J. B. v. G6 Hosp.

• Decision Date: 08 September 2021
• Docket Number: 19-cv-07848-HSG
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: J. B., Plaintiff, v. G6 HOSPITALITY, LLC, et al., Defendants.

J. B., Plaintiff, v. G6 HOSPITALITY, LLC, et al., Defendants.

No. 19-cv-07848-HSG

United States District Court, N.D. California

September 8, 2021

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS

RE: DKT. NOS. 143, 146, 148

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., United States District Judge.

Pending before the Court are Rajesh Khatri and Hansaben Khatri's (DBA Economy Inn) (“Economy Inn”) motion to dismiss, Dkt. Nos. 146 (“EMot.”), 154 (“EOpp.”), 158 (“EReply”), and Gangaben A. Patel Trust 2000's (DBA Holiday Motel) (“Holiday Motel”) motion to dismiss, Dkt. Nos 143 (“HMot.”), 157 (“HOpp.”), 159 (“HReply”), (collectively, “Defendant Hotels”), and Craigslist's motion to dismiss, Dkt Nos. 148 (“CMot.”), 155 (“COpp.”), 160 (“CReply”). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Craigslist's motion to dismiss, DENIES Holiday Motel's motions to dismiss Plaintiff's TVPRA claim to the extent that the conduct underlying Plaintiff's claim occurred after December 23, 2008, GRANTS Economy Inn's and Holiday Motel's motions to dismiss Plaintiff's CTVPA claims, and DENIES Holiday Motel's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's negligence claim and its motion for a more definite statement. Dismissal is with leave to amend, except as otherwise stated below.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that she was “advertised for sale on the Craigslist's ‘Erotic Services' and ‘Adult Services' classified categories” and “repeatedly trafficked for commercial sex.” Dkt. No. 134 First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff alleges that “she was imprisoned and abused at motels throughout Oakland, including on multiple occasions at each of the Defendant Hotels.” Id. ¶ 6. And Plaintiff alleges that “[e]ach Defendant Hotel also observed at least one (sometimes multiple) violent encounters between Plaintiff and a trafficker and/or buyer.” Id.

Plaintiff broadly alleges that Defendant Hotels had actual or constructive knowledge that sex trafficking occurred frequently on their properties due to other news reports and incidents of child sex trafficking and failed to prevent it. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 7, 71, 81. Defendant Hotels allegedly “ignored a common set of signs that Plaintiff was being trafficked, ” including that the rooms “were frequently paid with cash”; that “Plaintiff's rooms maintained high foot traffic with multiple male adults per day”; that Plaintiff's rooms were “frequently left strewn” with “an inordinate number of used condoms”; and that Plaintiff often showed “signs of distress, malnourishment, and prominent bruising.” Id. ¶ 60. Plaintiff also alleges that “Defendant Hotel(s) discouraged Plaintiff from asking for help from motel staff or seeking assistance from guests in neighboring rooms.” Id. ¶ 62. Defendant Hotels allegedly did this because “they financially benefited from her trafficking” because rooms rented to traffickers, who regularly refuse cleaning and other accommodations, are “particularly profitable.” Id. ¶ 64.

As to Craigslist, Plaintiff alleges that she was “advertised for sale on Craigslist's ‘Erotic Services' and ‘Adult Services' classified categories” and that Craigslist “knew that these sections were used to sell adults and children for sex.” Id. ¶ 2. Craigslist allegedly “took numerous steps during the years Plaintiff was trafficked to guarantee-in the face of pressure from advocates and law enforcement-that traffickers could continue to easily utilize its platform as a marketplace for commercial sex.” Id. ¶ 3. These included simply renaming the “Erotic Services” subcategory to “Adult Services.” Id. ¶ 34. Plaintiff claims that when Craigslist continued to receive pressure, it again “merely re-positioned the section's illicit and illegal ‘Adult' advertisements as ‘Personal Ads' and ‘Massage Services.' ” Id. ¶ 35.

Plaintiff contends that such changes were purely cosmetic since Craigslist was fully aware of the ways these sections were being used: Plaintiff claims that Craigslist “manually reviewed every single posting on its ‘Adult Services' platform-which included advertisements for commercial sex, often with children.” Id. ¶ 4. Hundreds of commercial sex advertisements were allegedly posted on Craigslist every day. Id. ¶ 38. Postings in the relevant sections frequently “contained nude or partially nude photographs (often of children, like Plaintiff), and explicit offers of sex in exchange for payment, alongside well[-]known and widely recognized language indicating the commodification of sex acts with children.” Id. ¶ 37. Terms like “young and fresh, ” “virgin, ” “new girl, ” and “new to Craigslist” were allegedly well-known code words for “minor.” Id. ¶ 41(c). Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Craigslist was incentivized to continue allowing these postings because of the large amounts of cash they generated. Id. ¶¶ 2, 49. Fees from traffickers alone “totaled up to an estimated $36 million in revenue for Craigslist in 2010.” Id. ¶ 49.

As to Economy Inn, Plaintiff alleges that she “was trafficked [there] on at least fourteen occasions, ” a number of which included violent encounters. Id. ¶¶ 72-77. She details several specific instances:

The first time [Plaintiff was trafficked at the Economy Inn] was in July 2007, when Plaintiff was only fifteen years old. On that date, a white male in his late 30's picked Plaintiff up on International Boulevard in Oakland and drove her to the Economy Inn, where motel staff observed her arrive in his vehicle. The buyer went into the motel and purchased a room for approximately $50 to $60 for the night, and then escorted an anxious Plaintiff to the room-in plain view of hotel staff. . . .

That same year, Plaintiff was violently sexually assaulted at the Economy Inn while still only fifteen years old. On that occasion, a male in his late-40's to mid-50's took Plaintiff to his room in plain sight of motel staff, where he then told Plaintiff that he did not have a condom but still expected her to have sexual intercourse with him. When Plaintiff attempted to leave the room, the male positioned himself in front of the door, holding her against her will. He then forced her into sexual acts that caused Plaintiff great bodily injury. . . .

When Plaintiff was sixteen years old, she suffered another violent sexual assault in broad daylight in the Economy Inn parking lot. A male guest of the Economy Inn pulled a gun on Plaintiff while the two were in his vehicle and then forcibly raped her, causing great bodily injury. The vehicle was parked in an area that was monitored by Economy Inn, including by video surveillance. Moreover, there was additional commercial sex activity occurring in the parking lot at the same time, including the presence of other minor victims and their adult traffickers loitering in the parking lot, which should have alerted Economy Inn staff to the illegal conduct occurring on its premises. . . .

On another occasion when Plaintiff was seventeen years old, early 2009, five pimps entered the Economy Inn and broke down a motel room door to locate and kidnap Plaintiff, leaving her personal possessions in the rented room. This event should have alerted Economy Inn staff that sex trafficking was occurring, as the pimps were very loud when they broke into the room, caused significant property damage in breaking down the door, and then forcibly removed a teenaged girl in plain view of motel staff. The pimps ultimately released Plaintiff on High Street in Oakland and instructed her to meet them back at the Economy Inn after completing a commercial sex act. Plaintiff did not return to the Economy Inn because she was frightened, and instead left all of her belongings- including clothing, shoes, make up, jewelry, and personal items-in the room, which Economy Inn must have collected and discarded, further alerting them to Plaintiff's abuse. . . .

On another occasion when Plaintiff was seventeen years old, in early September 2009, she suffered yet another violent assault inside a room at the Economy Inn. Staff at the Economy Inn must have been aware that a victim of sex trafficking was being brutalized within the room, because Plaintiff's cries for help-which included calling out the number of the room she was in, which she believes was Room 203-were so loud that another guest called the police. When police arrived, Plaintiff-fearing another attack from her trafficker-begged them not to arrest him, and the police did not. Economy Inn permitted both Plaintiff and her trafficker to stay in the room despite this violent incident, because they were renting the room for multiple weeks and were paying in cash. . . .

Just two months later, in November 2009, Plaintiff suffered yet another violent assault in a hotel room at the Economy Inn, when her trafficker struck her in the head with an iron.

Id. ¶¶ 72-77.

As to Holiday Motel, Plaintiff alleges that she was trafficked there “nearly continuously” between September 2007 and September 2009. Id. ¶ 91. She claims her stays each lasted “approximately one week” but sometimes as long as “months at a time.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that Holiday Motel staff “ignored multiple violent incidents.” Id. Additionally, Plaintiff details numerous facts that allegedly demonstrate that Holiday Motel knew or should have known that she was being trafficked on their premises. These include:

Each time Plaintiff was trafficked at the Holiday Motel, she encountered the same manager-a man in his 30's or 40's who wore glasses. . . .

Though Plaintiff's trafficker paid daily for the room each visit lasted at least one week, and the manager would come to the room every day prior to checkout at 11 a.m. to ask whether Plaintiff's trafficker wanted to rent the room for another day. Moreover, given the location of Plaintiff's room, the manager would have seen the heavy foot

...