ALLENTOWN – A California woman who alleges she was assaulted by a masseuse in an Allentown nail salon and spa adds that a recent motion to dismiss her case from the defendants is attempting to muddy the waters surrounding her allegations.
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.
“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.”
On June 19, G.B. responded to the dismissal motion, said that the state Human Trafficking Act and Civil Action Statute do in fact apply to the case and defendant Larken has not raised any challenge that warrants dismissal
“The plaintiff has alleged that illegal sex trade acts were occurring at Jade Spa, and that defendant Larken knew or should have known that those acts were occurring there at the time that they were providing goods and services to Nhin, defendant Jade Spa and the Doe defendants. Nothing more needs to be alleged at this time to survive the motion to dismiss,” counsel for G.B. stated in the response.
Plaintiff counsel added that for the defense to even compare the instant case to the Marriott action was inappropriate and inapplicable.
“To compare this case to that of the Marriott case is ludicrous. If Marriott owned a single hotel, and within that hotel there was a single room rented year-round for the last 4+ years to the same individual and that individual was arrested in that room for committing sexual crimes in that room and it was reported in the media and the reports named Marriott by name, but Marriott continued to rent that room out to the same individual, who continued committing those sex crimes in that room…the court in Marriott would have likely reached a very different conclusion, and it is therefore argued that this Court is perfectly capable of distinguishing the facts of this case from those of the Marriott case,” per plaintiff counsel.
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