Ninth Circuit reinstates suit over sex trafficking claims in Nevada brothels

A lower court dismissed the suit over the plaintiff's desire to remain anonymous.LAS VEGAS (CN) — A Ninth Circuit panel breathed new life Wednesday into a formerly dismissed case of a woman who claimed she’d been sex trafficked through legal Nevada brothels.A lower court dismissed Jane Doe’s case last year after the judge denied her motion to use a pseudonym. The judge determined Doe hadn’t shown she needed to deviate from the standard that court cases are public.The three-judge appeals panel determined the lower court abused its discretion in dismissing the case.Typically, judges must balance the need for anonymity, prejudice it could cause the other side and the public’s interest in knowing who’s involved.“The District Court committed a clear error in judgment in the analysis that it undertook to weigh those three factors,” the panel wrote.Doe has claimed she was trafficked and exploited from 2017 to 2022 within Nevada’s legal, regulated brothel system. She’s also argued certain brothels have profited from a legalized system of prostitution that amounts to sex trafficking.Doe said she needed anonymity because she may face retaliation and fears for her safety and reputation.The panel wrote the lower court, while acknowledging her claims, improperly discounted them. It also determined that revealing her identity would open Doe to physical and psychological vulnerability, along with embarrassment, but those claims would be true for anyone in that industry.“The fact that Doe’s assertions may apply broadly to others in the industry does not necessarily mean that Doe lacks a need for anonymity for those same reasons,” the panel wrote. “Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court made a clear error in judgment by giving little or no weight to Doe’s assertions of her need for anonymity.”Pivoting to the second factor, the panel wrote the lower court didn’t properly evaluate prejudice to the other side. That lower court determined an anonymous plaintiff would prejudice the defendants because Doe sought to litigate the case publicly, and shielding her identity would cause prejudice.The panel called that decision “erroneous,” as both sides would face restrictions on using the name publicly. Also, the defendants could access her identity through discovery and use the information in the case.“Accordingly, the District Court made a clear error in judgment by overestimating the prejudice that defendants may face,” the panel wrote.The appeals panel also found that the lower court erred in weighing the public’s interest in Doe’s real name. The lower court determined the public is interested in assessing the plaintiff’s credibility. However, this factor should be used to determine public interest in knowing someone’s identity, not its interest in determining their credibility.“The public’s perceptions of a party’s credibility are irrelevant because credibility determinations are reserved for the jury,” the panel wrote.Doe filed her suit in February 2024. In it, she describes Nevada’s legal brothels as a state-sanctioned sex trade, saying they violate the 13th Amendment’s prohibition on slavery and indentured servitude.In her suit, she argues that Nevada prohibits independent prostitution. That means legal prostitution must occur under someone else’s control, whom Doe calls pimps. That requirement sets the stage for exploitation under local government oversight.Additionally, women in these legal brothels face “debt bondage,” like being locked inside brothels for weeks, giving the brothel 50% of their earnings and obeying its rules or being fined.Attorneys on either side couldn’t be reached for comment.The appeals panel included U.S. Circuit Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez, Donald Trump and Joe Biden appointees, respectively. U.S. District Judge John Holcomb, a Trump appointee in the Central District of California, sat by designation.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads