Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Friday, November 22, 2024

Judge rules plaintiff didn't prove nail salon's landlord had actual knowledge of sex trafficking activities

Federal Court
Usdcallentown

Edward N. Cahn U.S. Courthouse & Federal Bldg.

ALLENTOWN – A federal judge has dismissed without prejudice the case of a California woman who alleged she was assaulted by a masseuse in an Allentown nail salon and spa, for reasons of pleading insufficiency under the state’s sex trafficking statute.

G.B. initially filed a complaint on Dec. 24, 2019 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. alleged 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, 2020, 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.

In a June 19, 2020 response, G.B. said that the state’s Human Trafficking Act and Civil Action Statutes 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.

After plaintiff counsel filed separate requests for default against defendants Jade Nails and Nhin on Aug. 19, 2020, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John M. Gallagher entered the default judgment the following day, on Aug. 20. The default versus those defendants was entered for “failure to appear, plead or otherwise defend” against the suit.

UPDATE

In a March 15 memorandum opinion, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John M. Gallagher dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff did not prove the Larken defendants had actual knowledge of sex trafficking on the premises.

The dismissal was without prejudice, in order to give the plaintiff another opportunity to show such actual knowledge.

“G.B. contends that Larken ‘knew or should have known that Nhin had previously been arrested for similar sexual crimes occurring on their premises in July of 2016.’ Larken, as Jade Nails’s landlord, allegedly ‘profited from the acts suffered by’ G.B.,” Gallagher said.

“These ‘threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,’ cannot support a claim under Pennsylvania’s human trafficking law. We cannot reasonably infer that Larken ‘profited’ from any ‘sex trade act’ that occurred at Jade Nails, so we dismiss the complaint on this basis.”

Per Gallagher’s ruling, an entity is liable under the Pennsylvania state law only if it “knowingly markets or provides its goods or services to a person” who has engaged in sex trafficking.

“Assuming that Larken ‘provides goods or services to the general public,’ G.B. does not plead facts demonstrating that Larken had actual knowledge of the alleged sex trafficking activities. At most, G.B. pleads that Larken had constructive knowledge of Nhin’s prior sex crimes. This is insufficient under the statute,” Gallagher concluded.

The plaintiff is represented by Joan A. Feinstein in Holland and Rook Elizabeth Ringer of Lento Law Group, in St. Augustine, Fla.

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