J.C. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc.
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-00155
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In J.C. v. Choice Hotels, Judge Orrick granted J.C.’s request to speed up consideration of her proposed amended complaint while preserving Hilton’s chance to respond.
J.C. and Hilton Worldwide Holding Inc.; the order also set the schedule for the pending motions to dismiss in the case.
What happened
In J.C. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., J.C. sued several hotels under a federal law addressing sex trafficking. Hilton sought dismissal, arguing in part that the court lacked authority over claims involving alleged trafficking at a Hilton hotel in Virginia.
During discussions about Hilton’s dismissal motion, J.C.’s lawyer learned of alleged trafficking at two Hilton hotels in Sacramento, California. J.C. planned to seek permission to add those allegations and asked the court to hear that request on the same day as Hilton’s dismissal motion.
Judge William H. Orrick granted J.C.’s request to shorten the schedule, with a change. He required J.C. to file the proposed amendment by May 19, extended Hilton’s reply deadline to May 26, allowed Hilton five extra pages to address the new jurisdiction argument, and set oral argument for June 3. The order did not decide Hilton’s dismissal motion or grant leave to amend.
The detailed version
- J.C. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-00155
- William Orrick
- May 18, 2020
Background
J.C. sued several hotels under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 for alleged sex trafficking at their hotels. Hilton Worldwide Holding Inc. moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and 21. Among other arguments, Hilton contended that the court lacked personal jurisdiction—meaning authority over Hilton—for conduct alleged to have occurred at an Embassy Suites hotel in Alexandria, Virginia.
While the parties were discussing Hilton’s motion, J.C.’s counsel learned that J.C. also alleged trafficking at two Hilton hotels in Sacramento, California. J.C. intended to seek leave, or court permission, to amend the complaint to add those allegations because they were relevant to the personal-jurisdiction issue. She asked the court to shorten the time for hearing that motion so it could be considered on June 3, the same day as Hilton’s motion to dismiss.
Parties’ Positions
Hilton opposed shortening the schedule. It argued that J.C. had delayed raising the Sacramento allegations and that Hilton needed a full opportunity to brief the factors governing leave to amend under Foman v. Davis. Hilton also argued that the proposed amendment would not change the issues raised by its motion to dismiss, including personal jurisdiction, whether Hilton was a proper party, and whether the complaint stated a claim under the trafficking statute. Hilton said the new allegation did not cure the jurisdictional problem.
Ruling
The court found good cause to allow J.C. to amend and stated that it was inclined to grant leave once J.C. filed the motion. The court concluded that the most efficient approach was to consider the proposed amendment during the existing round of dismissal motions and allow Hilton to address the new allegation in its reply.
Judge William H. Orrick granted J.C.’s motion to shorten time with a modification. J.C. had to file the proposed motion for leave to amend and proposed second amended complaint by May 19, 2020. If the amendment motion was granted, Hilton’s reply deadline would move from May 20 to noon Pacific time on May 26, 2020. Hilton could use five additional pages to address personal jurisdiction in light of the Sacramento allegation. The court set oral argument on Hilton’s motion to dismiss, along with two other pending dismissal motions, for June 3, 2020.
This order addressed scheduling and briefing. It did not decide Hilton’s motion to dismiss, and it did not itself grant J.C. leave to file the amended complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.