Julia Hubbard and Kayla Goedinghaus sued Trammell S. Crow Jr. and 28 other defendants in November 2022, alleging sex trafficking, forced labor, and racketeering. The case, now numbered 5:23-cv-00580 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, survived dismissal in November 2023 and remains open. As of the most recent docket activity in January 2026, the parties are still fighting over discovery, no trial date has been set, and none of the allegations have been proven.

Everything below traces back to a court filing, a docket entry, or named reporting. Where a claim is disputed or unproven, this article says so plainly, every time it comes up, not once in a footer.

Quick Facts

How the Lawsuit Started

Attorneys for Julia Hubbard and Kayla Goedinghaus filed the original complaint on November 1, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The court transferred the case to the Western District of Texas on May 8, 2023, where it picked up its current number: 5:23-cv-00580. Readers who search the older California number, 2:22-cv-07957, will find the same lawsuit under a different label. Both refer to one case.

Judge Fred Biery’s own November 2023 order puts a precise figure on the original filing: 29 defendants, made up of 23 individuals and 6 corporations. That level of detail matters, because most coverage of this case rounds the number down to “20-plus,” which understates how wide the complaint’s net was cast.

Who Sued Whom

The plaintiffs allege that Richard “Rick” Hubbard, Julia’s then-husband, later Kayla’s fiancé, ran what the complaint calls “the Venture,” a trafficking operation that began around 2010 and continued for roughly a decade. Julia Hubbard says she got out in 2018. Kayla Goedinghaus says she got out in 2020. They filed suit nearly two years after that, in late 2022.

Trammell S. Crow Jr. draws the most attention among the defendants. He’s a Dallas real-estate heir and philanthropist connected to the Crow Family Foundation and EarthX, the environmental nonprofit formerly known as Earth Day Dallas. The complaint accuses him of financing the operation and participating directly in the alleged abuse. He denies all of it.

Other named defendants include psychologist Dr. Benjamin Todd Eller, Texas Ranger Sergeant Cody Mitchell, physicians Dr. Melissa Miller and Dr. Scott Woods, Crow Holdings Capital managing director Coe Juracek, executive Robert Pruitt, and RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., the Nasdaq-listed company (ticker: RICK) behind adult-entertainment venues including Silver City Cabaret.

Who Is Trammell Crow Jr., and Why Does the Name Sound Familiar?

Readers searching this case often already know one Crow brother without realizing it. Trammell S. Crow Jr. is the brother of Harlan Crow, the Dallas businessman whose gifts to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas became a national story starting in 2023. The two are grandsons of Fred Trammell Crow, the developer who built the Trammell Crow Company and projects like the Dallas Market Center and San Francisco’s Embarcadero Center.

That family history has no bearing on whether the trafficking allegations against Trammell Crow Jr. are true. It does explain why national outlets, not just legal trade press, picked up this case. Bloomberg covered Judge Biery’s November 2023 ruling the day it came down, and Bloomberg Law and The Real Deal both flagged the same family connection in their coverage. Harlan Crow himself is not a party to this lawsuit and hasn’t been accused of anything in it.

What the Complaint Actually Alleges

Three federal claims anchor the case.

Sex trafficking, under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), covers both direct participation in trafficking and knowingly benefiting financially from a trafficking venture. Plaintiffs allege force, threats, and drug-facilitated coercion compelled them into commercial sex acts, and that Crow hosted gatherings at his properties where the alleged abuse took place.

Forced labor, under 18 U.S.C. § 1589, covers labor obtained through force, threats of serious harm, or abuse of legal process. Plaintiffs allege their earnings, including money made at Silver City Cabaret, were confiscated as part of the scheme.

Racketeering, under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), requires an ongoing enterprise engaged in a pattern of related criminal acts. The complaint alleges the defendants formed an association-in-fact enterprise that benefited Richard Hubbard, Dr. Eller, and the medical defendants financially, while providing what the complaint describes as sexual gratification for the others.

Dr. Eller’s alleged role centers on prescriptions. Plaintiffs claim he diagnosed them as psychiatrically unstable and directed the prescribing of controlled substances, including Xanax, Adderall, oxycodone, and Ambien, which Richard Hubbard allegedly used to control their compliance. Sergeant Mitchell’s alleged role centers on intimidation: the complaint says he supplied compromising material used to convince the women that reporting the police abuse would go nowhere.

Every named defendant denies these allegations. Crow’s attorneys have characterized the case in filings as an attempt to convert “troubled and broken domestic relationships” into a federal payday rather than a genuine trafficking claim. No court has found any of this true. A jury hasn’t heard the case.

The Ruling That Kept the Case Alive

On November 20, 2023, Judge Biery denied motions to dismiss filed by nine defendants, including Crow, Eller, and Mitchell, in a 30-page order. He found the plaintiffs had pleaded enough to proceed on the trafficking and RICO theories. He also rejected the argument that claims against the medical defendants were just malpractice claims wearing a different label, and rejected Sergeant Mitchell’s qualified-immunity defense, reasoning that sharing an explicit photograph from a patrol car isn’t part of any legitimate police function.

That ruling let the case move into discovery. It settled nothing about who’s telling the truth.

Case Timeline: November 2022 Through January 2026

Discovery fights this granular, motions to compel, fee sanctions, typically signal a case still building its evidentiary record, not one approaching trial. Any coverage suggesting a trial is imminent isn’t supported by what the docket shows as of this writing.

A Separate Legal Problem for One of the Defendants

RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., a corporate defendant in the Hubbard case, is dealing with an unrelated legal matter of its own. In September 2025, the New York Attorney General announced a criminal indictment alleging a years-long scheme to bribe a state tax auditor and evade more than $8 million in sales taxes. The stock dropped sharply on the news, and shareholders filed securities class actions in the Southern District of Texas that October, covering purchases made between December 2021 and September 2025.

The two cases don’t touch each other legally. One alleges trafficking and racketeering; the other alleges tax fraud and bribery of a state official. They share a defendant, not a set of facts.

What Plaintiffs Could Recover — If They Win

Federal trafficking law gives victims a private right to sue. Under the TVPA’s civil remedy provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a), a prevailing plaintiff can recover damages and attorney’s fees from anyone who committed the trafficking or knowingly benefited from it financially. RICO adds its own incentive: proven damages triple under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

None of that applies unless the plaintiffs actually win. Given the ongoing discovery disputes and the recent fee sanction against them, the case still has real distance to cover before a damages question is even on the table.

The Reporting Behind the Filings

A January 2024 Cosmopolitan investigation, later featured on Longreads, traced how Julia Hubbard met Crow through Richard Hubbard around 2009, and how that relationship evolved into what the lawsuit now describes as a controlled, coercive arrangement. The reporting adds context the docket doesn’t carry: how each woman describes leaving, and what happened in the years before either filed suit.

Court filings and journalism tell related but separate stories. The complaint makes legal claims a jury will eventually test. The reporting describes lived experience a court doesn’t need to verify before publishing it. Readers should hold both accounts, and hold the line between “alleged” and “proven,” for as long as the case remains open.

What Comes Next

Discovery disputes like the September 2025 motion to compel and the resulting fee order usually come before summary-judgment briefing, not after. The next real milestone is more likely to be a scheduling order or another discovery ruling than a trial date. This page reflects the docket as of January 2026 and will be updated when the case moves.

FAQs

What is the Julia Hubbard lawsuit about?

Julia Hubbard and Kayla Goedinghaus allege that Richard Hubbard trafficked them for sex and labor over roughly a decade, with financial backing and participation from Trammell S. Crow Jr. and other defendants. The case includes sex trafficking, forced labor, and RICO claims under federal law.

What is the current case number?

5:23-cv-00580 (SA-23-CV-00580-FB), U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. The case was originally filed under a different number in California before its May 2023 transfer.

Is the Julia Hubbard lawsuit still active in 2026?

Yes. Court records show active discovery disputes as recently as January 2026. No trial date has been set.

Did a judge rule on whether the allegations are true?

No. Judge Biery’s November 2023 order denied motions to dismiss, which allowed the case to proceed. It didn’t decide whether the allegations are factually true; that would come later, at summary judgment or trial.

Were the plaintiffs ever sanctioned in this case?

Yes. A court order required Julia Hubbard, Kayla Goedinghaus, and their attorneys to pay Trammell Crow Jr. $11,790 in attorney’s fees over a discovery dispute. This is separate from, and doesn’t resolve, the trafficking and RICO claims themselves.

Is Trammell Crow Jr. related to Harlan Crow?

Yes. They’re brothers, both grandsons of Dallas developer Fred Trammell Crow. Harlan Crow isn’t a party to the Hubbard lawsuit and hasn’t been accused of anything within it.

Does RCI Hospitality’s tax fraud indictment relate to the Hubbard lawsuit?

No. RCI Hospitality Holdings is a defendant in both matters, but they’re legally unrelated. The Hubbard case alleges trafficking and racketeering; the New York indictment and related securities litigation allege tax fraud and bribery of a state auditor.

What has Trammell Crow Jr. said in response?

He has denied all allegations of wrongdoing through his attorneys, both in court filings and in statements to media outlets covering the case.

Sources

• CourtListener docket (primary court record — case number, judge, timeline, discovery filings)
• Judge Biery’s Nov. 20, 2023 order (denied motions to dismiss — 29 defendants, qualified-immunity ruling)
• Bloomberg (Nov. 2023 ruling coverage, Harlan Crow relationship)
• Cosmopolitan/Longreads (background reporting — how Hubbard and Crow met, escape timeline)
• RCI Hospitality securities indictment notice (Sept./Oct. 2025 tax-fraud case, unrelated but same defendant)

Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly filed court records from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 5:23-cv-00580), Judge Fred Biery’s November 20, 2023 order, and prior reporting from Cosmopolitan and Longreads. Every claim described as an allegation is exactly that — an allegation. No court has ruled on the truth of the underlying trafficking claims, and all named defendants deny wrongdoing. This article does not constitute legal advice. Published [DATE]. Last updated [DATE] to reflect docket activity through January 12, 2026.

Written by

Musarat Bano

Musarat Bano is a content writer for JudicialOcean.com who covers lawsuits, legal news, and general legal topics. Her work focuses on research-based, informational content developed from publicly available sources and is intended to support public awareness. She does not provide legal advice or professional legal services.

EmailLinkedInWebsite