1 COMP

Marc J. Randazza, NV Bar No. 12265

2 Ronald D. Green, NV Bar No. 7360
Alex J. Shepard, NV Bar No. 13582
3
RANDAZZA LEGALGROUP, PLLC
4 2764 Lake Sahara Drive Suite 109
Las Vegas, Nevada 89117
5 Telephone: 702-420-2001
ecf@randazza.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7 Alice Little

8
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
Q_
9 LYON COUNTY, NEVADA
=:)

0 10
0:::::
11 ALICE LITTLE, and Case No . _______ _
0 JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-100,
_J Dept.No. __
<( 12
Plaintiffs,
0 13
UJ COMPLAINT
_J vs.
14
STEVE SISOLAK, in his Official Capacity as JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
<C 15 Governor of the State of Nevada,
N
N 16
Defendant.
<C
C 17
z 18
<(
~ 1. This is a civil action brought by Plaintiff Alice Little ("Plaintiff" or "Ms. Little") against
19
Defendant Stephen F. Sisolak, in his official capacity as the Governor of State of Nevada
20
("Defendant" or "Gov. Sisolak"). Plaintiff works as a legal sex worker in Lyon County, Nevada. On
21
March 17, 2020, Defendant shut down all legal brothels due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Though
22
similarly situated businesses have been permitted to reopen, brothels cannot reopen. Plaintiff holds a
23
government-issued sex worker license, in which she has a property interest, and that license is
24
effectively suspended without due process, because of the arbitrar y and capricious actions taken by
25
Governor Sisolak. Plaintiff brings claims for Defendant's violation of Plaintiffs freedom of
26
association, equal protection, and due process rights under the Nevada Constitution.
27

- 1-
Complaint
 1 THE PARTIES

2 2. Plaintiff Alice Little is works as a legal sex worker in Lyon County, N evada. 1

3 3. Defendant Sisolak is the Governor of Nevada and is sued in his official capacity.

4 4. Jo hn and Jane Does 1-100 are Little's clients, customers, and potential clients and

5 customers, whose liberty interests have also been impacted, and Little has standing to bring suit on

6 their behalf .

7 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8 5. Plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of $15,000.

o._ 9 6. Venue is proper in this Court as Plaintiff works in Lyon County, Nevada, and she
=:)

0 10 suffered damages in Lyon County, Nevada .

0,:::

('.) 11 7. As he is a citizen of the State of Nevada and occupant of the State's highest office, this
_J

<( 12 Court has personal jurisdiction over Gov. Sisolak.

('.)
13 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
w
_J
14 8. Private sexual activity is a fundamental liberty interest .

<C 15 9. Nevada sex workers are issued licenses by the government, and they have a property
N
N 16 interest in these licenses, which may only be suspended after the licensees are afforded due process.
<C
C 17 10. Unlike other states, the State of Nevada has stood as a bastion of liberty and has not
z 18 engaged in the prohibition of legal, regulated, and safe sex work, and it permits sex work in counties
<(
ei:::
19 with a population of 700,000 or under. Specifically, the State allows counties that meet the population

20 requirements to license and regulate brothels.

21 11. On April 27, 2020, Governor Sisolak entered Nevada into the "Western States Pact,"

22 without any authority to do so, and by doing so, abrogated Nevada's state sovereignty and home rule

23 in favor of following the lead of out of state governors and authorities, without so much as seeking,

24 much less receiving, the consent of Nevada's citizens.

25

26

27 The Plaintiff brings this action under her trade name, not under her legal name.

-2-
Complaint
 1 12. None of the other Western States Pact members have legal brothels. Seven of

2 Nevada's sixteen counties have legal brothels, including Lyon County.

3 13. Ms. Little works as a legal and licensed sex worker in Lyon County.

4 14. Plaintiff Little possesses a license to engage in legal sex work in Lyon County, Nevada

5 and possesses a protectable property interest in that license.

6 15. On March 12, 2020, Gov. Sisolak declared a state of emergency in the State of Nevada

7 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

8 16. On March 17, 2020, Gov . Sisolak ordered all non-essential businesses in the State

o._ 9 closed for thirty days in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Brothels were classified as a non-
~
O 10 essential business and was forced to close.

C) 11 17. When the government shut down brothels, Plaintiff Little lost her primary source of
_J

<( 12 income, as the government does not permit her to ply her trade outside of licensed brothels.
C) 13 18. On March 31, 2020, Gov. Sisolak extended the closure of non-essential businesses to
w
_J
14 the end of the month of April .

<C 15 19. On April 21, 2020, Gov. Sisolak stated that Nevada was in "phase zero" with regard
N
N 16 to the reopening of businesses and that businesses would not reopen until the State experienced a
<C
C 17 fourteen-day decline in new COVID-19 cases.
z 18 20. On May 7, 2020, Defendant announced that Phase One would commence and some
<(
~
19 businesses would be permitted to reopen on May 9, 2020 with precautions in place. These businesses

20 included cannabis retailers, restaurants, retail stores, outdoor shopping malls, hair salons, and drive-in

21 movie theaters. Brothels were not permitted to reopen, even though other businesses that required

22 workers to have close contact with customers, like hair salons, were permitted to reopen.

23 SeeDeclaration of Emergency Directive 018, Sections 16 & 19.

24 21. Defendant announced that Phase Two of Nevada's reopening would begin on May

25 29, 2020 and that casinos would be permitted to reopen on June 4, 2020. Phase Two permitted bars,

26 bowling alleys, gyms, movie theaters, pools, spas, and tattoo shops to reopen. Brothels were not

27 permitted to reopen and were expressly ordered to remain closed. See Declaration of Emergency

-3-
Complaint
 1 Directive 021, Section 27. However, massage parlors were permitted to reopen by appointment if

2 employees wore face coverings. Id. at § 34.

3 22. On August 3, 2020, Gov. Sisolak abandoned the system of phased business re-

4 openings, stating that it was not sustainable to shut down economic activity in the State. He stated

5 that Nevada would switch to a targeted approach, identifying the cause of COVID-19 outbreaks and

6 taking action to stop them. However, he expressly stated that brothels were required to remain closed.

7 23. Defendant's decision to keep brothels closed is arbitrary, depriving Plaintiff Little, and

8 other legal sex workers in the State of Nevada, without a source of income and without the ability to

Q_ 9 ply their legal trade.

=:)
0 10 24. Other businesses that rely upon their workers having close contact with customers

11 have been permitted to reopen, such as massage parlors, hair salons, tattoo shops, and nail salons.
_J
<( 12 Moreover, none of these business categories have been shut down as facilitating the spread of

0 13 COVID-19.
w
_J
14 25. Defendant's refusal to allow brothels to reopen is particularly arbitrary given that Gov.

<C 15 Sisolak announced the resumption of all other economic activity in the State of Nevada on August 3,
N
N 16 2020 . He has, without any rational basis, decided to single out brothels.
<C
0 17 26. From all appearances, Gov. Sisolak allowed similarly situated businesses, such as
z 18 massage parlors, tattoo shops, and hair and nail salons, to reopen while forcing brothels to remain
<C
01:::
19 closed because he does not view legal sex work as being as important or as socially acceptable as the

20 activities of the aforementioned businesses.

21 27. If brothels across the State of Nevada, agree to follow the same safety protocols as

22 other businesses in Nevada that require workers to have close physical contact with customers, they

23 should be permitted to reopen, which would allow Ms. Little and legal sex workers across the State to

24 resume their livelihoods. If it is safe for a customer to get a massage at a massage parlor, then it should

25 be safe for a customer to visit a legal sex worker if COVID-19 precautions are taken.

26 28. In the alternative, if the Governor insists on closing brothels, then licensed sex workers

27 should still be permitted to utilize their licenses to ply their legal trade at their own residences or in

-4-
Complaint
 1 private locations, as long as they are sanitary and follow COVID guidelines. The Governor could just

2 as easily issue a decree suspending the requirements that sex workers ply their trade only in licensed

3 brothels and permitting them to ply their trade in other, safe, locations.

4 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

5 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Nevada Const., Art. 1, § 10
6 (Freedom of Association)
7 29. Plaintiff incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
8 30. The Nevada Constitution affords constitutional protections to the freedom of
o_ 9 association. This liberty protects against unjustified government interference with an individual 's
=:)

0 10 chose to enter into and maintain certain intimate or private relationships.

Cl<'.'.

(_') 11 31. The freedom to enter into and carry on certain intimate or private relationships is a
_J

<( 12 fundamental element of liberty protected by the Nevada Constitution.

(_')
13 32. Plaintiff and virtually all sex workers in Nevada have "regular customers," with whom
w
_J
14 they have long-standing relationships, which can only be legally maintained in licensed brothels,

<C 15 because paid sex work is not legal outside of licensed brothels .
N
N 16 33. The relationship between a sex worker and her client is arguably the most honest
<C
C 17 sexual relationship possible, as all parties are clear about the others' intentions and parameters.
z 18
<C 34. Plaintiff has relationships with some clients who are "monogamous" with her - and
a:::
19 they even sport outward displays of this relationship loyalty.
20 35. A number of Plaintiffs regular clients, due to sexual abuse or trauma, only feel
21 comfortable being in this type of relationship. A "consent forward" relationship is emotionally safest
22 for them. "Consent forward" meaning that all intimate actions are discussed in full before they happen

23 - which is always the case in Little's relationships.

24 36. Plaintiff has even had therapists recommend their clients reach out to her for such a

25 service. Thus, her services are not always merely recreational, but may be therapeutic in nature.
26

27

-5-
Complaint
 1 37. Governor Sisolak's decree of prohibition has made all of these relationships

2 impossible.

3 38. Gov. Sisolak's arbitrary shutdown of brothels, while allowing other high contact

4 businesses to reopen, infringes on the right to freedom of association of many persons in the State of

5 Nevada, including Plaintiff Little and her clients.

6 39. By shutting down all legal sexual contact between sex workers and their clients,

7 including many long-standing relationships with clients, Plaintiff is prohibited from entering into and

8 maintaining certain intimate and private relationships in violation of the Freedom of Association

Q_ 9 guarantee of the Nevada Constitution.

=:)
0 10 40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violation of the Freedom of

11 Association guarantee of the Nevada Constitution, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, including
_J

<( 12 the loss of her constitutional rights, entitling her to declaratory and injunctive relief.
0 13 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
w
_J Violation of Nevada Const., Art. 1 § 8
14 Substantive Due Process Right to Earn a Living
<( 15 41. Plaintiff incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
N
N 16 42. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Gov. Sisolak shut down all legal brothels in the State
<(
C 17 of Nevada while allowing other businesses that require close physical contact with customers to
z 18
<( reopen.
et::
19 43. The closure of brothels severely infringes upon the ability of Plaintiff and other

20 similarly situated persons to earn a living through their chosen livelihood or profession, a liberty

21 interest protected by the right to substantive due process found in the Nevada Constitution.
22 44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violation of the right to substantive

23 due process under the Nevada Constitution, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, including the loss

24 of her constitutional rights, entitling her to declaratory and injunctive relief.

25

26

27

-6-
Complaint
 1 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Nevada Const., Art. 1 § 8
2 Procedural Due Process
3 45. Plaintiff incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
4 46. Ms. Little possesses a property interest in the license that allows her to perform legal

5 sex work in Lyon County, Nevada.

6 47. Whenever a plaintiff possesses a protectable property interest, she may not be deprived

7 of that property interest -without due process of law.

8 48. By not permitting her to engage in the act of legal sex work without conducing any

n_ 9 type of hearing, Gov. Sisolak has unconstitutionally deprived Plaintiff Little of a protectable property
=:)

0 10 interest by effectively revoking her license .

0::::
0 11 49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violation of Plaintiffs due process
_J

<( 12 rights, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, including the loss of her constitutional rights and
0 13 entitling her to declaratory and injunctive relief.
L1.J
_J
14 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Nevada Const., Art. 4 § 21
<( 15
N Equal Protection
N 16
50. Plaintiff incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
<C
C 17
51. By reason of the aforementioned restrictions placed on brothels and legal sex workers
z<( 18 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, created, adopted, and enforced under color of state law, Defendant
c==
19
has deprived Plaintiff of the equal protection of law guaranteed by the Nevada Constitution, in that
20 Defendant Sisolak is arbitrarily prohibiting Plaintiff from engaging in legal activity in the State of
21
Nevada, in direct contrast to other similarly situated enterprises such as massage parlors, hair salons,
22
tattoo shops, and nail salons, which enjo y benefits of operation under law denied to Plaintiff and
23
persons similarly situated to her.
24 52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violation of Plaintiffs equal protection
25
rights, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, including the los s of her constitutional rights and
26 entitling her to declaratory and injunctive relief.
27

-7-
Complaint
 1 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
2
53. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all pre vious
3
paragraphs, inclusive.
4
54. As set forth above, Defendant has engaged in an arbitrary and capricious exercise of
5
discretion and has violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights as alleged above.
6
55. There is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course oflaw to correct
7
Defendant's arbitrary and capricious acts and exercise of discretion.
8
56. Therefore, Plaintiffs petition this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to Defendant to
o._ 9
=::J rescind the executive order and actions that have closed legal brothels.
0 10
57. In the alternative, Plaintiffs petition this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to
('.) 11
_J Defendant to issue an executive order permitting sex workers to ply their trade and enter into their
<( 12
('.) professional and therapeutic relationships in locations other than licensed brothels, subject to
13
w
_J reasonable health conditions.
14
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
<C 15
N WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this Court:
N 16
<C A. To declare that Defendant's restriction on Plaintiff's freedom of association and right
C 17
z 18
to earn a living violates the Nevada Constitution, as set forth in this Complaint;
<C
~ B. To preliminaril y and permanentl y enjoin Defendant's restriction and its application to
19
Plaintiff's speech and business as set forth in this Complaint;
20
C. In the alternative, if the Governor insists on closing brothels, and this Honorable
21
Court agrees that this is permissible, then the governor should be compelled to issue an executive
22
order that licensed sex workers should be permitted to utilize their licenses to ply their legal trade at
23
their own residences or in private locations, as long as the y are sanitary and follow reasonable
24
guidelines; or the Court should issue an order to the same effect;
25
D. To award Plaintiff damages for the past loss of her constitutional rights;
26

27

-8-
Complaint
 1 E. To award Plaintiff damages for the arbitrary and capricious damage to her business

2 and livelihood;

3 F. To award Plaintiff her reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses; and

4 G. To award Plaintiff such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.

6 Dated: October 30, 2020.

8
a c J. Randa Ba:
CL 9 Ronald D. Green, NV Bar No. 7360
:=:)
Alex J. Shepard, NV Bar No. 13582
0 10 RA.NDAZZA LEGALGROUP, PLLC
Ck:'.
2764 Lake Sahara Drive Suite 109
0 11
Las Vegas, NV 89117
_j

<( 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff

0 Alice Little
13
LL.J
_j
14

<
N
15

N 16
<
C 17
z 18
<
0:::
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

-9-
Complaint