Doe (CS) v. Salesforce, Inc.

JANE DOE (CS),
Plaintiff,
vs.
SALESFORCE, INC.,
Defendant.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00189
Pending before this Court is Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1595(b) (Doc. No. 24). Defendant Salesforce, Inc. ("Salesforce") requests this Court to stay
this entire proceeding due to ongoing criminal proceedings across the country in United States v.
Lacey, No. 2:18-CR-00422 (D. Ariz.). Plaintiff Jane Doe, CS ("Plaintiff') filed a Response. (Doc.
No. 27). The Court is also in receipt of all replies and notices of supplemental authority. (Doc.
Nos. 26, 28, 30). After close review of the pleadings and the relevant legal standard, the Court
finds that 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b) requires this Court to stay the entire proceeding until a final
adjudication is reached in United States v. Lacey, No. 2:18-CR-00422 (D. Ariz.).
I. Factual Background
This case was brought by an alleged victim of an extensive online sex trafficking scheme,
facilitated by the communication pages on Backpage.com. (Doc. No. 7). As early as 2008,
Backpage.com was identified by the United States Government as a source of a widespread sex
trafficking network. (Id. at ,r 57). The United States Senate published a Subcommittee Report that
announced that Backpage.com "generated 93.4% of its average weekly paid ad revenue from adult
ads" and "knew of, and facilitated, illegal activity taking place on its website." (Id. at ,r 71, 86).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00189 Document 31 Filed 04/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 8

The Complaint alleges that "Backpage.com was not like Craigslist or other marketing platforms,"
but rather it "existed to connect illegal sex buyers with the criminals who compelled [Plaintiff] and
others to submit to commercial sex." (Id. at, 74). The Complaint alleges that this online network
was further facilitated by the ongoing services of Defendant Salesforce, Inc., a technology
company that partnered with Backpage.com to improve the website. (Id. at ,, 91 - 144). The
Complaint also alleges that Salesforce had knowledge that Backpage .c om w as predominantly used
by online sex traffickers and continued to provide its own advanced software that improved the
website and added features to expand marketing campaigns to boost revenue. (Id.) ("Backpage's
use of Salesforce's technology enabled its transformation from a relatively small, local website
into the world's largest and most notorious hub for sex and sex trafficking").
After allegedly suffering from years of illegal sex trafficking facilitated on Backpage.com,
the Plaintiff sued Salesforce under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. (Id. at
,, 156- 89). Salesforce filed this Motion to invoke the mandatory stay during the pendency of an
ongoing criminal proceeding for a related case under the stay provision of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act. See 18 U.S.C. § l 595(b ).
II. 	Legal Standard
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA") provides a civil cause
of action to sex trafficking victims against "the perpetrator (or whoever knowingly benefits, or
attempts or conspires to benefit, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation
in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of
[the TVPRA])." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a). Recognizing the sensitivity of these civil lawsuits, the
TVPRA also states that "any civil action ... shall be stayed during the pendency of any criminal
action arising out of the same occurrence in which the claimant is the victim." Id. at§ 1595(b)(l).
2
Case 2:25-cv-00189 Document 31 Filed 04/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 8

A '" criminal action' includes investigation and prosecution and is pending until final adjudication
in the trial court." Id. at§ 1595(b)(2). The stay is a "mandatory obligation" for the entire action if
" (l) a criminal action or investigation is pending; (2) the criminal action arises "out of the same
occurrence" as the civil action; and (3) the plaintiff in the civil action is the victim of an occurrence
that is the same in the civil and criminal proceedings." Doe 1-10 v. Fitzgerald, 102 F.4th 1089,
1098 (9th Cir. 2024).
III. 	Analysis
Salesforce requests this Court to enforce the mandatory stay provision in 18 U. S.C. §
1595(b)(l). Salesforce argues that the pending criminal action involving the same sex trafficking
scheme makes this stay mandatory under the statute. The Plaintiff opposes the stay and argues that
Backpage.com and its officials- 	not Salesforce- 	are involved in the criminal action and thus, the
Court should not stay this civil case against Salesforce. The Court separately addresses each
el ement of the§ 1595(b) stay provision.
A. Salesforce has demonstrated that the federal criminal action remains pending.
T he Court must determine whether United States v. Lacey, No. 2:18-CR-00422 (D. Ariz.)
1s considered pending under the definition provided in § 1595(b)(2). Under § 1595(b)(2), a
criminal action "includes investigation and prosecution and is pending until final adjudication in
the trial court." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(2). The Court finds that Salesforce only showed that United
States v. Lacey meets the definition.
Salesforce listed United States v. Lacey, No. 2:18-CR-00422 (D. Ariz.) as the pending
criminal action that triggers the mandatory stay. This criminal action was brought against Michael
Lacey, one of the founders of Backpage.com, for his alleged involvement in the online sex
trafficking scheme. The Superseding Indictment describes the details of how Backpage.com
3
Case 2:25-cv-00189 Document 31 Filed 04/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 8

facilitated the online scheme, including the sale of advertisements to human traffickers. Lacey, No.
2:18-CR-00422 (Doc. No. 230 at ,r,r 33 - 34). In 2023 , the government brought the case to trial, but
the district court ordered a mistrial. (Doc. No. 228-1 at App. 40). In 2024, the government filed a
notice of their intent to retry Lacey on all 84 counts against him. (Id.) . Lacey is the last of seven
co-defendants to reach final adjudication and continues to await a new trial date. See, e.g., (Id. at
App. 45-47 (discussing Lacey's pretrial bail conditions)). Under the plain text of 18 U.S.C. §
1595(b)(2), this criminal action is still pending, and no final adjudication has been reached. This
case satisfies the first element of the mandatory stay provision.
B. The Lacey criminal action "arises out of the same occurrence" as this case.
Having determined that the criminal action in United States v. Lacey , No. 2: 18-CR-00422
(D. Ariz.) is pending for the purposes of § 15 95 (b ), the Court now turns to whether the Lacey
action "arises out of the same occurrence" of the claims here. The mandatory stay in§ 1595(b)(l)
only applies if the pending criminal action "aris[ es] out of the same occurrence in which the
claimant is the victim." 	18 U.S.C. 	§ 1595(b)(l). The statutory requirement of the "same
occurrence" does require more than inferences from similar-sounding allegations. Doe v. Aylo
Global Entertainment Inc. , 2023 WL 8884400, at *2 (C.D. Ca. Nov. 29, 2023). "A clear
connection" between the events alleged in the indictment and the civil complaint is sufficient to
establish that the cases arise out of the same occurrence. 	Fitzgerald, 102 F.4th at 	1100.
Nevertheless, this element does not require that the pending criminal action and the civil case have
the same defendants. Id. at 1099 (holding that because "§ 1595(b)(l) refers only to the identity of
victims, not of perpetrators," there is no requirement that the defendants in the cases must be the
same).
4
Case 2:25-cv-00189 Document 31 Filed 04/08/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 8

The 	Lacey 	Superseding 	Indictment 	("Indictment") 	details 	the 	investigation 	into
Backpage.com, as well as the seven co -d efendants (including Michael Lacey, one of the founders
of Backpage.com). See generally Lacey , No. 2:18-CR-00422 (Doc. No. 230). The Indictment
alleges that Lacey was aware that the "vast majority of the 'adult' and 'escort' ads appearing on
Backpage were actually ads for prostitution" and "took steps to intentionally facilitation that illegal
activity. Id. at 3. Lacey and the other defendants allegedly contributed to this scheme by "creating
free ads for prostitutes in an attempt to secure future advertising revenues from them . . ., entering
into formal business arrangements with known prostitution services and websites in an attempt to
increase the volume of prostitution advertisements being posted on Backpage ... , and sanitizing
ads by editing them- 	specifically, removing terms and pictures that were particularly indicative
of prostitution and then publishing a revised version of the ad . . . ." Id. at 9. The Indictment
provides "select victim summaries" that describe the effects of the Backpage.com operation on sex
trafficking victims. Id. at 40-44. The Indictment charges Lacey and the other defendants with
conspiracy, violations of the Travel Act by facilitating prostitution, concealment of money
laundering, and international promotion and concealment of money laundering. S ee generally id.
In this case, the Complaint outlines the details of the Backpage.com scheme. The
Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was "posted on Backpage.com for illegal commercial sex for
money" and was trafficked in motels in Florida and Georgia. (Doc. No. 7 at ,r 147-48). The
Complaint alleges that "Salesforce was paid for the software and technology it provided to
Backpage that enabled Backpage to grow its sex business." (Id. 	at i!l 60). Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that through "Salesforce's help in the form of software, marketing technology,
and operational support, Backpage was able to collect detailed, in-depth customer data and use the
5
Case 2:25-cv-00189 Document 31 Filed 04/08/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 8

data to streamline communications and overall business practices to operate more efficiently and
improve profitability and outreach." (Id. at ,r 119).
The root of the pending criminal action and this case are the same: Backpage.com
generated revenue from illegal sex trafficking advertisements, and the Backpage.com interface
harmed victims of sex trafficking. The only difference is that the Lacey action indicted Michael
Lacey, and this civil action is against Salesforce. While the Plaintiff argues that this difference is
dispositive in order to deny the stay, the "same occurrence" test does not require identical
defendants. Fitzgerald, 102 F.4th at 1100 (holding that the defendants do not have to be the same
to invoke the § l 595(b) stay because indictments are within the government's sole discretion).
Although the criminal action solely focuses on Backpage.com and its employees, there is a "clear
connection" between the advertising scheme described in the Lacey Indictment and the advertising
scheme described in the live Complaint. The Court holds that the Lacey criminal action and this
case "arise out of the same occurrence" for the purposes of§ 1595(b).
C. The Plaintiff is an alleged victim of the same advertising scheme.
Lastly, the Court must address whether the Plaintiff is a victim of the Backpage.com
advertisement scheme. Section 1595(6) requires that a civil action must be stayed "during the
pendency of any criminal action arising out of the same occurrence in which the claimant is th e
victim." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(1) (emphasis added). Throughout the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges
that she was a victim of the Backpage.com advertisement scheme, which promoted advertisements
for sex trafficking. See generally (Doc. No. 7). Specifically, she alleges that Salesforce violated
the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act by participating in its "continuous business
relationship" with Backpage that "had many players, hundreds of communications and exchanges
of information, and a level of familiarity that were far beyond typical 'technical support."' (Id. at
6
Case 2:25-cv-00189 Document 31 Filed 04/08/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 8

,I 166). Further, she alleges that "this relationship flourished during a time in which Backpage was
regularly making headlines for facilitating illegal sex trafficking." (Id.). The Complaint alleges
that the business relationship between Salesforce and Backpage was "a direct, producing, and
proximate cause of the injuries and damages to [Plaintiff]." (Id. at ,I 189). These allegations are
sufficient to show that the Plaintiff is an alleged victim of the same occurrence alleged in the Lacey
Indictment for the purpose of the mandatory stay under§ 1595(b).
Under the plain text of the statute, the pendency of the Michael Lacey's new trial, the
allegations listed in the Lacey Indictment, and the allegations on the fact of the Complaint in this
action, this Court must impose a stay in this civil proceeding until the Lacey action reaches final
adjudication. The Court notes that while not dispositive, this Court and other district courts across
the country have imposed the mandatory stay in similar TVPRA cases filed against Salesforce.
See, 	e.g. , A .B. v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 4:20-CV-01254 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 28 , 2025); S.MA. v.
Salesforce, Inc., No. 3:23-CV-0915 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 21 , 2025) ;A. S. Salesforce, Inc., No. 3:23-CV-
1039 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 21 , 2025) (Doc. No. 179); IH v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 8:24-CV-01678 (M.D.
Fl. Dec. 1, 2025) (Doc. No. 282); G. G. v. Salesforce. com, Inc. , No. 20-C-2335, 2026 WL 663407
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2026).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. No. 24) is
GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this cause of action is administratively (statistically)
closed. The parties may move to reinstate the case on the court's active docket at such time final
adjudication is reached in United States v. Lacey, No. 2: l 8-CR-00422 (D. Ariz.). A copy of this
Order shall be attached as an exhibit to any motion to reinstate.
7
Case 2:25-cv-00189 Document 31 Filed 04/08/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 8

All other pending motions are denied without prejudice, and the motions may be refiled at
the time this case is reopened.
It is so ordered.
~
Signed on this the_!'_ day of April 2026.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
8
Case 2:25-cv-00189 Document 31 Filed 04/08/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 8