A sex trafficking-centric lawsuit being waged against Abercrombie & Fitch and its ex-CEO has been put on hold in the wake of a recently-unsealed criminal indictment. Abercrombie and its former CEO Michael Jeffries saw the civil lawsuit over Jeffries alleged sex trafficking put on hold following the federal indictment that centers on similar criminal accusations. In a new procedural ruling on October 29, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang of the Southern District of New York granted the defendants’ collective motion to stay in the civil lawsuit filed against Jeffries, his partner Matthew Smith (who was also indicted last month), and the company, itself.
The lawsuit, which former Abercrombie model David Bradberry first lodged in October 2023, alleges that Jeffries “used his role as CEO of Abercrombie to prey upon attractive young men who believed that [he] was going to hire them as an Abercrombie model.” Jefferies was not merely seeking out male models to serve as faces for the Abercrombie brand, Bradberry alleges, but was allegedly “rap[ing], sexually assault[ing], and coercively sex traffick[ing]” them in the process. Bradberry also names Abercrombie as a defendant, claiming that the company knew about such activities and received “direct financial benefits” by turning a blind eye to the alleged behavior of “its cash cow CEO.”
The defendants’ collective motion to stay, which they renewed after an original motion was denied in September, was granted under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), a federal statute designed to prevent concurrent criminal and civil proceedings when they stem from the same occurrence. Judge Wang’s order pauses the civil case for all the defendants, including Abercrombie, even though the company is not named in the Department of Justice’s criminal case.
Granting the Stay: The TVPRA
The court’s decision to grant the defendants’ bid to bring Bradberry’s headline-making case to a halt rests on three criteria specified in the TVPRA: (1) the existence of a pending criminal action; (2) an overlap between the criminal and civil cases; and (3) the status of the civil plaintiff as a victim in the criminal matter.
Judge Wang noted that “a criminal action is pending against at least two of the defendants in this case,” with Jeffries and Smith indicted on October 17 on counts of sex trafficking and interstate prostitution. In terms of the second prong of the test, the federal indictment accuses Jeffries and Smith of “operat[ing] an international sex trafficking and prostitution business,” utilizing their financial resources and positions of influence to recruit young men under the pretext of professional opportunities. According to the court’s order, this aligns closely with Bradberry’s claims, thereby, satisfying the second condition for a stay.
The civil suit contends that, between 1992 and 2014, “Jeffries used Abercrombie money, travel benefits, and cash to facilitate and effectuate the sex trafficking venture.” The court also noted the close temporal overlap between the alleged acts in the civil and criminal cases. The indictment outlines criminal activities from 2008 to 2015, while the civil complaint covers incidents from 1992 to 2014.
As for the third criterion of the TVPRA, Judge Wang referenced the language in both the civil complaint and the indictment, the latter of which accuses Jeffries and Smith of organizing a trafficking ring involving “dozens of men, including, among others, John Does #1 through #15 … for the purposes of engaging in commercial sex acts” with Jeffries and Smith. This inclusive language led the court to find that Bradberry, who describes similar experiences, could be considered a victim under the criminal case’s scope.
The Defendants’ Arguments
This is not the first time the defendants have sought to stay Bradberry’s case; they filed a similar motion earlier this year – albeit without any success. At that time, criminal charges were not pending, and SDNY Judge Jennifer Rearden concluded that it was “not readily apparent that: (1) the civil and criminal case arose out of the same occurrence and (2) that the Plaintiff in this case is a victim in the criminal action.”
Bradberry opposed the stay, claiming that it was a delaying tactic by Jeffries and co. aimed at postponing justice for the victims. However, Judge Wang ultimately found that “the risks of conflicting outcomes” and the need to protect criminal proceedings outweighed Bradberry’s concerns.
In accordance with the court order, the defendants are instructed to provide regular updates on the status of the criminal case. The Department of Justice and Bradberry have until November 8 to object to the stay, according to the filing, after which it will remain in effect until the criminal case concludes. Furthermore, the court requires the parties to file quarterly status letters beginning on December 20 to assess if the stay remains necessary as the criminal case progresses.
The case is Bradberry v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al., 1:23-cv-09440 (SDNY).
Share
