Doe v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division
April 13, 2020, Decided; April 13, 2020, Filed
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-03843-WMR
ORDER GRANTING CERTAIN MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SUA SPONTE STRIKING ALLEGATIONS, [*3] DENYING CERTAIN MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS MOOT, AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADING AS MOOT
The above case came before the Court for a hearing on Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by defendants Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. ("WHRI"), Hilton Franchise Holding LLC, Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc., and Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. (collectively referred to herein as "Hilton"), Microtel Inns & Suites Franchising, Inc. ("MISF"), Laxmi Druid Hills Hotel, LLC ("Laxmi"), JHM Hotels Management, Inc. ("JHM"), Auro Hotels Management, LLC ("AHM"), Extended Stay America, Inc., ESA Management, LLC, ESA P Portfolio, LLC, and ESA P Portfolio Operating Lessee (collectively referred to herein as "ESA"). [See Docs. 125, 151, 153, and 155]. The Court also considers, sua sponte, striking certain allegations of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
Upon consideration of the arguments presented and authorities cited by the parties, the applicable law, and all appropriate matters of record, the Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss of WHRI, MISF, and Hilton without prejudice. In addition, the Court strikes Plaintiff's allegations from the Amended Complaint concerning sex trafficking and [*4] the relationship between sex trafficking and the hotel industry generally, and the Court orders the Plaintiff to recast her complaint removing all general allegations about sex trafficking or the sex trafficking industry that are not related to a specific Defendant and setting forth specific allegations as to each remaining Defendant with supporting facts. As a result of the leave to amend the complaint, the motions to dismiss of Laxmi, JHM, AHM, and ESA are DENIED as moot.
I. BACKGROUNDRead The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67141 *
JANE DOE 3, Plaintiff, v. RED ROOF INNS, INC., et al., Defendants.
allegations, amended complaint, Franchisor, trafficking, hotel, motion to dismiss, sex, Affiliate, MOOT, pleadings, franchise, franchisee's, ordering, racketeering activity, remaining defendant, motion to strike, no relation, conspiracy