Fleites v. MindGeek S.A.R.L

Full title:Serena FLEITES, Plaintiff, v. MINDGEEK S.A.R.L., et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, C.D. California.

Case No.: CV 21-04920-CJC(ADSx)

Date published: Jul 29, 2022


In this case, Plaintiff Serena Fleites brings numerous causes of action against Defendants MindGeek S.A.R.L., MG Freesites Ltd., MindGeek USA Inc., MG Premium Ltd., MG Global Entertainment Inc., 9219-1568 Quebec, Inc., Bernd Bergmair, Feras Antoon, Davis Tassillo, Corey Urman (collectively, the “MindGeek Defendants”), and Visa, Inc., as well as certain doe defendants, referred to as the “Colbeck Capital Does” and the “Bergmair Does.” (Dkt. 124-3 [First Amended Complaint, hereinafter “FAC”].) Against Visa, Plaintiff raises causes of action under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and False Advertisement Law (“FAL”), and common law civil conspiracy. (Id. ) Now before the Court is Visa’s motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 138 [Motion], Dkt. 138-1 [Memorandum, hereafter “Mem.”].) For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART .



For the foregoing reasons, Visa’s motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND . However, leave to amend is limited. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to amend her section 1591(a)(2) claim against Visa. Such amendment would be futile because Plaintiff simply has no basis for claiming Visa directly participated in the sex trafficking ventures that harmed her. Plaintiff shall withhold any amendment until the parties have completed jurisdictional discovery, which the Court has ordered in a companion order. (See Dkt. 167.)

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

nine + 16 =