Legal Opinion

Doe I v. Starbucks Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided February 17, 2026No. Civil Action No. 2025-1261Published

1Opinion of the Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DOE I, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 25-1261 (BAH) v. Judge Beryl A. Howell STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs, eight residents of Brazil who allege they were recruited by Brazilian labor traffickers and forced to work on coffee farms in Brazil, bring this putative class action in the District of Columbia against Washington State-based defendant Starbucks, claiming Starbucks violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”),

18 U.S.C. § 1595

et. seq., Brazilian law, and common…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Daimler AG v. BaumanSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
  2. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  3. Calder v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Shaffer v. HeitnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 2017

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API