United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-20112

Auner Alexander Garcia-Lopez, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Waste Management of Texas, Incorporated; Unnamed 

Company X, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 4:21-cv-00944

Before Higginbotham, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Auner Garcia-Lopez (“Garcia-Lopez”) 

challenges the dismissal of his claims under the Trafficking Victims 

Protection Act (“TVPA”) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act (“RICO”). Garcia-Lopez contends that the district court 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 9, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-20112 Document: 00516573514 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2022
No. 22-20112

2

erred in dismissing his complaint. For the reasons explained below, we 

AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal. 

I

Garcia-Lopez was an employee of Defendant-Appellee Waste 

Management of Texas (“Waste Management”) from 2011 to 2014. GarciaLopez is a citizen of El Salvador and was never authorized to work in the 

United States.

In 2012, in coordination with Unnamed Company X (“Company X”), 

a staffing agency, and with Waste Management’s knowledge, Garcia-Lopez 

obtained false identification so that he could continue working for Waste 

Management. A 2014 criminal investigation into Waste Management’s 

practice of hiring illegal immigrants resulted in the convictions of several

Waste Management managers. In connection with this investigation, GarciaLopez was terminated from his position with Waste Management.

On March 23, 2021, Garcia-Lopez filed a complaint against Waste 

Management and Company X, asserting claims of involuntary servitude, 

trafficking, and forced labor under the TVPA. The complaint also included a 

RICO claim alleging that Waste Management and Company X formed a 

RICO enterprise. Garcia-Lopez alleged that the TVPA violations were the 

predicate acts for the alleged pattern of racketeering activity required for a 

RICO claim.

Garcia-Lopez filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on April 

13, 2021. On June 14, 2021, Waste Management moved to dismiss the FAC 

under Rule 12(b)(6), and Garcia-Lopez responded by filing his Second 

Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

On August 11, 2021, Waste Management moved to dismiss the SAC 

under Rule 12(b)(6). On January 27, 2022, the district court granted Waste 

Case: 22-20112 Document: 00516573514 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2022
No. 22-20112

3

Management’s motion to dismiss. The district court found that GarciaLopez did not adequately plead his forced labor claims, and having failed to 

state a TVPA claim, Garcia-Lopez lacked the requisite predicate criminal 

acts for his RICO claim. Garcia-Lopez’s unjust enrichment claim was also 

dismissed as time-barred.

II

An appellate court conducts a de novo review of a district court’s 

dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See 

Clyce v. Butler, 876 F.3d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 2017). “To survive a [Rule 

12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (stating that 

claims will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if a plaintiff fails “to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted”). “A claim has facial plausibility 

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The court must view the well-pleaded facts in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff. Walker v. Beaumont Indep. Sch. Dist., 938 F.3d 

724, 735 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Further, a “complaint 

must allege ‘more than labels and conclusions’” Norris v. Hearst Tr., 500 

F.3d 454, 464 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555), and will 

not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual 

enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (alteration in original) (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). And though “we must take all of the factual 

allegations in the complaint as true, we ‘are not bound to accept as true a legal 

conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

Case: 22-20112 Document: 00516573514 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/09/2022
No. 22-20112

4

III

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require parties to provide 

references to the page numbers of the record to support statements of 

fact. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6) and (8)(A); 5th Cir. R. 28.2.2. “Failure to comply with the rules of this court regarding the contents of briefs can be grounds 

for dismissing a party’s claims.” United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653

(5th Cir.1994) (per curiam). Dismissal is warranted where the non-compliance is not merely “technical or stylistic” but rather is so “fundamental” 

that it prevents the court from engaging in meaningful review. Owens v. Sec’y

of Army, 354 Fed. Appx. 156, 158 (5th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal for want of prosecution on the ground that appellant’s brief “lacks any 

argument in support of the issues that it raises”); see also Clark v. Waters, 407

Fed. Appx. 794, 796 (5th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal on the

grounds that appellant’s brief “is grossly non-compliant with Rule 28”).

Garcia-Lopez lays out several assertions in his brief but includes no citations 

to the record as required by the rules. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6) and 

(8)(A); 5th Cir. R. 28.2.2. Accordingly, in addition to the other independent 

grounds for dismissal outlined below, we dismiss Garcia-Lopez’s appeal for 

gross non-compliance with the rules. See Clark, 407 Fed. Appx. at 796. 

IV

Section 1589 of the TVPA provides criminal penalties for “forced 

labor,” and Section 1595 authorizes victims of forced labor to assert private 

civil claims. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589, 1595(a). Garcia-Lopez’s claims arise under 

the forced labor provision found in § 1589(a)(3). The plain language of the

statute makes clear that to plead a civil claim under § 1595(a) premised on 

violations of § 1589(a)(3), a plaintiff must plead allegations sufficient to 

satisfy that an abuse of law was: (1) undertaken “to exert pressure” on the

plaintiff; (2) done “knowingly” by the defendant; and (3) that caused the 

Case: 22-20112 Document: 00516573514 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/09/2022
No. 22-20112

5

plaintiff to provide labor or services he would otherwise not have willingly 

provided. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589(a)(3), 1595(a), 1589(c)(1). “Abuse or threatened 

abuse of law or legal process” means 

[T]he use or threatened use of a law or legal process . . . in

any manner or for any purpose for which the law was not designed, in orderto exert pressure on another person to cause

that person to take some action or refrain from taking some 

action.

18 U.S.C. 1589(c)(1). The district court found that Garcia-Lopez failed to 

adequately allege in the SAC that Waste Management knowingly abused any 

law or legal process to exert pressure on Garcia-Lopez to procure labor or 

services from him that he would not have willingly provided. We agree. 

Garcia-Lopez fails to plead any of the three statutorily required elements to 

support his claim. In his brief, Garcia-Lopez suggests that Waste 

Management’s involvement with and knowledge of the use of fake identities 

is sufficient to meet this requirement. This is incorrect. To meet the TVPA 

pleading requirements, Garcia-Lopez must identify a law or legal process that 

Waste Management knowingly used or threatened to use in a manner for 

which it was not designed to pressure or coerce labor from Garcia-Lopez. 18 

U.S.C. § 1589(a)(3). Nowhere within the SAC or his brief does Garcia-Lopez 

allege this. 

Furthermore, Garcia-Lopez’s assertion that he wanted to “keep his 

job” undercuts the statutory requirement that his employment be 

involuntary. Thus, Garcia-Lopez has failed to meet the pleading 

requirements for his § 1589(a)(3) claims. As Garcia-Lopez’s claim under 18 

U.S.C. 1589(b) was contingent on his 1589(a)(3) claims, the district court 

correctly dismissed Garcia-Lopez’s 1589(b) claim. Accordingly, the District 

Case: 22-20112 Document: 00516573514 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/09/2022
No. 22-20112

6

Court correctly dismissed Garcia-Lopez’s TVPA claims, and the District 

Court’s decision is AFFIRMED.

V

Aside from two cursory mentions, Garcia-Lopez failed to address 

the dismissal of his RICO claim in his brief. A party that asserts an argument on appeal, but fails to adequately brief it, is deemed to have waived 

it. United States v. Skilling, 554 F.3d 529, 568 n.63 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Lindell, 881 F.2d 1313, 1325 (5th Cir.1989)). It is not 

enough to merely mention or allude to a legal theory. See, e.g., McIntosh v.

Partridge, 540 F.3d 315, 325 n.12 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, in addition 

to the independent grounds for dismissal of his RICO claim outlined below, Garcia-Lopez’s RICO claim has been waived. 

Notwithstanding the waiver of this claim, a successful RICO claim

requires a “pattern of racketeering activity” which is absent here. St. Germain v. Howard, 556 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 2009). A “pattern of racketeering 

activity” requires two or more predicate criminal acts, which are listed in 

18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Garcia-Lopez avers that the violations of the TVPA

suffice as the predicate acts for purposes of his RICO claim. Because the 

District Court correctly dismissed Garcia-Lopez’s claims under the 

TVPA, those alleged violations cannot be predicate acts for purposes of 

alleging a RICO violation. As Garcia-Lopez has suggested no alternative 

predicate acts, he has failed to properly plead his RICO claim. Accordingly, the District Court properly dismissed Garcia-Lopez’s RICO claim 

and we AFFIRM the District Court’s decision. 

VI

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 22-20112 Document: 00516573514 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/09/2022