September 30, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
September 30, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the Southern District of Ohio denied Choice Hotels International, Inc.’s motion to dismiss trafficking claims brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and the Child Abuse Victim’s Rights Act (CAVRA). The plaintiff alleged that she was trafficked as a minor between 2014 and 2015 at two California hotel properties branded as Motel 6 and Rodeway Inn. Choice challenged personal jurisdiction, the sufficiency of TVPRA allegations, and the plausibility of agency and joint-employer theories. The court concluded that nationwide personal jurisdiction was proper under CAVRA, that the complaint plausibly alleged direct and beneficiary liability under § 1595 of the TVPRA, and that agency and joint-employer theories were adequately pleaded. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend to correct a typographical error in the dates.
Relevant Background
According to the allegations, the plaintiff ran away from foster care at age fourteen and soon thereafter met her trafficker. She alleged that she was trafficked between 2014 and 2015 at two hotel properties: the Inglewood Motel 6, connected to the G6 defendants, and the San Bernardino Rodeway Inn, a Choice-branded property. The complaint described numerous alleged indicators of trafficking at the Rodeway Inn, including repeated cash payments, extended stays paid day-by-day, requests for rooms away from guests, unusually high numbers of male visitors, used condoms and dirty linens, loud physical altercations, and visible signs of deterioration, bruising, and abuse. The plaintiff alleged that staff witnessed these indicators and that one front-desk encounter involved staff threatening to call police because of the state of the room, only to allow the trafficker and the plaintiff to leave without inquiry.
The plaintiff alleged that both G6 and Choice benefitted from renting rooms to traffickers and failed to adopt or enforce adequate anti-trafficking policies. She further alleged that Choice exercised substantial operational oversight of the franchise property, including control over reservation systems, property management systems, rate structures, training programs, inspections, Wi-Fi vendors, and data collection. Choice moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under both CAVRA and the TVPRA.
Decision
The court first held that CAVRA authorizes nationwide personal jurisdiction. Because the plaintiff alleged she was a minor when she was trafficked in violation of § 1591, the court found that CAVRA’s nationwide-jurisdiction provision applied and that the complaint sufficiently alleged her minor status. The court therefore rejected Choice’s argument that it could not be sued in Ohio merely because the alleged conduct occurred in California.
The court then concluded that the complaint plausibly alleged direct civil liability under § 1595. For perpetrator liability under § 1591(a)(1), the court found that allegations of staff hearing screaming, seeing signs of physical deterioration, threatening to call police because of room conditions, and repeatedly renting rooms to the trafficker permitted a reasonable inference that Choice knowingly harbored or maintained the plaintiff while knowing or recklessly disregarding that coercive means were used to cause her to engage in commercial sex acts. For § 1591(a)(2), the court found that allegations of room rentals, acceptance of payments from the trafficker, and failing to intervene were sufficient at the pleading stage to allege knowing assistance or support of a trafficking venture. The court concluded that the allegations plausibly supported an inference that Choice knew or recklessly disregarded the coercive nature of the activity.
The court also found that the complaint plausibly stated beneficiary liability under § 1595(a). It reiterated the principle that room-rental revenue constitutes a “knowing benefit,” and cited prior cases holding that a “venture” under § 1595 may include a commercial business relationship rather than requiring a sex-trafficking venture specifically. The court emphasized that it has previously applied this “commercial venture” approach and rejected narrower interpretations such as those in the Eleventh Circuit’s Doe #1 decision. It concluded that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a continuous business relationship between traffickers and the property, coupled with constructive knowledge of trafficking indicators, to satisfy the TVPRA’s negligence standard at the pleading stage.
The court further held that the complaint plausibly alleged vicarious liability under both agency and joint-employer theories. The court applied Restatement principles to the agency inquiry and found that allegations of operational control—including reservation systems, property-management rules, brand-standards enforcement, data collection, mandated vendors, inspections, and threatened termination—were sufficient to plead the right to control the franchise property. For joint-employer liability, the court found allegations concerning Choice’s role in setting training standards, posting jobs, influencing hiring and advancement, controlling operational policies, and affecting pay structures sufficient to survive dismissal under Sixth Circuit standards.
Because the plaintiff plausibly alleged perpetrator liability, beneficiary liability, agency, and joint-employer theories, the motion to dismiss was denied. The court granted the plaintiff thirty days to amend the complaint solely to correct date-related typographical errors.
Looking Forward
This decision may provide franchisors, hotel systems, and multi-unit brands insight into how courts may evaluate TVPRA pleadings at the motion-to-dismiss stage, particularly in jurisdictions applying broad interpretations of § 1595. The ruling illustrates that courts may consider allegations of operational oversight, training expectations, reservation-system control, and brand-standards enforcement when evaluating whether a franchisor plausibly exercised sufficient control to support agency or joint-employer theories. Allegations of red-flag trafficking indicators, combined with assertions that franchisors benefitted from room revenue and maintained influence over property operations, may be sufficient to survive early dismissal depending on the jurisdiction and the factual context.
The decision also reflects a broader willingness among some courts to interpret “participation in a venture” in a commercial sense rather than requiring evidence of shared criminal purpose. For franchisors, this underscores the importance of clear documentation of the division of operational responsibilities, explicit franchisee obligations regarding employment and safety policies, and thorough training and communication protocols. While courts may ultimately reach different conclusions after discovery, early-stage rulings such as this one highlight how allegations of constructive knowledge and operational involvement can extend litigation and lead to expanded discovery obligations.
As always, outcomes in future cases may vary depending on the jurisdiction, the allegations asserted, and the contract and operational frameworks at issue. This ruling reflects the court’s assessment of allegations only, and subsequent phases of litigation will depend on the evidentiary record developed between the parties.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
