The Julia Hubbard lawsuit is a federal civil case brought by Julia Hubbard and Kayla Goedinghaus against Trammell S. Crow Jr. and numerous other defendants. The women allege that they were victims of a long-running trafficking and forced-labor venture involving Richard “Rick” Hubbard and people or businesses they say participated in, enabled, or benefited from the alleged operation.
The main case is Julia Hubbard et al. v. Trammell S. Crow, Jr. et al., No. 5:23-cv-00580, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The lawsuit includes claims under federal trafficking laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as RICO.
The case has attracted public attention partly because Crow is a member of a prominent Dallas real-estate family and because the amended complaint makes serious allegations against a large group of people and businesses.
An important point should be clear from the start: these are civil allegations, not established findings of guilt. The defendants have disputed the claims, and the court’s earlier decisions allowing claims to continue did not determine that the allegations were true.
Quick Guide: Julia Hubbard Lawsuit
| Detail | Information |
| Main Case | Julia Hubbard et al. v. Trammell S. Crow, Jr. et al. |
| Case Number | 5:23-cv-00580 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas |
| Plaintiffs | Julia Hubbard and Kayla Goedinghaus |
| Key Defendant | Trammell S. Crow Jr., among numerous defendants |
| Main Claims | Federal RICO and trafficking-related civil claims |
| Case Type | Federal civil litigation |
| Current Position | The case remained active, with the latest publicly identified filing dated July 10, 2026 |
| Important Note | Allegations in a lawsuit are not the same as proven facts or a final finding of liability |
The federal court record identifies the case as a civil RICO action and lists Hubbard and Goedinghaus as plaintiffs. CourtListener reports July 10, 2026 as the latest known filing date.
Julia Hubbard Lawsuit: Key Points
- The lawsuit was originally filed in California before being transferred to federal court in Texas.
- Julia Hubbard and Kayla Goedinghaus allege that they were subjected to trafficking, coercion, and related wrongdoing.
- The case includes claims under federal trafficking laws and RICO.
- Trammell S. Crow Jr., Richard Hubbard, Richard Butler, and various other individuals and businesses appear in the federal case record as separate defendants.
- Earlier dismissal motions did not end all of the plaintiffs’ claims, allowing litigation and discovery to continue.
- A separate lawsuit involving Julia Hubbard and The Lodge in Dallas should not be confused with the main Crow RICO case.
- Court rulings that allow claims to proceed do not mean the underlying accusations have been proven.
How the Julia Hubbard Lawsuit Began
Hubbard and Goedinghaus originally filed their federal complaint on November 1, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. That case was numbered 2:22-cv-07957. It was later transferred to the Western District of Texas, where it became 5:23-cv-00580 in May 2023.
The transfer changed the court handling the dispute, but it did not create a new set of underlying allegations. After the transfer, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the defendants renewed various efforts to have the claims dismissed.
The lawsuit is often described as a trafficking and RICO case because the plaintiffs rely on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and federal racketeering law. In simple terms, they claim that the alleged conduct was not made up of isolated incidents but was connected to a broader venture involving multiple participants.
Julia Hubbard, Kayla Goedinghaus, and the Dallas Background
Dallas plays an important role in the story behind the lawsuit. Published reporting describes Julia Hubbard as having worked in the Dallas nightlife scene, including as a bottle-service worker at Plush. She told Cosmopolitan that she met Trammell Crow Jr. through that social environment in 2009 and later remained in contact with him.
The federal court’s 2023 opinion describes Julia as Richard “Rick” Hubbard’s then-wife and Kayla Goedinghaus as his later fiancée. According to their amended complaint, both women say their relationships with Rick eventually became part of the same alleged trafficking venture.
That shared connection is central to why Julia Hubbard and Kayla Goedinghaus appear together as plaintiffs in the main federal case. Their lawsuit presents their experiences as connected parts of a wider alleged pattern rather than unrelated personal disputes.
Julia Hubbard’s Relationship With Rick Hubbard and His Alleged Role
People searching for “Julia Hubbard husband Rick” may encounter confusing information online. The federal record identifies Richard “Rick” Hubbard as Julia Hubbard’s then-husband and describes him as a central figure in the plaintiffs’ allegations. He should not be confused with Richard Butler, who appears separately in the defendant list.
According to the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Rick Hubbard developed what they call the trafficking “Venture” or “Enterprise” beginning around 2010. They accuse him of using violence, drugs, financial control, and other forms of coercion to control them and force sexual activity. These accusations are allegations made by the plaintiffs and have not been established as facts by a final judgment.
The plaintiffs further allege that medical professionals and other people helped maintain that control. The 2023 court opinion summarized these claims only because it was considering motions to dismiss; at that stage, courts generally evaluate a complaint under rules that can require accepting properly pleaded allegations as true for purposes of deciding whether a case may continue.
Trammell S. Crow Jr. and the Other Defendants
Trammell S. Crow Jr. is one of the best-known defendants in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs allege that Rick Hubbard’s relationship with Crow became important to the alleged venture and accuse Crow of providing financial support and participating in conduct connected to it.
The amended complaint also named doctors, business figures, corporate entities, and other individuals. The November 2023 court opinion said the plaintiffs accused more than 100 individuals and businesses when named and unidentified “Doe” defendants were included.
That does not mean every person originally named remains an active defendant today. Some defendants were later voluntarily dismissed, and the party list has changed as the litigation has progressed. Cosmopolitan reported in January 2024 that several defendants had already been dismissed with the plaintiffs’ consent.
Crow and most defendants discussed in major reporting have denied wrongdoing or otherwise disputed the allegations. That distinction is essential when describing the case fairly.
What Hubbard and Goedinghaus Allege Happened
At the center of the lawsuit is the plaintiffs’ account of a prolonged pattern of coercion. They allege that Rick Hubbard controlled them through physical violence, access to money, medication or drugs, threats, and psychological pressure. They further claim they were forced or coerced into sexual acts from which others benefited.
Their amended complaint goes further by alleging that various professionals, wealthy associates, and business interests knowingly helped the venture operate or failed to stop conduct despite knowing what was happening.
According to the 2023 opinion, Julia Hubbard alleged that she escaped the claimed venture in 2018, while Goedinghaus alleged that she escaped in 2020.
These allegations are serious, but the wording matters. A civil complaint presents one side’s factual claims. It is not itself proof that every event described occurred as alleged. The defendants are entitled to challenge those claims through discovery, motions, evidence, and, if the case reaches that stage, trial.
RICO, Sex-Trafficking, and Forced-Labor Claims Explained
RICO was created to address patterns of organized unlawful activity. In a civil RICO lawsuit, a plaintiff generally needs much more than an allegation that several people committed wrongdoing. The case must satisfy specific legal requirements concerning an enterprise, prohibited conduct, a pattern of racketeering activity, injury, and the connection between those elements.
Hubbard and Goedinghaus allege that the defendants participated in or conspired around an enterprise involving trafficking and other claimed illegal acts. Their amended complaint also relies on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which provides civil remedies in certain trafficking and forced-labor situations.
The key difference is between alleging a legal claim and proving it. When a judge refuses to dismiss a claim early in a case, the ruling usually means the claim is legally sufficient to proceed under the applicable pleading standard. It does not mean the plaintiff has already proven liability.
The 2023 Ruling That Allowed Major Claims to Continue
One of the most significant early developments came on November 20, 2023, when U.S. District Judge Fred Biery ruled on multiple motions to dismiss filed by responding defendants. The court denied those motions, allowing the challenged claims to continue.
A motion to dismiss asks the court to end claims before a full trial, often by arguing that the complaint does not state a legally valid claim even if its properly pleaded allegations are taken as true at that stage.
Judge Biery specifically emphasized the limited meaning of that process. The opinion explained that allegations were being treated as true for purposes of deciding the motions while the court was not confirming their objective truth.
That makes the November 2023 ruling important, but it should not be described as a finding that trafficking or racketeering had been proven.
Major Julia Hubbard Lawsuit Court Milestones From 2022 to 2026
The court history helps explain why the Julia Hubbard lawsuit has remained active for several years:
- November 1, 2022: Hubbard and Goedinghaus filed the original case in California.
- May 2023: The litigation moved to the Western District of Texas and received case number 5:23-cv-00580.
- November 20, 2023: Judge Biery denied several renewed motions to dismiss.
- 2024–2025: Discovery produced several disputes over document production and compliance with court orders.
- June 5, 2025: Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney granted in part and denied in part a motion by Crow seeking enforcement and sanctions related to discovery.
- August 29, 2025: The court ordered the plaintiffs and their counsel, jointly and severally, to pay $11,790 in attorney’s fees connected to the discovery dispute.
- July 2026: Further discovery activity resulted in a hearing and a social-media order.
The attorney-fee order addressed discovery conduct. It did not decide the underlying trafficking allegations.
Latest 2026 Discovery Activity and the Social-Media Order
The main Western District of Texas case remained active in July 2026. The public docket records a discovery hearing before Magistrate Judge Chestney on July 9, 2026.
An order entered on July 10 stated that plaintiffs and defendants were prohibited from posting on social media about the ongoing litigation, the parties, or the facts giving rise to the case until after trial. It also provided a process for defendants other than Crow to object to that restriction.
This type of order concerns how an active case is managed. It does not establish whether the plaintiffs’ trafficking allegations are true or whether any defendant is legally liable.
As of August 12, 2026, CourtListener identifies July 10, 2026 as the latest known filing date in the main case. The public record reviewed for this article does not show a final judgment resolving the underlying claims.
The Separate Julia Hubbard Lawsuit Involving The Lodge
There is another case that can easily be confused with the Crow litigation. Hubbard v. DCG Inc. et al., No. 3:25-cv-00380, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on February 14, 2025. It is a separate lawsuit.
The defendants listed in that action include D.C.G. Inc., doing business as The Lodge, Dawn Rizos, Jason E. Money Sr., and Craig Clint Stiff Jr. According to the court’s September 2025 opinion, Hubbard alleges that she performed at The Lodge in Dallas and was sexually assaulted by Money and Stiff, who were customers. She further alleges that the club and its management knew of the conduct, threatened her when she complained, and profited from the encounters.
The defendants dispute the claims. Hubbard brought federal sex-trafficking and forced-labor causes of action in this separate case.
Key Rulings in the Lodge Case and the Statute-of-Limitations Issue
On September 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr denied a motion by D.C.G. Inc. seeking dismissal of Hubbard’s claims. One issue was whether the claims were filed within the applicable time limit.
The parties agreed that the relevant Trafficking Victims Protection Act claims had a ten-year limitations period. Because Hubbard filed on February 14, 2025, the court said alleged incidents before February 14, 2015 were time-barred. However, the parties disputed when her employment at The Lodge ended, creating a factual issue that could not be resolved through that dismissal motion.
Another significant ruling came on June 16, 2026, when Magistrate Judge David L. Horan granted a motion to strike Hubbard’s expert disclosure and designation after finding that required underlying information had not been properly disclosed under Rule 26.
The Lodge docket continued after that order. Its latest known filing was July 28, 2026, when Judge Starr granted a joint motion for a protective order. None of these procedural rulings amounts to a final decision that Hubbard’s underlying allegations are true or false.
Julia Hubbard’s GoFundMe, Substack, Podcast, and Public Updates
Interest in the lawsuit has also led people to search for a Julia Hubbard GoFundMe, podcast, Substack, Facebook account, book, and Wikipedia page.
Hubbard launched a GoFundMe titled “Help Julia Hubbard Fight for Justice” in July 2025. The page describes her perspective on the litigation and her stated reasons for seeking financial support. Because the fundraiser is written by Hubbard herself, it should be understood as a first-person source rather than an independent legal record.
She also publishes the Justice Philosophy Journal on Substack. Her Substack profile includes written posts and a Justice Philosophy Podcast, where she discusses her experiences, advocacy, and views. Julia Hubbard also has a publicly searchable Facebook presence connected with updates about her fundraiser and activities.
As of this review, searches did not establish a dedicated Wikipedia biography for this Julia Hubbard, and reliable results did not establish that she has formally published a book about the lawsuit. Those terms therefore should not be turned into unsupported claims simply because users search for “Julia Hubbard Wikipedia” or “Julia Hubbard book.”
For legal status, federal court records remain more reliable than social-media posts, fundraising pages, podcasts, or personal essays.
Conclusion
The Julia Hubbard lawsuit remains a complicated federal civil dispute involving trafficking, forced-labor, and RICO allegations. Julia Hubbard and Kayla Goedinghaus accuse Richard “Rick” Hubbard, Trammell S. Crow Jr., and other defendants of participating in or supporting an alleged long-running venture. The defendants have disputed the allegations, and no final judgment in the main case has established liability.
The main Western District of Texas case survived important dismissal motions in 2023 and later moved through extensive discovery disputes. Its latest publicly identified filing was dated July 10, 2026, involving restrictions on social-media discussion during the litigation.
Hubbard’s separate case against D.C.G. Inc., The Lodge, and other defendants also remains distinct from the Crow RICO action. Its public docket showed activity through July 28, 2026, following the 2025 dismissal ruling and the June 2026 expert-disclosure decision.
For readers following the case, the most important distinction is simple: a complaint contains allegations, a procedural ruling determines how litigation moves forward, and a final judgment determines legal liability. Until the courts reach that final stage—or the parties otherwise resolve the cases—the disputed allegations should continue to be reported as allegations rather than proven facts.
Frequently Asked Questions
What Is The Julia Hubbard Lawsuit About?
The Julia Hubbard lawsuit concerns civil allegations by Julia Hubbard and Kayla Goedinghaus involving trafficking, forced labor, coercion, and an alleged RICO enterprise. Trammell S. Crow Jr. and numerous other defendants have been named in the litigation.
Is The Julia Hubbard Lawsuit Still Active In 2026?
Yes. Public docket information reviewed on August 12, 2026 identifies July 10, 2026 as the latest known filing in the Western District of Texas case, indicating that the federal litigation had not ended by that date.
Who Are The Plaintiffs In The Julia Hubbard Lawsuit?
The plaintiffs in the main federal case are Julia Hubbard and Kayla Goedinghaus. They brought civil claims against Trammell S. Crow Jr., Richard Hubbard, and a number of other individuals and entities.
Has Trammell Crow Jr. Been Found Liable In The Julia Hubbard Lawsuit?
No final finding of liability should be inferred from the case’s procedural rulings. Allowing claims to continue means litigation can proceed; it does not establish that disputed allegations against Crow or other defendants are true.
Is The Lawsuit Involving The Lodge The Same Case?
No. Julia Hubbard’s litigation involving D.C.G. Inc., doing business as The Lodge, is a separate federal case in the Northern District of Texas, although some of its allegations relate to Hubbard’s broader account.
Was this article helpful? Check out more on Lawbattlefield.com
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The Julia Hubbard lawsuits involve serious allegations that remain subject to litigation and dispute. References to accusations, claims, or alleged conduct should not be interpreted as findings of guilt or civil liability. Court proceedings and case status may change, so readers seeking the latest information should consult official federal court records.
