ALLENTOWN – A federal judge has awarded $600,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to a California woman who alleged she was assaulted by a masseuse in an Allentown nail salon and spa.
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.
In a March 15, 2021 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.
UPDATE
Following entries of default against the defendants for failing to appear, plead or otherwise defend, the Court granted default judgment against Nhin for assault and battery and conditionally granted default judgment for intentional infliction of emotional distress contingent on the submission of medical evidence.
Furthermore, the Court also granted default judgment against Jade Nails for negligent supervision, leading the Court to then hold a damages and evidentiary hearing, which took place on Jan. 18, 2022. There, the plaintiff and their counsel testified to the sexual assault she alleged, explained that she would benefit from therapy and submitted a request for $500,000 in damages.
20 months later, Gallagher at last issued a ruling on the question of damages.
“Although plaintiff testified to her emotional distress among other injuries, plaintiff did not offer any objective medical evidence to support her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Plaintiff provided medical records that appear to have been completed by a medical professional. But plaintiff did not proffer a medical expert, nor an affidavit completed by a medical expert, to support her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Because plaintiff has not offered any objective medical evidence as required under Pennsylvania law, the Court will not award default judgment as to plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Because default judgment has been entered as to plaintiff’s claims of Nhin for assault and battery as against Nhin, and negligent supervision as against Jade Nails, the Court will now consider plaintiff’s request for damages,” Gallagher stated.
“Plaintiff seeks a damages award for compensatory damages and punitive damages for her claims of battery and assault against defendant Nhin, as well as her claims of negligent supervision against defendant Jade Nails. The Court finds plaintiff’s testimony to be credible. Plaintiff’s testimony during the hearing showed that the incident has had a lasting and damaging impact on her – particularly in terms of mental and emotional effects. Plaintiff testified to the medical treatment she has sought and received over the years due to her struggles with anxiety, lack of sleep, and depression. Although plaintiff did not offer evidence in the form of medical expert testimony, plaintiff provided credible testimony concerning her medical treatments, as well as medical reports in her briefing. Plaintiff also testified to her continued emotional distress due to the underlying incident – and defendants’ conduct – in this case.”
Gallagher explained that G.B. experienced a sexual assault committed by defendant Nhin, with Nhin being permitted to work at Jade Nails, despite his previous criminal history involving similar conduct at Jade Nails in 2016.
“Plaintiff in the present action submitted some documentation and provided testimony indicating the extent and severity of her emotional injuries. Plaintiff also showed evidence in support of her efforts to seek out mental health treatment. Moreover, plaintiff’s in-person testimony detailed plaintiff’s lasting mental and emotional distress resulting from the underlying incident in this case; plaintiff’s testimony and supplemental briefs provide she continues to suffer from physical effects of the underlying assault, such as loss of sleep, several years after the underlying incident. Plaintiff also described persistent symptoms of anxiety and depression stemming from the incident. Furthermore, this compensatory damages award should compensate plaintiff for various costs she underwent as a result of defendants’ conduct. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Court finds an award of $150,000 is warranted. Defendants Nhin and Jade Nails are to be joint and severally liable for this award,” Gallagher said.
“The Court shall also award punitive damages in the amount of $225,000 against defendant Nhin, and in the amount of $200,000 against defendant Judge Nails. Here, plaintiff seeks punitive damages because, she contends, defendant Nhin’s conduct was not only intentional and egregious but also demonstrated an indifference to plaintiff’s rights and safety. The Court agrees and finds the actions of Nhin ‘amounted to intentional, willful, wanton, or reckless conduct’ largely due to Nhin’s use of his legitimate employment position to assault a member of the public seeking legitimate services. In the course of his employment at Jade Nails, Nhin identified an innocent person seeking legitimate services and sexually assaulted her under the guise of his employment. And moreover, defendant Nhin had previously been convicted for similar conduct at Jade Nails, which further shows Nhin’s indifference to the rights and safety of others, as well as it shows a need for the punitive damage award to serve as a deterrent.”
The Court cited there to be a “reasonable relationship” between the compensatory damage award and the punitive damage award, which led it to find a punitive damage award of $225,000 against defendant Nhin to be appropriate – which presents a 1:1.5 ratio between the compensatory damage award and the punitive damage award.
Gallagher also found that a punitive damages award against defendant Jade Nails for their negligent supervision was “warranted.”
“Here, G.B.’s assault and battery occurred onsite at Jade Nails, Nhin acted outside the scope of his employment, and Nhin’s conduct was reasonably foreseeable based on his previous related criminal acts occurring on Jade Nails’ premises. Jade Nails’ negligence supervision of defendant Nhin despite his previous criminal activity in the course of employment demonstrated a reckless indifference to plaintiff’s safety and the rights and safety of any member of the general public seeking legitimate services. Jade Nails’ continued employment and insufficient supervision of defendant Nhin further enabled and emboldened Nhin to use his employment to harm others. For these reasons, the court finds a punitive damage award of $225,000 against defendant Jade Nails is also warranted,” Gallagher said.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds default judgment as to plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is not warranted. Next, concerning plaintiff’s surviving claims of assault and battery against Nhin, and negligent supervision against Jade Nails, plaintiff is awarded $600,000 in damages to be allocated in the following ways: $150,000 in compensatory damages against defendants Nhin and Jade Nails to be jointly and severally liable; $225,000 in punitive damages against defendant Nhin and $225,000 in punitive damages against defendant Jade Nails.”
The plaintiff was represented by Andres Jalon of Jalon & Associates in Philadelphia and Rook Elizabeth Ringer of Cole Scott & Kissane, in Jacksonville, Fla.
The Larken Associates defendants were represented by Anne K. Manley and Adrian K. Cousens of Gross McGinley in Easton and Allentown, while the remaining defendants did not obtain 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