University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Unknown Party v. Motel 6 IM-AZ-0025
Docket / Court 2:18-cv-00242-DGC ( D. Ariz. )
State/Territory Arizona
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Attorney Organization MALDEF
Case Summary
On January 23, 2018, eight individuals who separately stayed at various Motel 6 locations in Arizona filed this class action in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs sued Motel 6 Operating L.P., its parent company G6 Hospitality LLC, and 10 unnamed employees of various ... read more >
On January 23, 2018, eight individuals who separately stayed at various Motel 6 locations in Arizona filed this class action in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs sued Motel 6 Operating L.P., its parent company G6 Hospitality LLC, and 10 unnamed employees of various Motel 6 locations throughout Arizona under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), requested class certification and sought declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief, as well as a civil penalty and attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiffs claimed that Motel 6's policy of disclosing guests' information to DHS and ICE agents without requiring a warrant or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity violated the Fourth Amendment, as well as federal and state laws. Specifically, they claimed that the defendants discriminated against them on the basis of race and/or national origin by denying Latino guests the full and equal enjoyment of the contractual relationship with Motel 6. The plaintiffs alleged that by assisting DHS and ICE agents, Motel 6 engaged in a conspiracy to violate the plaintiff's rights and disclosed information in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. They claimed that these violations led to the plaintiffs' false imprisonment and caused tortious emotional distress. In their answer, the defendants alleged that they correctly cooperated with federal law enforcement, and that the federal law enforcement agents were responsible for ensuring that their actions were lawful.

The case proceeded before Judge David G. Campbell. However, by the end of May 2018, the parties indicated their belief that the case would be resolved quickly. On July 6, 2018, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement. On November 2, 2018, they filed a request for conditional class certification and preliminary approval of the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement.

First, they requested a primary class of "all persons who stayed at an Operated Location between February 1, 2017, and November 2, 2018, and whose Guest Information was provided to Federal Immigration Authorities by Defendants’ employees, except those who file a timely request to opt-out of the monetary damages provisions." It then named two additional subclasses: class 2) "all persons who are not members of Class 3 who were questioned and/or interrogated by Federal Immigration Authorities at an Operated Location as a result of a Primary Class Member’s Guest Information being provided to Federal Immigration Authorities"; and class 3) "all persons who were placed in immigration removal proceedings in connection with their encounter with Federal Immigration Authorities at an Operated Location as a result of a Primary Class Member’s Guest Information being provided to Federal Immigration Authorities."

The parties requested the court to approve the following amounts in monetary damages: a) $50 in damages per guest whose information was shared with Federal Immigration Authorities, up to a class-wide total of $1,000,000; b) $1,000 in damages to each Class Member questioned by FIA during his or her stay; and c) an amount of at least $7,500 to each Class Member who was placed in immigration removal proceedings in connection with their encounter with FIA during his or her stay. The total settlement amount was $7.6 million. The settlement included a two-year enforcement period of a consent decree that would enjoin Motel 6 from providing guest information to DHS and ICE absent a warrant, subpoena, or the immediate risk of harm to a guest, employee, or another individual.

After a January 29, 2019, hearing on the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of the Class Action Settlement and to Certify Class, Judge Campbell ordered that the parties file supplemental documents by March 29 to provide additional information that will allow the court to determine whether it will be able to certify the class and approve the settlement.

However, on May 30, 2019, the court found as moot the parties' joint motion after the parties advised the court that they will be filing a new motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement.

On June 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended class-action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The amended complaint contains largely the same allegations and claims as in the original complaint. The plaintiffs requested a primary class that included "all persons ... 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 plaintiffs also requested a subclass that includes "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."

On July 5, 2019, the parties again filed a joint motion for approval of the class action settlement and to certify class (Third Amended Settlement Agreement). Judge Campbell held proceedings on the joint motion on July 19 where he set a final approval hearing for February 7, 2020. After the parties amended the Joint Motion twice and added several documents, Judge Campbell granted Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement on August 2, 2019.

On January 17, 2020, the parties jointly requested an order: (1) granting final approval of the settlement, (2) certifying the Settlement Class, Injunctive Relief Class, and Releasing Class, (3) entering a consent decree for injunctive relief, (4) authorizing the claims administrator to distribute the settlement amount in accordance with the Agreement, and (5) authorizing the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs (the “Joint Motion”).

The Arizona Attorney General filed an amicus curiae objection to the final settlement agreement, arguing that the bulk of settlement funds would be sent to "third-party entities unconnected to the alleged harms" rather than class members.

Following arguments presented by the parties at a final approval hearing on February 7, 2020, Judge Campbell granted final approval of the third amended class action settlement on February 18, 2020, with the terms of the third amended settlement agreement applying. Judge Campbell approved the class settlement notwithstanding the Arizona Attorney General's objections; he found that the amount of funds going to class members was not insufficient and that the amount of funds held for four immigration rights organizations was "consistent with the underlying objectives of the claims in this case, serves the interests of the silent class members, and is not too remote from the class."

On the same day, Judge Campbell entered a consent decree, making effective injunctive and recordkeeping provisions for three years. The injunctive provisions mandated that defendants maintain a 24-hour hotline to assist employees when they receive a request for guest information from federal immigration authorities and that defendants may not share guest information with federal immigration authorities without a warrant or subpoena. The defendants were also required to create an online form that allowed individuals to report when they believed that guest information was improperly shared. Finally, the defendants were required to maintain documentation related to reporting, and the parties were required to have annual meetings reporting to the settlement administrator regarding compliance with the consent decree.

The court retains jurisdiction over the matter for the duration of the consent decree.

Lisa Koo - 01/30/2019
Aaron Gurley - 03/05/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Unreasonable search and seizure
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Reporting
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
National origin discrimination
Race discrimination
General
Confidentiality
Confinement/isolation
False arrest
Over/Unlawful Detention
Records Disclosure
Immigration/Border
Constitutional rights
Deportation - procedure
ICE/DHS/INS raid
National Origin/Ethnicity
Hispanic
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Non-government for profit
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1981
42 U.S.C. § 1983
42 U.S.C. § 1985
Defendant(s) G6 Hospitality LLC
Motel 6 Operating, L.P.
Plaintiff Description Eight Latino and Latina plaintiffs who previously stayed at Motel 6 locations in Arizona and had their personal information sent to DHS and ICE without consent. The plaintiffs requested class certification of similarly situated individuals who experienced similar Fourth Amendment violations.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations MALDEF
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2020 - 2023
Filed 01/23/2018
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Court Docket(s)
D. Ariz. 2:18-cv-00242-DGC
IM-AZ-0025-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/02/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
D. Ariz.
Order/Opinion [ECF# 34]
IM-AZ-0025-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/02/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
Complaint [ECF# 1]
IM-AZ-0025-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/14/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
Order [ECF# 87]
IM-AZ-0025-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/18/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D. Ariz.
Consent Decree [ECF# 88]
IM-AZ-0025-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/18/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Campbell, David G. (D. Ariz.) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-0004 | IM-AZ-0025-0005 | IM-AZ-0025-0006 | IM-AZ-0025-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Gallegos, Andres J (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000
Holguin, Andres R (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-0005 | IM-AZ-0025-0006 | IM-AZ-0025-9000
Ortega, Daniel R. Jr. (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000
Perales, Nina (Texas) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-0001 | IM-AZ-0025-9000
Saenz, Thomas A. (California) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bivens, Donald W (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000
DeSanctis, Michael B (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000
Kadzik, Peter J (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000
Lynch, Christopher M (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000
Refo, Patricia Lee (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000
Tobin, Stacie E. (Maryland) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-0005 | IM-AZ-0025-0006 | IM-AZ-0025-9000
Verrilli, Donald B. Jr. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000
Other Lawyers Crandell, Rusty D. (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000
Jessen, Katherine H. (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000
Sawyer, Kate B. (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000
Skinner, Oramel Horace (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000
Vogel, Dana Rae (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-AZ-0025-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -