Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00155/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00155-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-00155-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

SHORTEN TIME

Re: Dkt. No. 59

Plaintiff J.C. has sued several hotels in this case under the Trafficking Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act of 2008 18 U.S.C. § 1591 et seq. for sex trafficking that occurred at their 

hotels. As to defendant Hilton Worldwide Holding Inc.’s (“Hilton”), the First Amended 

Complaint alleges that J.C. was trafficked at the Embassy Suites by Hilton in Alexandria Old 

Town located at 1900 Diagonal Road, in Alexandria, Virginia. First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”) [Dkt. No. 34] ¶¶ 108(a), 118, 122. Hilton has moved to dismiss the FAC on several 

grounds, including that there is no specific jurisdiction over them for conduct that occurred at the 

Embassy Suites in Virginia. Defendant Hilton Worldwide Holding Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the 

First Amended Complaint Under Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6) and 21 (“Hilton MTD”) [Dkt. No. 43] 7. 

During the meet and confer process on Hilton’s motion to dismiss, J.C.’s counsel learned 

that J.C. was also trafficked on various occasions at the DoubleTree® by Hilton located at 2001 

Point W. Way, Sacramento, California and the Hilton Sacramento Arden West located at 2200 

Harvard St, Sacramento, California. Plaintiff’s Motion to Shorten Time to Hear Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Leave to Amend Her First Amended Complaint (“Mot. Shorten Time”) [Dkt. No. 59] 2. 

Accordingly, she intends to seek leave to amend her FAC based on these new facts relevant to the 

Case 3:20-cv-00155-WHO Document 63 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

jurisdictional analysis raised by Hilton’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s Proposed Motion for Leave 

to Amend Her First Amended Complaint (“Proposed Mot. for Leave”) [Dkt. No. 59-3]; id., Ex. B 

[Dkt. No. 59-6] (strikethrough comparison between FAC and proposed Second Amended 

Complaint). Before me is a request to shorten time so that J.C.’s motion to leave to amend the 

FAC is heard on the same day as Hilton’s motion to dismiss, June 3, 2020. Mot. Shorten Time 1.

Hilton opposes for three reasons. See Defendant Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.’s

Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Shorten Time to Hear Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave to Amend 

Her First Amended Complaint (“Oppo.”) [Dkt. No. 62]. First, it argues that J.C. delayed in raising 

this new theory about why it can be sued in California. But as J.C. explains in her motion, she 

only recently remembered the alleged trafficking in Sacramento due to the trauma of her 

victimization. Mot. Shorten Time 2. Second, Hilton contends that it needs an opportunity to fully 

brief the factors that govern leave to amend a pleading under Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 

(1962). Oppo. 4. Based on the summarized argument it has provided, I do not see the need to 

fully brief the Foman factors any further. 

Third, Hilton acknowledges that “[n]othing in Plaintiff’s proposed SAC affects the 

outcome of the questions that Hilton’s Motion to Dismiss presents to the Court: (1) whether the 

Court has personal jurisdiction over Hilton related to alleged trafficking that took place in 

Virginia; (2) whether Hilton is a proper party; and (3) whether the [FAC] states a claim against 

Hilton under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.” Oppo. 1-2. It further 

acknowledges that “[t]he only material addition in the SAC is a single paragraph alleging forced 

sexual exchanges at two Sacramento hotels ‘several times’ between 2009 and 2010.” Id. at 2. 

Accordingly, it provides reasons why this new allegation does not cure the lack of personal 

jurisdiction. This is precisely the kind of argument that Hilton can add to its reply brief in support 

of its motion to dismiss.

Having reviewed J.C.’s proposed motion for leave and Hilton’s summarized reasons

against it, I find that good cause exists to allow J.C. to amend her FAC and I am inclined to grant 

it once J.C. has filed the motion. As Hilton itself acknowledges, the proposed amendment is on 

the narrow issue that J.C. was also trafficked in Hilton’s hotels located in Sacramento, California. 

Case 3:20-cv-00155-WHO Document 63 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Instead of going through an entirely new briefing schedule on this narrow issue, the most efficient 

way to proceed is to allow that proposed amendment to be considered in this round of motions to 

dismiss and to allow Hilton an opportunity to respond to it in its reply brief in support of its 

motion to dismiss. 

In the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness, J.C.’s motion to shorten time is 

GRANTED with the following modification: J.C. must file her proposed motion for leave to 

amend her FAC and proposed SAC by May 19, 2020. Upon granting her motion, for the reasons 

set forth above, Hilton’s deadline to file a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss will be 

extended from May 20, 2020 to noon (Pacific Standard Time) on May 26, 2020. Hilton may use 

an additional five (5) pages to address its specific jurisdiction argument in light of J.C.’s new 

allegation that she was subject to traffic victimization in not only Alexandria, Virginia, but also in 

Sacramento, California. I will then hear oral argument on Hilton’s motion to dismiss, along with 

the other two motions to dismiss pending in this case, on June 3, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 18, 2020 

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-00155-WHO Document 63 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 3