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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

Don Bivens (#005134)

Patricia Lee Refo (#017032)

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

One Arizona Center

400 E. Van Buren St., Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

Telephone: 602.382.6000

Facsimile: 602.382.6070

E-Mail: dbivens@swlaw.com prefo@swlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants Motel 6 Operating L.P., 

and G6 Hospitality LLC, dba Motel 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jane V.; John A.; John E.; Jane F.; John D.; 

John M.; Jane N.; and John W.; individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Motel 6 Operating L.P., a limited 

partnership; G6 Hospitality LLC, a limited 

liability company, dba Motel 6; and Does 1- 10,

Defendants.

No.: 2:18-cv-00242-DGC 

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND 

DEFENSES TO THE CLASS 

ACTION COMPLAINT

Defendants Motel 6 Operating L.P. and G6 Hospitality LLC dba Motel 6 

(“Defendants”), by and through its attorneys, file this answer to the Class Action 

Complaint filed by Jane V.; John A.; John E.; Jane F.; John D.; John M.; Jane N.; and 

John W. (“Plaintiffs”). To the extent Defendants do not specifically admit any allegation, 

they deny the allegation. Defendants answer the corresponding numbered paragraphs 

below. 

INTRODUCTION TO ANSWER

Protecting the privacy and security of its guests, employees and the public are core 

values of the utmost importance to Defendants. That is why in September 2017 

Defendants announced publicly that they would direct their properties in the State of 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 1 of 32
- 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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

Arizona and nationwide that they are prohibited from voluntarily providing daily guest 

lists to Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(“DHS/ICE”) absent compulsory process, including a subpoena or warrant, or truly 

extenuating circumstances, such as an imminent threat to public, employee or guest 

safety. Defendants did issue such a directive and reiterated the policy change to their 

properties nationwide in January 2018. Now, Plaintiffs are attempting to hold Defendants 

liable for cooperating with federal law enforcement based on Plaintiffs’ belief that law 

enforcement’s requests were unlawful and damaged them. Federal law enforcement 

officials, not private citizens, however, are responsible for ensuring their actions are 

lawful and for damages caused by unlawful actions. Defendants believe that the updated 

policy strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the privacy of its guests and 

ensuring public safety, and that the Individual Plaintiffs’ purported class action lawsuit is 

meritless. 

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Motel 6 employs a corporate policy and/or practice of disclosing guest 

registration information, including guests’ personal information, to agents of United 

States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) within the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Plaintiffs challenge this policy and/or practice 

because it is racially discriminatory, unconstitutional, and violates laws that protect 

privacy rights and the rights of consumers.

ANSWER: Paragraph 1 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 1 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations.

2. Defendants Motel 6 Operating, L.P., G6 Hospitality LLC, and Does 1-10 

(hereafter, collectively referred to as “Motel 6”) disclose guests’ personal information 

to DHS and ICE agents without requiring a warrant or reasonable suspicion of 

criminal activity, in violation of the company’s written assurances that it protects the 

privacy of its guests, and to assist DHS and ICE agents in unlawfully arresting or 

otherwise detaining guests. Motel 6’s policy and/or practice of disclosing guests’ 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 2 of 32
- 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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

personal information to ICE agents violates the United States Constitution, federal 

civil rights statutes and Arizona statutes. Plaintiffs bring this class action to obtain a 

declaration that Motel 6 violates federal and state law, and to obtain injunctive relief 

and damages.

ANSWER: Paragraph 2 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 2 requires a response, Defendants admit that Motel 6 has a privacy 

policy available online. Defendants state that the full online privacy policy, a true and 

correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, is in writing and speaks for itself and 

denies that paragraph 2 accurately or fully characterizes that policy. In fact, the relevant 

part of the policy states: “We may disclose Guest Information to law enforcement 

agencies, or may be required to disclose it during the discovery process in litigation, 

pursuant to a court order, or in compliance with any applicable law, regulation, rule or 

ordinance.” Defendants deny any allegations in paragraph 2 that abbreviate the privacy 

policy available online.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 

and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over Plaintiffs’ claims under federal law and the 

Constitution of the United States. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 

request for declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This 

Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ common and state law claims 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

ANSWER: Paragraph 3 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 3 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations.

III. PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Jane V. is Latina and a resident of Glendale, Arizona.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 

to the truth of allegations in paragraph 4 and therefore deny those allegations.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 3 of 32
- 4 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

5. Plaintiff John A. is Latino and a resident of Phoenix, Arizona.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 

to the truth of allegations in paragraph 5 and therefore deny those allegations.

6. Plaintiff John E. is Latino and a resident of Tucson, Arizona.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 

to the truth of allegations in paragraph 6 and therefore deny those allegations.

7. Plaintiff Jane F. is Latina and a resident of Tucson, Arizona.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 7 and therefore deny those allegations.

8. Plaintiff John D. is Latino and a resident of Phoenix, Arizona.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 8 and therefore deny those allegations.

9. Plaintiff John M. is Latino and a resident of Phoenix, Arizona.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 

to the truth of allegations in paragraph 9 and therefore deny those allegations.

10. Plaintiff Jane N. is Latina and a resident of Phoenix, Arizona.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 

to the truth of allegations in paragraph 10 and therefore deny those allegations.

11. Plaintiff John W. is Latino and a resident of Auburn, Washington.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 

to the truth of allegations in paragraph 11 and therefore deny those allegations.

12. Plaintiffs proceed individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated.

ANSWER: Paragraph 12 states a legal conclusion that does not require a 

response. Insofar as paragraph 12 requires a response, Defendants admit that Plaintiffs 

purport to bring this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, but 

otherwise deny the allegations.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 4 of 32
- 5 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

13. Defendant Motel 6 Operating, L.P., is a limited partnership 

headquartered in Carrollton, Texas. Defendant Motel 6 Operating, L.P., owns and 

manages Motel 6 hotels throughout the United States, including those at 1530 North 

52nd Drive, Phoenix, Arizona 85043 (“Motel 6 Phoenix West”) and 4130 North Black 

Canyon Highway, Phoenix, Arizona 85017 (“Motel 6 Black Canyon”).

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Motel 6 Operating, L.P., is a limited partnership 

headquartered in Carrollton, Texas. Defendants otherwise deny the allegations in 

paragraph 13. 

14. Defendant G6 Hospitality LLC, doing business as Motel 6, is a limited 

liability company headquartered in Carrollton, Texas. Defendant G6 Hospitality 

LLC owns and manages Motel 6 hotels throughout the United States, including the 

Motel 6 Phoenix West and the Motel 6 Black Canyon. On the basis of knowledge and 

belief, G6 Hospitality LLC is the parent company of Motel 6 Operating, L.P.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Defendant G6 Hospitality LLC (“G6”) is a 

limited liability company headquartered in Carrollton, Texas which owns and operates 

Motel 6 hotels throughout the United States, including the Motel 6 Phoenix West and the 

Motel 6 Black Canyon. Defendants otherwise deny the allegations in paragraph 14.

15. Defendants Does 1-10 are currently unidentified employees who work or 

worked at the Motel 6 Phoenix West and Motel 6 Black Canyon locations and who 

disclosed the personal information of motel guests to DHS and ICE agents. 

Defendants Does 1-10, acting on behalf of Defendants Motel 6 Operating, L.P., and 

G6 Hospitality LLC, conspired with DHS and ICE agents in the unlawful 

interrogation, detention, and arrest of Plaintiffs.

ANSWER: Paragraph 15 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 15 requires a response, Defendants otherwise deny the allegations in 

paragraph 15.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 5 of 32
- 6 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

16. Since at least February 2017, Motel 6 employees at multiple Motel 6

locations in Phoenix, Arizona, disclosed the personal information of guests to DHS

and ICE agents without requiring a warrant. These Motel 6 employees, identified

herein as Does 1-10, acted pursuant to a company policy and/or practice, and in

violation of the company’s written assurances that it protects the privacy of its guests,

to facilitate DHS and ICE agents’ unreasonable and warrantless interrogation, 

detention, and arrest of motel guests, including Plaintiffs.

ANSWER: Paragraph 16 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 16 requires a response, Defendants otherwise deny the allegations in 

paragraph 16.

a. Plaintiff Jane V.

17. On or about June 25, 2017, Plaintiff Jane V. registered as a guest at the

Motel 6 Black Canyon with her four children. Plaintiff Jane V. and her children

checked into the Motel 6 Black Canyon to escape the heat because their apartment

lacked air conditioning. Plaintiff Jane V. showed a Motel 6 employee her Mexican 

consular identification card when she registered as a guest. A Motel 6 employee

made a photocopy of Plaintiff Jane V.’s consular identification card.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 17 and therefore deny those allegations.

18. On or about June 26, 2017, at approximately 5:00 a.m., three ICE

agents banged loudly on the door of the room where Plaintiff Jane V. and her

children slept. The ICE agents verbally identified themselves as “police.” Plaintiff

Jane V. opened the door. ICE agents interrogated Plaintiff Jane V. in front of her 

children. One of the ICE agents referred to Plaintiff Jane V. by name and asked her 

to confirm her identity. ICE agents threatened to separate Plaintiff Jane V. from

her children. Plaintiff Jane V. answered the ICE agents’ questions. After 

interrogating Plaintiff Jane V., the ICE agents gave Plaintiff Jane V. a “Call-in

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 6 of 32
- 7 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

Letter” instructing her to report to ICE’s Phoenix Field Office in the next few days.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 18 and therefore deny those allegations.

19. As instructed by the “Call-in Letter,” several days later Plaintiff Jane 

presented herself at ICE’s Phoenix Field Office. At the Field Office, ICE agents 

interrogated, fingerprinted, and issued Plaintiff Jane V. a “Notice to Appear.” When 

Plaintiff Jane V. asked an ICE agent if a Motel 6 employee had provided her personal 

information to ICE, the ICE agent laughed and told her that her name had 

coincidently “popped up” in the agency’s computer system.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 19 and therefore deny those allegations.

20. Upon information and belief, ICE agents arrested Plaintiff Jane V.

without a warrant and without reason to believe that Plaintiff Jane V. was likely to

escape before a warrant could be obtained.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 20 and therefore deny those allegations.

b. Plaintiff John A.

21. On or about July 5, 2017, Plaintiff John A. registered as a guest at the

Motel 6 Phoenix West. Plaintiff John A. showed a Motel 6 employee his Mexican 

passport when he registered as a guest. A Motel 6 employee made a photocopy of

Plaintiff John A.’s Mexican passport.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 21 and therefore deny those allegations.

22. On or about July 6, 2017, at approximately 5:00 a.m., three ICE agents 

banged loudly on the door and window of the room where Plaintiff John A. slept. 

Plaintiff John A. opened the door and stepped outside. Plaintiff John A. saw ICE 

agents holding a paper that, based on his knowledge and belief, was printed on paper 

with Motel 6’s logo and that contained his name and room number. ICE agents 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 7 of 32
- 8 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

interrogated Plaintiff John A. outside of the motel room. One of the ICE agents 

referred to Plaintiff John A. by name and asked Plaintiff John A. to confirm his 

identity. Plaintiff John A. answered the ICE agents’ questions. ICE agents 

handcuffed Plaintiff John A. and took him into custody. ICE agents transferred 

Plaintiff John A. to ICE’s Phoenix Field Office in a van with others whom ICE agents 

had detained that morning at the Motel 6 Phoenix West.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 

to the truth of allegations in paragraph 22 and therefore deny those allegations.

23. At ICE’s Phoenix Field Office, ICE agents interrogated, fingerprinted, 

and issued Plaintiff John A. a “Notice to Appear.” When Plaintiff John A. asked an

ICE agent if a Motel 6 employee had provided his personal information to ICE

agents, the ICE agent told him that he could not share those details. Plaintiff John A.

paid a $12,000 bond and was subsequently permitted to leave the Field Office.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 23 and therefore deny those allegations.

24. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff John A.’s room was located in an

area on motel property that was, at all material times, enclosed behind a gate that 

could only be accessed with a motel pass. Upon information and belief, Motel 6

employees, acting pursuant to a company policy and/or practice, granted ICE agents 

access to the area where Plaintiff John A.’s room was located.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 24 and therefore deny those allegations.

25. Upon information and belief, ICE agents arrested Plaintiff John A. 

without a warrant and without reason to believe that Plaintiff John A. was likely to 

escape before a warrant could be obtained.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 25 and therefore deny those allegations.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 8 of 32
- 9 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

c. Plaintiffs John E. and Jane F.

26. On or about July 18, 2017, Plaintiff John E., Plaintiff Jane F., and their 

three children registered as guests at the Motel 6 Phoenix West. Plaintiffs John E. and 

Jane F. had travelled to Phoenix with their children so that Plaintiff John E. could 

start a new job. Plaintiff John E. showed a Motel 6 employee his Mexican driver’s 

license when he registered as a guest. A Motel 6 employee made a photocopy of 

Plaintiff John E.’s Mexican driver’s license.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 26 and therefore deny those allegations.

27. On or about July 19, 2017, at approximately 5:30 a.m., as Plaintiff John 

E. sat in his car in the Motel 6 parking lot and prepared to drive to work, an ICE 

vehicle parked in front of Plaintiff John E.’s car, blocking it from leaving. ICE agents 

exited the vehicle and approached Plaintiff John E.’s car. One of the ICE agents 

referred to Plaintiff John E. by name and asked Plaintiff John E. to confirm his 

identity. Plaintiff John E. saw ICE agents holding a paper that, based on his 

knowledge and belief, contained his name and room number. ICE agents interrogated 

Plaintiff John E. Plaintiff John E. answered the ICE agents' questions. ICE agents 

handcuffed and placed Plaintiff John E. into a van. Plaintiff John E. overheard, on an 

ICE agent’s radio, that ICE agents were investigating four or five other rooms at the 

Motel 6 Phoenix West. ICE agents arrested and transferred Plaintiff John E. to ICE’s 

Phoenix Field Office.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 27 and therefore deny those allegations.

28. At ICE’s Phoenix Field Office, ICE agents interrogated, fingerprinted, 

and issued Plaintiff John E. a “Notice to Appear.” When Plaintiff John E. asked an 

ICE agent if a Motel 6 employee provided ICE agents his personal information, the 

ICE agent laughed and told Plaintiff John E. that ICE arrested him during a 

standard raid. ICE agents transferred Plaintiff John E. to an immigration detention 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 9 of 32
- 10 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

center where he was held for more than 30 days before he paid a $7,500.00 bond and 

was released.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 28 and therefore deny those allegations.

29. After detaining Plaintiff John E. in the Motel 6 parking lot, ICE agents 

banged loudly on the door of the room where Plaintiff Jane F. and her three children 

slept. Plaintiff Jane F. opened the door. ICE agents informed Plaintiff Jane F. that 

her husband had been arrested. ICE agents interrogated Plaintiff Jane F. in front of 

her children. Plaintiff Jane F. answered the ICE agents’ questions. ICE agents left 

Plaintiff Jane F. with her children.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 29 and therefore deny those allegations.

30. Upon information and belief, ICE agents arrested Plaintiff John E. 

without a warrant and without reason to believe Plaintiff John E. was likely to escape 

before a warrant could be obtained.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 30 and therefore deny those allegations.

d. Plaintiff John D.

31. On or about July 9, 2017, Plaintiff John D. registered as a guest at the 

Motel 6 Phoenix West. Plaintiff John D. showed a Motel 6 employee his Mexican 

consular identification card when he registered as a guest. A Motel 6 employee made 

a photocopy of Plaintiff John D.’s consular identification card.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 31 and therefore deny those allegations.

32. On or about July 10, 2017, at approximately 6:00 a.m., two ICE agents 

approached and immediately handcuffed Plaintiff John D. in the Motel 6 parking lot 

as he approached his car to drive to work. ICE agents removed Plaintiff John D.’s 

wallet from his pocket and asked Plaintiff John D. for documentation showing 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 10 of 32
- 11 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

authorized presence in the United States. ICE agents interrogated Plaintiff John D. 

ICE agents took Plaintiff John D. into custody and transferred him to ICE’s Phoenix 

Field Office.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 32 and therefore deny those allegations.

33. At ICE’s Phoenix Field Office, ICE agents interrogated, fingerprinted, 

and issued Plaintiff John D. a “Notice to Appear.” Plaintiff John D. paid a $10,000 

bond and was subsequently permitted to leave the Field Office.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 33 and therefore deny those allegations.

34. Upon information and belief, ICE agents arrested Plaintiff John D. 

without a warrant and without reason to believe that Plaintiff John D. was likely to 

escape before a warrant could be obtained.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 34 and therefore deny those allegations.

e. Plaintiffs John M. and Jane N.

35. On or about June 28, 2017, Plaintiff John M. registered as a guest at the 

Motel 6 Phoenix West. Plaintiff Jane N. accompanied Plaintiff John M., who is her 

husband. Plaintiffs John M. and Jane N. checked into the Motel 6 Phoenix West to 

escape the heat because the air conditioning in their home was not functioning. 

Plaintiff John M. showed a Motel 6 employee his Mexican passport when he 

registered as a guest. A Motel 6 employee made a photocopy of Plaintiff John M.’s 

Mexican passport.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 35 and therefore deny those allegations.

36. On or about June 29, 2017, at approximately 6 a.m., three ICE agents 

banged loudly on the door of the room where Plaintiffs John M. and Jane N. slept. 

The ICE agents demanded entrance to the room and stated that they were searching 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 11 of 32
- 12 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

for a person. Plaintiff John M. opened the door. The ICE agents immediately entered 

the room and handcuffed Plaintiff John M. ICE agents interrogated Plaintiff John M. 

Plaintiff John M. answered the ICE agents’ questions. ICE agents fingerprinted 

Plaintiff John M.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 36 and therefore deny those allegations.

37. As ICE agents entered and detained Plaintiff John M., Plaintiff Jane N. 

was in the bathroom attempting to change clothing. Plaintiff John M. told ICE agents 

that Plaintiff Jane N. was sick and in recovery from a recent surgery, for which she 

was taking medication and bleeding regularly. ICE agents demanded that Plaintiff 

Jane N. exit the bathroom. Immediately after Plaintiff Jane N. exited the bathroom, 

ICE agents handcuffed her. ICE agents interrogated and fingerprinted Plaintiff Jane 

N. Plaintiff Jane N. answered the ICE agents’ questions. ICE agents arrested and 

transferred Plaintiffs John M. and Jane N. to ICE’s Phoenix Field Office.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 37 and therefore deny those allegations.

38. At ICE’s Phoenix Field Office, ICE agents separated Plaintiffs John M. 

and Jane N. ICE agents interrogated and issued Plaintiff John M. a “Notice to 

Appear.” Plaintiff John M. paid a $3,000 bond and was subsequently permitted to 

leave the Field Office. ICE agents transferred Plaintiff Jane N. to a detention center. 

ICE agents allowed Plaintiff John M. to speak with Plaintiff Jane N. at the Field 

Office for only a few minutes before transferring Plaintiff Jane N. to a detention 

center. The following day, on June 30, 2017, DHS removed Plaintiff Jane N. from the 

United States.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 38 and therefore deny those allegations.

39. Upon information and belief, ICE agents arrested Plaintiffs John M. and 

Jane N. without a warrant and without reason to believe that Plaintiffs John M. and 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 12 of 32
- 13 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

Jane N. were likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 39 and therefore deny those allegations.

f. Plaintiff John W.

40. On or about June 26, 2017, Plaintiff John W. registered as a guest at the 

Motel 6 Phoenix West. Plaintiff John W. was accompanied by his mother, brother, 

and two children. Plaintiff John W. and his family checked into the Motel 6 Phoenix 

West in order to attend a court hearing for Plaintiff John W.’s wife. Plaintiff John W. 

showed a Motel 6 employee his Washington state driver’s license when he registered 

as a guest. A Motel 6 employee made a photocopy of Plaintiff John W.’s Washington 

state driver’s license.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 40 and therefore deny those allegations.

41. On or about June 28, 2017, at approximately 6:00 a.m., Plaintiff John 

W. and his family awoke to the sound of someone pulling on the handle of their motel 

room door. Plaintiff John W. saw, through the window, an agent with a jacket 

identifying the agent as “police.” Plaintiff John W. opened the room door. ICE 

agents immediately pulled Plaintiff John W. by his hand and handcuffed him. ICE 

agents interrogated and fingerprinted Plaintiff John W. ICE agents entered the room 

and interrogated Plaintiff John W.’s mother, who was crying. ICE agents directed 

Plaintiff John W.’s mother to be quiet and console his oldest child, who was also 

crying. ICE agents arrested and transferred Plaintiff John W. to ICE’s Phoenix Field 

Office.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 41 and therefore deny those allegations.

42. At ICE’s Phoenix Field Office, ICE agents fitted Plaintiff John W. with 

an ankle bracelet monitor. ICE agents ordered Plaintiff John W. to report to ICE in 

Washington in a few days.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 13 of 32
- 14 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 42 and therefore deny those allegations.

43. Upon information and belief, ICE agents arrested Plaintiff John W. 

without a warrant and without reason to believe that Plaintiff John W. was likely to 

escape before a warrant could be obtained.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 43 and therefore deny those allegations.

g. Motel 6

44. Upon information and belief, Motel 6 maintains a policy and/or practice 

of disclosing guest registration information, including personal information, of its 

guests to DHS and ICE agents without a warrant or reasonable suspicion of a crime.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 44.

45. At all relevant times, Motel 6 employees, including Does 1-10, acted 

within the scope of their employment and pursuant to a policy and/or practice of 

disclosing the personal information of its guests, including Plaintiffs, to DHS and ICE 

agents. At all relevant times, Motel 6 directed and supervised its employees’ conduct 

pursuant to its policy and/or practice of disclosing guest registration information to 

DHS and ICE agents.

ANSWER: Paragraph 45 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 45 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

45.

h. Conspiracy with DHS and ICE

46. Beginning at least as early as February 2017, Motel 6 directed its 

employees to disclose guest registration information, including guests’ personal 

information, to ICE agents. Upon information and belief, Motel 6 maintained this 

policy and/or practice pursuant to an agreement between Motel 6, DHS and ICE. 

Upon information and belief, Motel 6 employees were encouraged by Motel 6 to act 

for the benefit of law enforcement and a relationship with law enforcement. Motel 6 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 14 of 32
- 15 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

and ICE maintained this policy and/or practice with the goal that ICE agents 

interrogate, detain, and arrest guests, including Plaintiffs, without a warrant or 

reasonable suspicion.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 46.

47. In furtherance of Motel 6’s goal, and for this purpose, Motel 6 obtained 

the personal information of its guests and disclosed it to ICE agents to facilitate ICE 

agents’ unreasonable and warrantless interrogation, detention, and arrest of its 

guests, including Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, Motel 6 disclosed Plaintiffs’ 

personal information, including names and room numbers, to ICE agents pursuant to 

an agreement between Motel 6 and ICE agents.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that certain corporate-owned properties responded 

to requests from DHS/ICE for guest information. Defendants otherwise deny the 

allegations in paragraph 47.

48. In furtherance of Motel 6’s goal, Motel 6 employees granted ICE agents 

access to gated and non-public areas that were under Motel 6’s exclusive control in 

order to facilitate ICE agents’ interrogation, detention, and arrest of guests, including 

Plaintiffs, without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.

ANSWER: Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 48 and therefore deny those allegations.

49. As was the plan, no arrest or search warrants were ever obtained by 

ICE for any guests at any Motel 6 locations. Instead, without warrants, ICE agents, 

supported by Motel 6 and its employees, unlawfully detained, interrogated, and 

arrested individuals without cause or consent and in violation of guests’ civil rights.

ANSWER: Paragraph 49 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 49 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

49.

50. By disclosing the personal information of its guests, including Plaintiffs, 

to DHS and ICE agents, Motel 6 performed a function that is traditionally the 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 15 of 32
- 16 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

exclusive prerogative of the federal government.

ANSWER: Paragraph 50 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 50 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

50.

51. Motel 6’s disclosure of guest information, and the conspiracy amongst 

all Defendants and ICE agents to unlawfully interrogate, detain, and arrest guests 

was planned and executed under color of state law, federal law, or both.

ANSWER: Paragraph 51 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 51 requires a response Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

51.

52. Motel 6’s privacy policy, available online, provides: “we are committed 

to safeguarding the privacy of the personal information that we gather.” Motel 6’s 

privacy policy further states: “[w]e may disclose Guest Information to law 

enforcement agencies . . . pursuant to a court order, or in compliance with any 

applicable law, regulation, rule or ordinance.”

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Motel 6 has a privacy policy available online. 

Defendants state that the full online privacy policy, a true and correct copy of which is 

attached as Exhibit A, is in writing and speaks for itself and denies that paragraph 52 

accurately or fully quotes that policy. In fact, the relevant part of the policy states: “We 

may disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, or may be required to 

disclose it during the discovery process in litigation, pursuant to a court order, or in

compliance with any applicable law, regulation, rule or ordinance.” Defendants deny any 

allegations in paragraph 52 that abbreviate the privacy policy available online.

53. At all relevant times, Motel 6, including Does 1-10, did not act pursuant 

to its privacy policy.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 53.

54. Plaintiffs maintained, at all relevant times, a reasonable expectation that 

their personal information, as contained in the guest registration information, would 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 16 of 32
- 17 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

not be shared with DHS and ICE agents. Plaintiffs also maintained, at all relevant 

times, a reasonable expectation of privacy and seclusion within their motel rooms.

ANSWER: Paragraph 54 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 54 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

54.

i. Intent to Discriminate

55. Plaintiffs shared their personal information and entered into an 

agreement with Motel 6 in order to stay the night at Motel 6 locations. By disclosing 

Plaintiffs’ personal information to DHS and ICE agents after they checked in, by 

violating its privacy policy as to Plaintiffs, and by intentionally violating the privacy 

of Plaintiffs, Motel 6 denied Plaintiffs the full benefits and enjoyment of their 

agreement with Motel 6, and treated Plaintiffs less favorably than other non-Latino 

guests.

ANSWER: Paragraph 55 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 55 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

55.

56. Motel 6 intended to discriminate against Plaintiffs and other Latinos on 

the basis of race and/or national origin when Motel 6, including Does 1-10, disclosed 

guests’ personal information to DHS and ICE agents. Motel 6 intended to deny 

Plaintiffs, on the basis of race and/or national origin, the full benefits and enjoyment 

of their agreement with Motel 6. On the basis of knowledge and belief, Motel 6 acted 

with the knowledge that this policy and/or practice would result in Plaintiffs being 

harmed on the basis of their race.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 56.

57. As a result of Motel 6’s unlawful policy and/or practice, Plaintiffs 

suffered damages, including but not limited to, emotional distress, depression, 

anxiety, mental suffering, loss of liberty, fear, and humiliation. Plaintiffs also 

incurred economic damages.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 17 of 32
- 18 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 57.

58. Motel 6 conspired with DHS and ICE agents to violate the Fourth 

Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and deprive Plaintiffs of the equal protection of the 

laws. Defendants acted in furtherance of the conspiracy when Motel 6 employees: (a) 

disclosed guest registration information to ICE agents; and (b) granted ICE agents 

access to gated and non-public areas under Motel 6’s exclusive control to facilitate 

ICE agents’ interrogation, detention, and arrest of guests, including Plaintiffs, 

without a warrant or reasonable suspicion of a crime. Motel 6 conspired with DHS 

and ICE agents to deny its Latino guests, including Plaintiffs, the full benefits and 

enjoyment of their agreement with Motel 6, and to discriminate against Plaintiffs on 

the basis of race and/or national origin.

ANSWER: Paragraph 58 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 58 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

58.

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

59. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations contained in the previous 

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have made allegations and that 

Plaintiffs purport to incorporate those allegations in paragraph 59. Defendants incorporate 

by reference their responses to those allegations.

60. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiffs bring this class action and seek 

certification of the claims and certain issues in this action on behalf of a Class defined 

as: All persons, who are within the jurisdiction of the United States, who stayed at a 

Motel 6 location and were subjected to Motel 6’s policy and/or practice of disclosing 

personal information to federal immigration agents between February 1, 2017 and 

the date of judgment in this action (the “Class”). Plaintiffs also seek to represent a 

subclass which consists of all Latinos who stayed at a Motel 6 location and were 

subjected to Motel 6’s policy and/or practice of disclosing personal information to 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 18 of 32
- 19 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

federal immigration agents. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a subclass which consists 

of all persons who stayed a Motel 6 location in Arizona and who were subjected to 

Motel 6’s policy and/or practice of disclosing personal information to federal 

immigration agents.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs purport to bring this lawsuit as a class 

action, that Plaintiffs seek certification of a Class, and that Plaintiffs also seek to represent 

two distinct subclasses. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 60.

61. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the Class and Subclass definitions if 

further investigation and discovery indicates that the Class and Subclass definitions 

should be narrowed, expanded, or otherwise modified. Excluded from the Class and 

Subclasses are governmental entities, Defendants, any entity in which Defendants 

have a controlling interest, and Defendants’ officers, directors, affiliates, legal 

representatives, employees, co-conspirators, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. 

Also excluded from the Class and Subclasses is any judge, justice, or judicial officer 

presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial 

staff.

ANSWER: Paragraph 61 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 61 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

61.

62. Plaintiffs are members of the Class and Subclasses.

ANSWER: Paragraph 62 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 62 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

62.

63. Upon information and belief, the members of the Class and Subclasses 

are so numerous that joinder of all of them is impracticable. Motel 6 has 

approximately 1,200 locations across the United States and in each of the 50 states. 

Plaintiffs do not know the precise number of Class and Subclass Members, as this 

information is in Motel 6’s possession.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 19 of 32
- 20 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

ANSWER: Paragraph 63 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 63 requires a response, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or 

information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 63 and therefore 

deny those allegations.

64. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class and Subclasses, 

and these questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual 

members. Common questions include, among others: (1) whether is it Motel 6’s 

policy and/or practice to disclose its guests’ personal information to federal 

immigration agents; (2) whether Plaintiffs and the Class (and Subclasses) suffered 

harm as a result of Motel 6’s unlawful policy and/or practice; (3) whether Plaintiffs 

and the Class (and Subclasses) are entitled to compensatory damages; (4) whether 

Plaintiffs and the Class (and Subclasses) are entitled to noneconomic damages; (5) 

what equitable and injunctive relief for the Class (and Subclasses) is warranted; and 

(6) the scope of a resulting permanent injunction.

ANSWER: Paragraph 64 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 64 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

64.

65. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class and Subclasses 

because: (1) Plaintiffs were within the jurisdiction of the United States; (2) Plaintiffs 

were subjected to Motel 6’s policy and/or practice of disclosing personal information 

to federal immigration agents; and (3) Plaintiffs were harmed as a result of Motel 6’s 

conduct. All of these claims are substantially shared by each and every member of the 

Class and Subclasses. All of the claims arise from the same course of conduct by 

Motel 6, and the relief sought is common.

ANSWER: Paragraph 65 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 65 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

65.

66. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 20 of 32
- 21 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

of the members of the Class and Subclasses. Plaintiffs have no conflict with any 

member of the Class or Subclasses. Plaintiffs are committed to the goal of having 

Defendants cease their policy and/or practice of disclosing guests’ personal 

information to federal immigration agents.

ANSWER: Paragraph 66 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 66 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

66.

67. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex 

class actions involving race and national origin discrimination.

ANSWER: Paragraph 67 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 67 requires a response, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or 

information to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in paragraph 67 and therefore 

deny those allegations.

68. The universe of people affected by Defendants’ unlawful policy and/or 

practice is ascertainable through Defendants’ records and, therefore, the Class and 

Subclasses are ascertainable.

ANSWER: Paragraph 68 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 68 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

68.

69. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) 

because Defendants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable 

to the Class and Subclasses, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief 

with respect to Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclasses as a whole. Defendants have 

denied the full enjoyment and benefits of accommodation to Plaintiffs and the Class 

and Subclasses by disclosing their personal information to federal immigration 

agents. Members of the Class and Subclass are entitled to injunctive relief to end 

Defendants’ common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policy and/or practice.

ANSWER: Paragraph 69 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 21 of 32
- 22 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

Insofar as paragraph 69 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

69.

70. Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions 

affecting only individual members of the Class and Subclasses, and because a class 

action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of 

this litigation since joinder of all members is impracticable. Members of the Class and 

Subclasses have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendants’ 

common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policy and/or practice. Damages are 

capable of measurement on a class-wide basis and will be calculated based on 

economic and noneconomic losses incurred as a proximate result of Defendants’ 

unlawful conduct. Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclasses will rely on common 

evidence to resolve their legal and factual questions. There are no pending actions 

raising similar claims for damages. The proposed representatives for the Class and 

Subclasses are residents of Arizona, with the exception of John W who is a resident of 

Washington. Defendants engage in continuous, permanent, and substantial activity in 

Arizona. There will be no undue difficulty in the management of this litigation as a 

class action.

ANSWER: Paragraph 70 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 70 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

70.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981

71. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations contained in the previous 

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have made allegations and that 

Plaintiffs purport to incorporate those allegations in paragraph 71. Defendants incorporate 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 22 of 32
- 23 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

by reference their responses to those allegations. 

72. Title 42 of the United States Code Section 1981 makes it unlawful for a 

private actor to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin in the making and 

enforcement of contracts.

ANSWER: Paragraph 72 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 72 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

72.

73. Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of 

their race and/or national origin by denying Plaintiffs “the enjoyment of all benefits, 

privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship” in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 1981(b).

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 73.

74. Plaintiffs suffered damages, including emotional distress and economic 

losses, in an amount to be determined at trial, and as a proximate result of 

Defendants’ conduct. Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 74.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Conspiracy in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)

75. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations contained in the previous 

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have made allegations and that 

Plaintiffs purport to incorporate those allegations in paragraph 75. Defendants incorporate 

by reference their responses to those allegations. Insofar as the remaining allegations in 

paragraph 75 require a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 75.

76. Title 42 of the United States Code Section 1985(3) provides a private 

right of action against individuals who conspire to deprive a person of the equal 

protection of the laws, or of having and exercising a right or privilege under the law.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 23 of 32
- 24 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

ANSWER: Paragraph 76 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 76 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

76.

77. Defendants are and/or were, at all material times, engaged in, and acted 

in furtherance of, a conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 77.

78. Defendants acted willfully, deliberately, maliciously or with reckless 

disregard for the Plaintiffs’ civil rights.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 78.

79. As a result of Defendants’ acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, 

Plaintiffs suffered damages, including, but not limited to, loss of liberty, humiliation, 

fear, and emotional distress. Plaintiffs are entitled to general and punitive damages in 

an amount to be determined at trial.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 79.

80. As a result of Defendants’ acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, 

Plaintiffs suffered damages, including emotional distress and economic losses, in an 

amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 80.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Fourth Amendment Violation

81. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations contained in the previous 

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have made allegations and that 

Plaintiffs purport to incorporate those allegations in paragraph 81. Defendants incorporate 

by reference their responses to those allegations. 

82. The Fourth Amendment provides “[t]he right of people to be secure in 

their persons” and protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” without a 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 24 of 32
- 25 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

warrant and without probable cause. U.S. Const. Amend. IV.

ANSWER: Paragraph 82 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 82 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

82.

83. Defendants intentionally violated Plaintiffs’ rights to be free from 

unreasonable and warrantless searches, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, by 

disclosing Plaintiffs’ personal information to federal immigration officials without a 

warrant or reasonable suspicion of a crime and by acting on behalf of law 

enforcement to facilitate the arrests of Plaintiffs.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 83.

84. Plaintiffs suffered damages, including emotional distress and economic 

losses, in an amount to be determined at trial, and as a proximate result of 

Defendants’ conduct.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 84.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Consumer Fraud in Violation of A.R.S. § 44-1522

85. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations contained in the previous 

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have made allegations and that 

Plaintiffs purport to incorporate those allegations in paragraph 85. Defendants incorporate 

by reference their responses to those allegations. 

86. A.R.S. § 44-1522 makes it unlawful to engage in deception, a deceptive 

or unfair act or practice, or misrepresentation in connection with the sale of 

merchandise.

ANSWER: Paragraph 86 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 86 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

86.

87. Defendants are responsible for the conduct of their employees under the 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 25 of 32
- 26 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

doctrine of respondeat superior.

ANSWER: Paragraph 87 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 87 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

87.

88. Defendants violated A.R.S. § 44-1522 by misrepresenting their privacy 

policy and disclosing Plaintiffs’ personal information to DHS and ICE agents.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 88.

89. Plaintiffs suffered damages, including emotional distress and economic 

losses, in an amount to be determined at trial, and as a proximate result of 

Defendants’ conduct.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 89.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Tort for Intrusion Upon Seclusion in Violation of Arizona Law

90. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations contained in the previous 

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have made allegations and that 

Plaintiffs purport to incorporate those allegations in paragraph 90. Defendants incorporate 

by reference their responses to those allegations. 

91. Arizona law makes it unlawful to intentionally intrude upon the 

seclusion or private affairs of another in a highly offensive manner.

ANSWER: Paragraph 91 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 91 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

91.

92. Defendants are responsible for the conduct of their employees under the 

doctrine of respondeat superior.

ANSWER: Paragraph 92 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 92 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

92.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 26 of 32
- 27 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

93. Defendants’ disclosure of Plaintiffs’ personal information to federal 

immigration officials constitutes an invasion of Plaintiffs’ privacy in violation of 

Arizona law.

ANSWER: Paragraph 93 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 93 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

93.

94. Plaintiffs suffered damages, including emotional distress and economic 

losses, in an amount to be determined at trial, and as a proximate result of 

Defendants’ conduct.

ANSWER: Paragraph 94 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 94 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

94.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in Violation of Arizona Law

95. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations contained in the previous 

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have made allegations and that 

Plaintiffs purport to incorporate those allegations in paragraph 95. Defendants incorporate 

by reference their responses to those allegations. 

96. Arizona law makes it unlawful to engage in extreme and outrageous 

conduct that may cause severe emotional distress to another.

ANSWER: Paragraph 96 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 96 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

96.

97. Defendants are responsible for the conduct of their employees under the 

doctrine of respondeat superior.

ANSWER: Paragraph 97 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 97 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 27 of 32
- 28 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

97.

98. Defendants’ disclosure of Plaintiffs’ personal information to federal 

immigration officials constitutes the intentional infliction of emotional distress in 

violation of Arizona law.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 98.

99. Plaintiffs suffered damages, including emotional distress and economic 

losses, in an amount to be determined at trial, and as a proximate result of 

Defendants’ conduct.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 99.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Contract in Violation of Arizona Law

100. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations contained in the previous 

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have made allegations and that 

Plaintiffs purport to incorporate those allegations in paragraph 100. Defendants 

incorporate by reference their responses to those allegations. 

101. Arizona law makes it unlawful for a party to a contract to engage in a 

material breach of a contract.

ANSWER: Paragraph 101 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 101 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

101.

102. Defendants are responsible for the conduct of their employees under the 

doctrine of respondeat superior.

ANSWER: Paragraph 102 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 102 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

102.

103. Defendants materially breached their contract with Plaintiffs, in 

violation of Arizona law, by disclosing guests’ personal information in violation of 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 28 of 32
- 29 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

Defendants’ privacy policy, and by denying Plaintiffs the benefit of their contract 

with Defendants.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 103.

104. Plaintiffs suffered damages, including emotional distress and economic 

losses, in an amount to be determined at trial, and as a proximate result of 

Defendants’ conduct.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 104.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

False Imprisonment in Violation of Arizona Law

105. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the allegations contained in the previous 

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have made allegations and that 

Plaintiffs purport to incorporate those allegations in paragraph 105. Defendants 

incorporate by reference their responses to those allegations. 

106. Arizona law makes it unlawful for a party to intentionally restrain 

another person to an area within the party’s control without lawful authority or 

consent.

ANSWER: Paragraph 106 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 106 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

106.

107. Arizona law also makes it unlawful for a party to instigate or participate 

in the false imprisonment of another.

ANSWER: Paragraph 107 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Insofar as paragraph 107 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

107.

108. Defendants are responsible for the conduct of their employees under the 

doctrine of respondeat superior.

ANSWER: Paragraph 108 states legal conclusions that do not require a response. 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 29 of 32
- 30 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

Insofar as paragraph 108 requires a response, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 

108.

109. Defendants intentionally instigated or participated in the false 

imprisonment of Plaintiffs, in violation of Arizona law, by disclosing Plaintiffs’ 

personal information to federal immigration officials who detained Plaintiffs without 

a warrant or reasonable suspicion of a crime and by acting on behalf of law 

enforcement to facilitate the arrests of Plaintiffs.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 109.

110. Plaintiffs suffered damages, including emotional distress and economic 

losses, in an amount to be determined at trial, and as a proximate result of 

Defendants’ conduct. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for physical discomfort 

or inconvenience, and for any resulting physical illness or injury to health.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 110.

DEFENSES

1. Failure to state a claim. The Class Action Complaint fails to state a claim 

on which relief can be granted.

2. Supremacy Clause. The Class Action Complaint is barred by the 

Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows:

1. That Plaintiffs be denied all forms of relief requested in the Class 

Action Complaint;

2. That the Class Action Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and 

judgment entered in favor of Defendants;

3. That Defendants be awarded their costs and attorneys’ fees to the 

extent allowable by law; and

4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 30 of 32
- 31 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

DATED this 8th day of May, 2018.

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

By: s/Patricia Lee Refo 

Don Bivens

Patricia Lee Refo

One Arizona Center

400 E. Van Buren St., Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

Attorneys for Defendant Motel 6 

Operating L.P., G6 Hospitality LLC 

dba Motel 6

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 31 of 32
- 32 -

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

Snell & Wilmer

L.L.P.

LAW OFFICES

One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202

602.382.6000

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 8th, 2018, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to all attorneys of record.

Thomas A. Saenz

Andres R. Holguin-Flores

Andres J. Gallegos

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90014

Nina Perales 

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

110 Broadway St., Suite 300

San Antonio, TX 78205

Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.

Ortega Law Firm, P.C.

361 East Coronado Road, Suite 101

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

s/Gail Lass

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 23 Filed 05/08/18 Page 32 of 32