C. v. Rashid
2:23-cv-02056
| D. Nev. | Jun 26, 2025Background
- Plaintiff alleges being sex trafficked at various Las Vegas hotel properties and nightclubs over several years, bringing claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) against multiple hospitality and entertainment entities.
- The court previously dismissed many claims—some due to lack of personal jurisdiction (Radisson), and others for failure to state a claim—granting plaintiff leave to amend specific TVPRA claims.
- Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), adding several new defendants and clarifying her claims, including equitable tolling and the applicability of the discovery rule and continuing violations doctrine.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, primarily arguing expiration of the statute of limitations, failure to state a claim under TVPRA, and insufficient factual detail as required by federal pleading standards.
- The court granted full dismissal of some defendants (Radisson, The Light Group, MGM Resorts, Aria, Nevada Property 1, The One Group, and The One Group Hospitality) and denied dismissal of TVPRA beneficiary liability claims against Wynn, MGM Grand, and STK, but gave plaintiff leave to amend certain perpetrator liability claims.
- Plaintiff was permitted 21 days to amend her complaint to cure deficiencies relating to specific TVPRA perpetrator claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of Limitations on TVPRA Claims | Claims timely due to equitable tolling, discovery rule, or continuing violations doctrine | Claims are time-barred per TVPRA's 10-year limit; no basis for tolling or exceptions | Most claims time-barred; continuing violations doctrine applies for some, but not all, Defendants. |
| Equitable Tolling | Extraordinary circumstances/existing trauma prevented earlier filing; acted diligently once aware | No extraordinary circumstances; Plaintiff did not pursue rights diligently | No equitable tolling; allegations did not meet standard. |
| Applicability of Discovery Rule or Continuing Violations | The TVPRA accrual should be delayed until discovery, or continuous violations should toll limitations | TVPRA accrual occurs when cause of action arises; discovery rule inapplicable; no continuing tort | Discovery rule inapplicable; continuing violations doctrine applies for claims spanning period into 2014. |
| Sufficiency of TVPRA Beneficiary/Perpetrator Pleading | Detailed allegations support claims; leave to amend should be granted to cure any deficiencies | Insufficient specific facts, improper group pleading, failure to show knowing involvement | Claims against certain parties dismissed for lack of facts; leave to amend perpetrator claims against some. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requires more than labels and conclusions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (facial plausibility standard on a motion to dismiss)
- Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467 (need to re-plead dismissed claims to preserve for appeal)
- Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co., 35 F.4th 1159 (TVPRA "knew or should have known" standard is negligence)
- Mayview Corp. v. Rodstein, 620 F.2d 1347 (mental state standards in civil liability)