Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Company says it's not to blame for alleged sexual assault by masseur

Federal Court
Images

ALLENTOWN – A commercial leasing agent says it’s not responsible for the alleged actions of a massage therapist that allegedly assaulted a California woman in an Allentown nail salon and spa it manages, nor did it engage in sex traffficking.

G.B. initially filed a complaint on Dec. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Jade Nails Hair Spa, Allen Nhin, Larken Associates and other John Doe defendants.

G.B. alleges she visited Jade Spa on Dec. 24, 2017, to receive massage therapy for her neck and back pain. She alleged that during the massage performed by Nhin, he inappropriately massaged her breasts and other personal and private areas of her body.

The suit stated when G.B. filed charges against Nhin one year later, it was discovered he had been previously arrested in July of 2016, charged with aggravated and indecent assault without consent and sentenced to probation.

On June 4, Larken Associates filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim, specifically that her allegation of sex trade liability was not supported by facts or case law.

The defendant even introduced into the discussion a separate and recent alleged sex trafficking case against Marriott Hotels, which was heard in the court and dismissed.

“The facts as alleged by the plaintiff in this case are, of course horrible and unconscionable and this motion does not seek in any way to minimize or excuse the acts which are alleged to have been committed by defendant Nhin, if they occurred,” the defendant’s dismissal motion read, in part.

“Unlike the A.B. case however, where the allegations were specifically that A.B. was forced into sex trafficking against her will, the allegations here are of a different nature. The acts described by plaintiff could give rise to indecent assault or perhaps attempted aggravated indecent assault, but they do not allege acts that constitute trafficking.”

Next, counsel for Larken Associates argued that the facts as set forth in the pleading did not meet the exceptions of the Safe Harbor Provision of the Human Trafficking Act.

“The inquiry therefore is whether plaintiff has sufficiently pled that defendant Larken knowingly markets or provided its goods to a human trafficker. On its face therefore, constructive knowledge is not sufficient to remove a person from the safe harbor provisions of the statute. Actual knowledge is required,” the motion stated.

“Plaintiff does not allege any facts that support a conclusion that defendant Larken had any actual knowledge of the prior arrest, guilty plea or sentencing, nor of the alleged actions taken by Nhin. All that she has alleged is that it ‘knew or should have known’. Plaintiff has essentially pled a tort standard. That is not enough under the Act. Actual knowledge must be asserted with some scintilla of factual allegation supporting it and that is absent in the complaint, so the claim must fail.”

Finally, Larken Associates claimed the “plaintiff has not alleged facts that support a claim that defendant Larken participated in human trafficking under the Act”, which “do not state a claim for civil liability for defendant Larken under the Act and should be dismissed,” the motion read.

For counts of assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision and hiring, negligence, vicarious liability and sex trade liability, the plaintiff seeks, jointly and severally, actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and all other just relief, plus a trial by jury.

The plaintiff is represented by Christopher R. Booth Jr. of Derek Smith Law Group in Philadelphia and Joan A. Feinstein in Holland.

The Larken Associates defendants are represented by Anne K. Manley and Adrian K. Cousens of Gross McGinley in Easton and Allentown, while the remaining defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:19-cv-06093

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News