shelter in exchange for lifelong servitude is unconscionable on its face. "Public policy forbids enforcement of an illegal or immoral contract[.]" The court previously concluded that the UNOI violated several federal and state human trafficking and labor laws when it forced Kendra to work in UNOI businesses and homes without pay for ten years beginning when she was 11 years old. Enforcing a purported agreement allowing such illegal conduct thus would violate public policy….

{Plaintiffs never have asserted a defamation claim against Cheryl. But to the extent their defamation claims against Kendra implicate Cheryl, those claims are without merit… The defamatory acts that plaintiffs allege—Kendra's lawsuit against Royall Jenkins and the UNOI, Kendra's interview with Megyn Kelly on the Today Show, and A&E's segment on UNOI—have no connection to Cheryl. Cheryl was not a plaintiff in Kendra's lawsuit. She didn't appear with Kendra on the Today Show interview (nor did she otherwise appear in that segment). And plaintiffs don't allege that Cheryl had anything to do with A&E's episode about the UNOI on the show, "Cults and Extreme Beliefs." Thus, plaintiffs haven't stated a defamation claim against Cheryl.}