Anya Roberts v. eXp Realty, LLC
2:23-cv-10492
| C.D. Cal. | May 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Anya Roberts, a Florida real estate agent, sued eXp Realty, LLC and others, including Emily Keenan, alleging sexual assault and related torts during a work conference in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico in February 2020.
- The complaint included federal TVPRA claims and several state tort claims: sexual battery, civil battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Keenan.
- Defendant Keenan, who resides in Arizona, moved to dismiss alleging lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and statute of limitations.
- Keenan had already filed an Answer to the suit without raising objections as to jurisdiction or venue.
- Case filed in December 2023; conduct alleged to have occurred in February 2020.
- The court considered both U.S. (California) and Mexican law regarding the applicable statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal Jurisdiction & Venue | Jurisdiction/venue appropriate; no argument of waiver by Roberts. | Objections to jurisdiction and venue; asserted court lacks them. | Objections waived; not timely raised. |
| Statute of Limitations (CA law) | California sexual assault law could extend/toll limitations. | Claims time-barred; plaintiff is non-CA resident, events out-of-state. | CA law does not revive claims by non-residents. |
| Statute of Limitations (Mexico law) | Mexican law provides discovery rule/equitable tolling under Article 1158. | Mexican law provides two-year statute, no tolling for these tort claims. | No tolling; two-year limit under Mexican law. |
| Equitable Tolling/Discovery Rule | Plaintiff unable to recall due to trauma, cites U.S. precedent for tolling. | Not available under Mexican statute; U.S. law not applicable. | No support for equitable tolling under MX law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility pleading standard)
- Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486 (defenses like jurisdiction/venue must be timely raised or are waived)
- Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992 (statute of limitations apparent on complaint can be grounds for dismissal)
- Hatfield v. Halifax PLC, 564 F.3d 1177 (California tolling/statute of limitations favors only state residents)
- Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204 (complaint not dismissed unless no set of facts makes claim timely)