J. B. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC

Background

J. B. alleged that she was a victim of child sex trafficking and was advertised on Craigslist from 2007 to 2010. She alleged that traffickers and buyers sexually assaulted her at various motels, including Economy Inn. She sued Craigslist, Economy Inn, and other defendants under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), California’s Child Trafficking Victims Protection Act (CTVPA), negligence per se, and civil conspiracy.

The opinion addressed only Craigslist’s motion to dismiss and the motion filed by Kantilal Khatri and Rajeshkumar Khatri, doing business as Economy Inn. The court treated the Economy Inn motion as timely because a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be filed before the answer, and Economy Inn had not filed an answer.

Craigslist’s Motion

The court held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protected Craigslist from J. B.’s state-law claims: the CTVPA claim, negligence-per-se claim, and civil-conspiracy claim. The court found that Craigslist was an interactive computer service, that J. B.’s allegations treated Craigslist as the publisher or speaker of advertisements created by others, and that the advertisements supplied the relevant information. The court also rejected J. B.’s argument that the website was an information-content provider because she did not allege facts showing that Craigslist materially contributed to the unlawful content.

The court further held that the federal sex-trafficking claim under Section 1595 was not covered by Section 230 immunity. But it dismissed that claim because J. B. did not adequately allege that Craigslist participated in the trafficking venture. The court interpreted participation to require facts supporting an inference of a tacit agreement or continuing business relationship between Craigslist and the traffickers. Allegations that Craigslist’s advertisements caused the trafficking, that the site was known as a place to find victims, and that Craigslist knew of trafficking on its platform did not establish such an agreement.

The court therefore granted Craigslist’s motion to dismiss the state-law claims without leave to amend and granted its motion to dismiss the TVPRA claim with leave to amend.

Economy Inn’s Motion

For the TVPRA claim, the court found that J. B.’s allegations did not sufficiently show that Economy Inn knew or should have known that a sex-trafficking venture was occurring. The allegations that employees should have seen J. B. in a car or being taken into rooms, together with allegations about room conditions and her belongings, might suggest awareness of some wrongdoing but did not establish notice of sex trafficking violating the TVPRA. The court granted Economy Inn’s motion to dismiss the TVPRA claim with leave to amend.

For the CTVPA claim, the court explained that California’s statute requires knowledge and does not use the TVPRA’s lower “should have known” standard. The court found that J. B.’s broad allegations about trafficking at the motel did not adequately allege that Economy Inn knew she was being trafficked. It granted the motion to dismiss that claim with leave to amend.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the negligence-per-se claim without leave to amend because negligence per se is an evidentiary doctrine affecting the standard of care, not a separate cause of action. It also granted the motion to dismiss the civil-conspiracy claim with leave to amend, finding that J. B. did not allege specific facts showing that Economy Inn knew of the trafficking or intended to assist it. Allegations that the motel received room charges were not enough by themselves to show the required intent. The opinion notes that Economy Inn did not move to dismiss the negligence claim.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted both motions to dismiss. The order allowed J. B. 28 days from the order’s date to file an amended complaint, and the amended complaint could not add new parties or claims without the court’s permission.