Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

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-03845-WMR

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING CERTAIN MOTIONS TO DISMISS, GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE ALLEGATIONS, DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS MOOT, AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

This case comes before the Court on Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by defendants Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. ("WHRI"), Choice Hotels International, Inc. ("Choice"), Hilton Franchise Holding LLC, Hilton Domestic Operating [*3]  Company Inc., and Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. (collectively referred to herein as "Hilton"), and Microtel Inns & Suites Franchising, Inc. ("MISF"). [See Docs. 100, 119, and 144]. Also, before the Court is Choice's Motion to Strike certain allegations from the Amended Complaint. [Doc. 100].

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, Choice, and Hilton without prejudice. In addition, the Court strikes Plaintiff's allegations from the Amended Complaint concerning sex trafficking and 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.1

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. 75] brings suit against sixteen named defendants and ten unnamed "John Doe" defendants for alleged violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act  [*4] ("TVPRA"), violations of the Georgia RICO Act, and negligence. The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was forced by unidentified traffickers to engage in sexual activity with "buyers" at different hotels in the Atlanta area on various dates between 2010 and 2013, including two Red Roof Inn®-branded hotels, a Microtel®-branded hotel, a Suburban Extended Stay®-branded hotel, and a Hampton Inn®-branded hotel.

The Amended Complaint divides the defendants into several groups, including: (i) the Red Roof (Smyrna) Defendants;2 (ii) the Red Roof (Atlanta) Defendants;3 (iii) the Microtel Defendants;4 (iv) the Suburban Extended Stay Defendants;5 and (v) the Hampton Inn (CP Atlanta) Defendants.6 These groups of defendants include hotel franchisors, parent companies, independent hotel franchisees, hotel owners, management companies, and corporate affiliates. The Amended Complaint makes allegations against these groups of defendants based on the particular hotel or hotels at which the alleged trafficking occurred. The Amended Complaint also includes allegations directed at all "Defendants," collectively, and about human trafficking, generally.

Read 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 67142 *

JANE DOE 4, Plaintiff, v. RED ROOF INNS, INC., et al., Defendants.

CORE TERMS

allegations, amended complaint, Franchisor, trafficking, hotel, sex, motion to dismiss, Affiliate, pleadings, franchise, motion to strike, MOOT, franchisee's, racketeering activity, motion for judgment, remaining defendant, conspiracy, ORDERS