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

1 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Thomas A. Saenz* (Cal. Bar. No. 159430)

Andrés R. Holguin-Flores* (Cal. Bar No. 305860)

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

634 S. Spring St., 11th Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90014

Telephone: (213) 629-2512

E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org

 aholguin-flores@maldef.org

*admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Additional Counsel Listed on Next Page

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; and G6 Hospitality LLC, 

a limited liability company, dba Motel 

6;

Defendants

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

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED CLASS 

ACTION COMPLAINT FOR 

DECLARATORY AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 1 of 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

2 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Nina Perales* (Tex. Bar No. 24005046)

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

110 Broadway St., Suite 300 

San Antonio, TX 78205 

Telephone: (210) 224-5476

E-mail: nperales@maldef.org

* admitted pro hac vice

Daniel R. Ortega, Jr. (Ariz. Bar No. 005015)

ORTEGA LAW FIRM, P.C.

361 East Coronado Rd., Suite 101

Phoenix, AZ 85004-1525

Telephone: (602) 386-4455 

Facsimile: (602) 386-4480

E-mail: danny@ortegalaw.com

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 2 of 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

3 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Defendants Motel 6 Operating, L.P. and G6 Hospitality LLC (hereafter, 

collectively referred to as “Motel 6”) employed a corporate policy and/or practice of 

disclosing guest registration information, including guests’ personal information, to 

federal immigration authorities.

1

 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. 

2. Motel 6 disclosed guests’ personal information to federal immigration 

authorities without requiring a warrant or reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity, in 

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

to assist federal immigration authorities in unlawfully arresting or otherwise detaining 

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

federal immigration authorities 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.

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).

III. PARTIES

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

 1 “Federal immigration authorities” means the following: United States Department of 

Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Patrol, 

Homeland Security Investigations, their officers or employees, and any other employee of 

the Department of Homeland Security whose primary responsibility is enforcement of 

federal immigration laws.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 3 of 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

4 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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”).

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.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15. From February 2015 through May 31, 2019, Motel 6 employees at multiple 

Motel 6 locations in Phoenix, Arizona and throughout the United States disclosed the 

personal information of its guests to federal immigration authorities without requiring a 

warrant. These Motel 6 employees acted under 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 federal immigration authorities’ unreasonable and warrantless interrogation, 

detention, and arrest of its guests, including Plaintiffs.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 4 of 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

5 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

a. Plaintiff Jane V.

16. 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. 

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

immigration authorities banged loudly on the door of the room where Plaintiff Jane V. and 

her children slept. The federal immigration authorities verbally identified themselves as 

“police.” Plaintiff Jane V. opened the door. Federal immigration authorities interrogated 

Plaintiff Jane V. in front of her children. One of the federal immigration authorities

referred to Plaintiff Jane V. by name and asked her to confirm her identity. Federal 

immigration authorities threatened to separate Plaintiff Jane V. from her children. 

Plaintiff Jane V. answered the federal immigration authorities’ questions. After 

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

telling her to report to federal immigration authorities’ Phoenix Field Office in the next 

few days.

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

presented herself at their Phoenix Field Office. At the Field Office, federal immigration 

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

When Plaintiff Jane V. asked a federal immigration authority employee if a Motel 6 

employee had provided her personal information to federal immigration authorities, the 

federal immigration authority employee laughed and told her that her name had 

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

19. Upon information and belief, federal immigration authorities 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.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 5 of 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

6 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

b. Plaintiff John A.

20. 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 passport. 

21. On or about July 6, 2017, at approximately 5:00 a.m., three federal 

immigration authority employees 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 federal immigration authority employees 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. Federal immigration authorities interrogated Plaintiff John 

A. outside of the motel room. One of the federal immigration authority employees

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

Plaintiff John A. answered the federal immigration authorities’ questions. Federal 

immigration authorities handcuffed and arrested Plaintiff John A. Federal immigration 

authorities transferred Plaintiff John A. to their Phoenix Field Office in a van with others 

whom federal immigration authorities had detained that morning at the Motel 6 Phoenix 

West.

22. At the Field Office, federal immigration authorities interrogated, 

fingerprinted, and issued Plaintiff John A. a “Notice to Appear.” When Plaintiff John A.

asked a federal immigration authority employee if a Motel 6 employee had provided his 

personal information to federal immigration authorities, the federal immigration authority 

employee 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.

23. 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 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 6 of 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

7 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

under a company policy and/or practice, granted federal immigration authorities access to 

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

24. Upon information and belief, federal immigration authorities 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.

c. Plaintiffs John E. and Jane F.

25. 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.

26. 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, a federal 

immigration authority vehicle parked in front of Plaintiff John E.’s car, blocking it from 

leaving. Federal immigration authorities exited the vehicle and approached Plaintiff John 

E.’s car. One of the federal immigration authority employees referred to Plaintiff John E.

by name and asked Plaintiff John E. to confirm his identity. Plaintiff John E. saw federal 

immigration authorities holding a paper that, based on his knowledge and belief, 

contained his name and room number. Federal immigration authorities interrogated 

Plaintiff John E. Plaintiff John E. answered the federal immigration authorities’

questions. Federal immigration authorities handcuffed and placed Plaintiff John E. into a 

van. Plaintiff John E. overheard, on a federal immigration authority employee’s radio, 

that federal immigration authorities were investigating four or five other rooms at the 

Motel 6 Phoenix West. Federal immigration authorities arrested and transferred Plaintiff 

John E. to their Phoenix Field Office. 

27. At the Phoenix Field Office, federal immigration authorities interrogated, 

fingerprinted, and issued Plaintiff John E. a “Notice to Appear.” When Plaintiff John E.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 7 of 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

8 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

asked a federal immigration authority employee if a Motel 6 employee provided them his 

personal information, he laughed and told Plaintiff John E. that federal immigration 

authorities arrested him during a standard raid. Federal immigration authorities

transferred Plaintiff John E. to an immigration detention center where he was held for 

more than 30 days before he paid a $7,500.00 bond and was released. 

28. After detaining Plaintiff John E. in the Motel 6 parking lot, federal 

immigration authorities banged loudly on the door of the room where Plaintiff Jane F. and 

her three children slept. Plaintiff Jane F. opened the door. Federal immigration 

authorities informed Plaintiff Jane F. that her husband had been arrested. Federal 

immigration authorities interrogated Plaintiff Jane F. in front of her children. Plaintiff 

Jane F. answered the federal immigration authorities’ questions. Federal immigration 

authorities left Plaintiff Jane F. with her children.

29. Upon information and belief, federal immigration authorities 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.

d. Plaintiff John D.

30. 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. 

31. On or about July 10, 2017, at approximately 6:00 a.m., two federal 

immigration authority employees approached and immediately handcuffed Plaintiff John 

D. in the Motel 6 parking lot as he approached his car to drive to work. Federal 

immigration authorities removed Plaintiff John D.’s wallet from his pocket and asked 

Plaintiff John D. for documentation showing authorized presence in the United States. 

Federal immigration authorities interrogated Plaintiff John D. Federal immigration 

authorities arrested and transferred Plaintiff John D. to their Phoenix Field Office. 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 8 of 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

9 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

32. At the Phoenix Field Office, federal immigration authorities 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.

33. Upon information and belief, federal immigration authorities 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.

e. Plaintiffs John M. and Jane N.

34. 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 passport. 

35. On or about June 29, 2017, at approximately 6 a.m., three federal 

immigration authority employees banged loudly on the door of the room where Plaintiffs 

John M. and Jane N. slept. Federal immigration authorities demanded entrance to the 

room and stated that they were searching for a person. Plaintiff John M. opened the door. 

Federal immigration authorities immediately entered the room and handcuffed Plaintiff 

John M. Federal immigration authorities interrogated Plaintiff John M. Plaintiff John M.

answered the federal immigration authorities’ questions. Federal immigration authorities

fingerprinted Plaintiff John M.

36. As federal immigration authorities entered and detained Plaintiff John M., 

Plaintiff Jane N. was in the bathroom attempting to change clothing. Plaintiff John M.

told federal immigration authorities that Plaintiff Jane N. was sick and in recovery from a 

recent surgery, for which she was taking medication and bleeding regularly. Federal 

immigration authorities demanded that Plaintiff Jane N. exit the bathroom. Immediately 

after Plaintiff Jane N. exited the bathroom, federal immigration authorities handcuffed 

her. Federal immigration authorities interrogated and fingerprinted Plaintiff Jane N. 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 9 of 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

10 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Jane N. answered the federal immigration authorities’ questions. Federal 

immigration authorities arrested and transferred Plaintiffs John M. and Jane N. to their

Phoenix Field Office. 

37. At the Phoenix Field Office, federal immigration authorities separated 

Plaintiffs John M. and Jane N. Federal immigration authorities 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. Federal immigration authorities

transferred Plaintiff Jane N. to a detention center. Federal immigration authorities

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, federal immigration authorities removed Plaintiff Jane N. from the United 

States.

38. Upon information and belief, federal immigration authorities arrested 

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

Plaintiffs John M. and Jane N. were likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained.

f. Plaintiff John W.

39. 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.

40. 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. Federal immigration 

authorities immediately pulled Plaintiff John W. by his hand and handcuffed him. Federal 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 10 of 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

11 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

immigration authorities interrogated and fingerprinted Plaintiff John W. Federal 

immigration authorities entered the room without consent and interrogated Plaintiff John 

W.’s mother, who was crying. Federal immigration authorities directed Plaintiff John 

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

immigration authorities arrested and transferred Plaintiff John W. to their Phoenix Field 

Office.

41. At the Phoenix Field Office, federal immigration authorities fitted Plaintiff 

John W. with an ankle bracelet monitor. Federal immigration authorities ordered Plaintiff 

John W. to report to the field office in the state of Washington in a few days.

42. Upon information and belief, federal immigration authorities 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.

g. Motel 6

43. Upon information and belief, Motel 6 maintained a policy and/or practice of 

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

federal immigration authorities without a warrant or reasonable suspicion of a crime.

44. At all relevant times, Motel 6 employees acted within the scope of their 

employment and under a policy and/or practice of disclosing the personal information of 

its guests, including Plaintiffs, to federal immigration authorities. At all relevant times, 

Motel 6 directed and supervised its employees’ conduct under its policy and/or practice of 

disclosing guest registration information to federal immigration authorities.

h. Conspiracy with federal immigration authorities

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

to disclose guest registration information, including guests’ personal information, to 

federal immigration authorities. Upon information and belief, Motel 6 maintained this 

policy and/or practice through an agreement between Motel 6 and federal immigration 

authorities. 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 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 11 of 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

12 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

6 and federal immigration authorities maintained this policy and/or practice with the goal 

that federal immigration authorities interrogate, detain, and arrest guests, including 

Plaintiffs, without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.

46. In furtherance of Motel 6’s goal, Motel 6 obtained the personal information 

of its guests and disclosed it to federal immigration authorities to facilitate federal 

immigration authorities’ 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 federal 

immigration authorities under an agreement between Motel 6 and federal immigration 

authorities.

47. In furtherance of Motel 6’s goal, Motel 6 employees granted federal 

immigration authorities access to gated and non-public areas under Motel 6’s exclusive 

control to facilitate federal immigration authorities’ interrogation, detention, and arrest of 

guests, including Plaintiffs, without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.

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

immigration authorities for any guests at any Motel 6 locations. Instead, without judicial 

or administrative warrants, federal immigration authorities, supported by Motel 6 and its 

employees, unlawfully detained, interrogated, and arrested individuals without cause or 

consent and in violation of guests’ civil rights.

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

federal immigration authorities, Motel 6 performed a function that is traditionally the 

exclusive prerogative of the federal government.

50. The conspiracy amongst all Defendants and federal immigration authorities

to unlawfully interrogate, detain, and arrest guests was planned and executed under color 

of state law, federal law, or both.

51. 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 . 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 12 of 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

13 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

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

ordinance.” 

52. At all relevant times, Motel 6 did not follow its privacy policy.

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

their personal information, as contained in the guest registration information, would not be 

shared with federal immigration authorities. Plaintiffs also maintained, at all relevant 

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

i. Intent to Discriminate

54. 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 federal immigration authorities 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. Motel 6 intended to 

discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of race or national origin when Motel 6, 

disclosed Plaintiffs’ personal information to federal immigration authorities. On the basis 

of knowledge and belief, Motel 6 acted with the knowledge that this policy and/or practice 

would result in the harm suffered by Plaintiffs.

55. 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.

56. Motel 6 conspired with federal immigration authorities 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) violated 

the privacy of its guests by disclosing guest registration information to federal 

immigration authorities; and (b) granted federal immigration authorities access to gated 

and non-public areas under Motel 6’s exclusive control to facilitate federal immigration 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 13 of 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

14 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

authorities’ interrogation, detention, and arrest of guests, including Plaintiffs, without a 

warrant or reasonable suspicion. Motel 6 conspired with federal immigration authorities

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.

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

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

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here. 

58. Under 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 whose personal information was disclosed, under Motel 6’s policy and/or 

practice, to federal immigration authorities at any time between February 1, 2015 and the 

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

consisting of all persons who stayed at Motel 6 location and whom federal immigration 

authorities interrogated, arrested, detained, and/or placed in immigration removal 

proceedings as a result of a guests’ information being shared with federal immigration 

authorities.

59. 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. 

60. Plaintiffs are members of the Class and Subclasses.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 14 of 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

15 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

61. 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.

62. 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 authorities; (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.

63. 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 authorities; 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.

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

authorities.

65. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class 

actions involving race and national origin discrimination.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 15 of 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

16 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

66. 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.

67. Class certification is appropriate under 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 authorities. Members of the 

Class and Subclass are entitled to injunctive relief to end Defendants’ common, uniform, 

unfair, and discriminatory policy and/or practice.

68. Class certification is also appropriate under 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 was 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.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 16 of 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

17 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

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

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

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here. 

70. 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.

71. Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of their 

race 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).

72. 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.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

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

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

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here.

74. 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.

75. 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).

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

disregard for the Plaintiffs’ civil rights.

77. 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 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 17 of 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

18 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

emotional distress. Plaintiffs are entitled to general and punitive damages in an amount to 

be determined at trial.

78. 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.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Fourth Amendment Violation

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

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here. 

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

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

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

81. 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 authorities without a 

warrant or reasonable suspicion of a crime.

82. 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.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

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

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

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here. 

84. 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.

85. Defendants are legally responsible for the conduct of their employees.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 18 of 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

19 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

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

policy and disclosing Plaintiffs’ personal information to federal immigration authorities.

87. 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.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Tort for Intrusion Upon Seclusion in Violation of Arizona Law

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

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here. 

89. Arizona law makes it unlawful to intentionally intrude upon the seclusion or 

private affairs of another in a highly offensive manner.

90. Defendants are legally responsible for the conduct of their employees.

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

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

Arizona law.

92. 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.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in Violation of Arizona Law

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

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here. 

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

that may cause severe emotional distress to another. 

95. Defendants are legally responsible for the conduct of their employees.

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

immigration authorities constitutes the intentional infliction of emotional distress in 

violation of Arizona law.

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 19 of 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

20 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

97. 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.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Contract in Violation of Arizona Law

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

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here. 

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

material breach of the contract.

100. Defendants are legally responsible for the conduct of their employees.

101. Defendants materially breached their contract with Plaintiffs, in violation of 

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

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

102. 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.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

False Imprisonment in Violation of Arizona Law

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

paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth here. 

104. 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. 

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

the false imprisonment of another.

106. Defendants are legally responsible for the conduct of their employees.

107. Defendants intentionally instigated or participated in the false imprisonment 

of Plaintiffs, in violation of Arizona law, by disclosing Plaintiffs’ personal information to 

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 20 of 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

21 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

federal immigration authorities who detained Plaintiffs without a warrant or reasonable 

suspicion of a crime.

108. 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.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

109. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court award:

a. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ policy and/or practice of 

disclosing guests’ information to federal immigration authorities violates the United States 

Constitution and federal and state law;

b. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining and restraining 

Defendants, their representatives, successors, assigns, officers, agents, servants, 

employees, and all other persons acting or claiming to act or, on behalf of, or in active 

concert or participation with Defendants, from continuing or engaging in the unlawful 

conduct complained of herein;

c. Monetary damages in an amount to be determined;

d. A civil penalty in an amount to be determined for violation of the Arizona 

Consumer Fraud Act;

e. Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and

f. Such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 21 of 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

22 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Dated: June 5, 2019 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND

/s/Andres R. Holguin-Flores

Nina Perales

Thomas A. Saenz

Andrés R. Holguin-Flores

Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 54 Filed 06/05/19 Page 22 of 22