J. B. v. G6 Hosp.

• Decision Date: 16 December 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

December 16, 2021

ORDER BIFURCATING CLAIMS AND CERTIFYING QUESTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL RE: DKT. NO. 179

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On September 17, 2020, Plaintiff J.B. filed an amended complaint against Defendants G6 Hospitality LLC (“G6 Hospitality”), Rajesh Khatri & Hansaben Khatri d/b/a Economy Inn Oakland (“Economy Inn”), SRK Motel, Inc. d/b/a Bay Breeze Inn (“Bay Breeze Inn”), Kalpesh K. Balsara d/b/a Sage Motel (“Sage Motel”), Gangaben A. Patel Trust 2000 d/b/a Holiday Motel (“Holiday Motel”) (collectively, the “Defendant Hotels”), Kairos Unlimited Counseling Services (“Kairos”), and Craigslist, Inc. (“Craigslist”) (collectively, the “Defendants”). Dkt. No. 134 (“FAC”). On September 8, 2021, the Court granted Craigslist's motion to dismiss, dismissing Plaintiff's claim against Craigslist with leave to amend.^[1] See Dkt. No. 178 (“Order”). Plaintiff filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to certify for interlocutory appeal the Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claim against Craigslist. See Dkt. No. 179. The Court asked the parties to meet and confer about the possibility of severing Plaintiff's claim against Craigslist in order to facilitate a potential appeal of the dismissal of that claim. See Dkt. No. 187. The parties responded with a joint status report outlining each party's position. Dkt. No. 188. For the reasons explained below, the Court BIFURCATES the trial of the dismissed claim against Craigslist from the claims

1

against Defendant Hotels and Kairos. The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for a certificate of appealability as to the dismissal of the Craigslist claim.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that Craigslist violated section 1595 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, 18 U.S.C. § 1591, et seq. (“TVPRA”).^[2] FAC at ¶ 102. 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.” FAC at ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff further alleges that Craigslist “knew that these sections were used to sell adults and children for sex.” Id. at ¶ 2.

As to the Defendant Hotels, Plaintiff brought causes of action for violations of the TVPRA; the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.5 (“CTVPA”); and California common law.^[3] Plaintiff alleges that “she was imprisoned and abused at motels throughout Oakland, including on multiple occasions at each of the Defendant Hotels.” Id. at ¶ 6. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Hotels had actual or constructive knowledge that sex trafficking occurred frequently on their properties. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 7, 71, 81. 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. at ¶ 6.

On October 9, 2020, Craigslist moved to dismiss Plaintiff's TVPRA claim against it on the ground that the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“CDA”), bars the claim. Dkt. No. 148; see FAC ¶¶ 98-113. Generally, under the CDA, an interactive computer service provider may not be held liable as a “publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” on its service. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). Craigslist argued that, as an interactive computer service provider, it was entitled to immunity from Plaintiff's TVPRA claim under the CDA. Dkt. No. 148 at 1. Plaintiff responded by arguing that CDA immunity was

2

abrogated by Congress in 2018 with the passage of the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, 132 Stat. 1253 (2018) (“FOSTA-SESTA”). See Dkt. No. 155 at 11-18. The Court had previously rejected Craigslist's argument, Dkt. No. 132 at 12, but Craigslist sought reconsideration based on the reasoning of intervening rulings by other district courts, Dkt. No. 148 at 2. After close reexamination of the issue, the Court held that section 230(e)(5)(A) of the CDA, as amended by FOSTA-SESTA, eliminates a defendant's immunity from a civil TVPRA section 1595 claim if, but only if, the defendant's conduct amounts to a violation of TVPRA section 1591, the statute's criminal provision. Order at 20. The Court found that Plaintiff had not adequately pled that Craigslist's conduct constituted a violation of section 1591, and dismissed her TVPRA claim against Craigslist with leave to amend. See Id. at 21.

Plaintiff moves to certify the Court's ruling on this point for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Dkt. No. 179. Plaintiff contends that the Court's decision with regard to Craigslist involved a purely legal question and defined the elements Plaintiff must plead and prove to prevail on her civil TVPRA claim. See Id. at 1, 3-4. Plaintiff also highlights that district courts addressing this issue have reached different conclusions. See Id. at 4. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that “prompt appellate review of the Court's immunity ruling will dramatically shape the scope of this action, ” possibly eliminating months or even years the parties might spend “litigating Plaintiff's claim according to the wrong legal standard.” Id. at 5-6.

The Court asked the parties to meet and confer and discuss whether they could agree to severance of Plaintiff's claim against Craigslist, given that Plaintiff seeks certification only as to the Court's ruling regarding Craigslist and that the question to be certified would not affect the merits of any other Defendant's claim. See Dkt. No. 187. The parties were unable to agree and submitted a joint status report setting out each party's position.^[4] See Dkt. No. 188. Plaintiff requests that the claim against Craigslist be severed and certified for interlocutory review. See Id. at 2-4. Craigslist outlines multiple possibilities but prefers for the Court to revise its Order to

3

dismiss Plaintiff's claim against Craigslist with prejudice and without leave to amend, allowing Plaintiff to appeal the final judgment as of right. See Id. at 4-7. Bay Breeze Inn, Economy Inn, and G6 Hospitality favor severing Plaintiff's claim against Craigslist only if Plaintiff's claims against the remaining Defendants are stayed pending the resolution of the Craigslist appeal. See Id. at 7-9. Finally, Holiday Motel is amenable to severance of Craigslist, while Sage Motel is not. See Id. at 9.

II. SEPARATE TRIALS

“For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b). Courts are limited by constitutional constraints, such as preserving any right of trial by jury, but otherwise have “broad authority” to order a separate trial of any claim. See Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 961-962 (9th Cir. 2001). Courts may issue such an order sua sponte. See Institutional Drug Distrib., Inc. v. Yankwich, 249 F.2d 556, 568-69 (9th Cir. 1957). Of the three reasons for ordering a separate trial - (1) convenience, (2) avoidance of prejudice, and (3) fostering expedition and economy - any one is sufficient to sustain an order for a separate trial. In re Paris Air Crash of March 3, 1974, 69 F.R.D. 310, 319 (C.D. Cal. 1975).

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that it is appropriate to separate Plaintiff's claim against...