November 20, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
November 20, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, Judge Jamar K. Walker denied motions to dismiss filed by Marriott International, Inc. and two entities alleged to own or operate a SpringHill Suites by Marriott hotel. According to the amended complaint, the plaintiff—a minor—alleged she was trafficked at the hotel and that employees assisted her trafficker or ignored visible indicators of distress. The defendants argued that the allegations were insufficient to satisfy the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) or Virginia negligence law, and Marriott separately argued that the complaint did not plausibly allege an agency relationship between franchisor and franchisee. The court held that, accepting the allegations as true solely for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes, the plaintiff plausibly pleaded beneficiary liability, participation in a venture, predicate acts, constructive knowledge, and—at the pleading stage—an agency theory that could allow TVPRA and negligence claims against Marriott to proceed. The opinion emphasized that it made no factual findings and relied exclusively on the allegations as stated in the amended complaint.
Relevant Background
According to the opinion, the plaintiff alleged she was trafficked in 2022 at a SpringHill Suites hotel operated by defendants Coastal Hospitality Associates and Dunes Hotel Investment Associates. The amended complaint asserted that the trafficker exercised coercive control through force, intimidation, and manipulation. The plaintiff further alleged that hotel staff encountered her while she was visibly malnourished, bruised, and dressed in attire inconsistent with her age.
The amended complaint alleged that staff interacted with both the plaintiff and the trafficker, allegedly met with them before check-in, recorded only one guest in the room despite the plaintiff’s presence, and accepted payments from the trafficker. The plaintiff alleged that she sought help from the front desk and audibly asked staff for assistance. The complaint also asserted that unregistered individuals frequented the room, that the trafficker solicited buyers in and around the hotel, and that the hotel had prior complaints and surveillance video relating to suspected trafficking activity.
Marriott was named as franchisor based on allegations that it controlled training programs, reservation systems, risk-management practices, and brand-level policies, including those related to trafficking prevention. The plaintiff alleged that Marriott collected operational data and exercised influence over employment-related processes. Marriott denied these allegations and argued that the complaint relied on generalized assertions about the hospitality industry rather than facts showing Marriott’s knowledge or involvement.
Decision
The court denied the motions to dismiss, explaining that Rule 12 required it to accept all well-pleaded allegations as true.
The opinion addressed the TVPRA elements as follows:
• Knowing benefit: The court found that allegations of room revenue associated with the trafficker, as well as allegations that Marriott received a percentage of gross room revenue, were sufficient at the pleading stage to allege a financial benefit.
• Participation in a venture: Without deciding whether the TVPRA requires an overt act, the court held that the amended complaint alleged overt acts—such as misrecording room occupancy, meeting with the trafficker and plaintiff, assisting the trafficker, and receiving cash payments—which, if true, satisfied the standard.
• Predicate act: The court determined that allegations of coercive conduct by the trafficker—including violence, threats, and forced substance use—sufficiently alleged a predicate TVPRA violation.
• Knowledge: The court held that allegations of staff interactions, visible signs of distress, and explicit pleas for help allowed an inference of actual or constructive knowledge for the franchisee entities. Regarding Marriott, the court applied federal agency principles and held that the allegations—accepted as true at this stage—plausibly supported an inference of an agency relationship sufficient to impute knowledge.
The court also held that the negligence claim against the franchisee entities was sufficiently pleaded. The opinion observed that Virginia recognizes a special relationship between innkeepers and guests, which may impose a duty to protect guests from foreseeable criminal acts. Based on the allegations regarding prior complaints, alleged interactions with the trafficker, and observable physical indicators, the court held that foreseeability was sufficiently pleaded. Because the negligence claim against Marriott depended on the same agency theory as the TVPRA claim, it also survived dismissal.
Finally, the court rejected the argument that the amended complaint constituted a shotgun pleading, stating that the detailed allegations provided adequate notice of the claims and their factual bases.
Looking Forward
This decision illustrates several early-stage considerations for franchisors, while remaining tied solely to the allegations before the court and the procedural posture of a Rule 12 motion. The opinion repeatedly emphasized that no factual findings were made and that the plaintiff’s allegations—many of which Marriott disputes—were accepted as true only for purposes of the motions to dismiss.
The court’s approach underscores that TVPRA claims often turn on the presence of highly specific factual allegations, such as alleged direct staff interactions, visible indicators of distress, or explicit requests for help. Under different factual circumstances or in other jurisdictions, courts may evaluate constructive knowledge and participation in a venture differently. This opinion does not suggest that brand-level standards, reservation systems, or training materials alone establish an agency relationship or control; instead, it reflects the limited inquiry permitted at the pleading stage.
The court’s agency analysis also highlights the importance of documenting franchisee independence and maintaining clear distinctions between brand support and day-to-day operations, particularly regarding personnel decisions, safety practices, and on-site supervision. Allegations describing franchisor involvement in operational matters may survive early motions to dismiss, even where the franchisor disputes their accuracy, because agency determinations are often evidence-dependent.
Finally, the negligence ruling reflects Virginia’s treatment of innkeeper–guest relationships and its foreseeability framework. Although the opinion allowed the negligence claim to proceed, the ruling is expressly tied to the allegations accepted as true at this stage and does not determine whether the defendants’ actual conduct met any duty of care. As discovery progresses, issues relating to control, knowledge, operational independence, and brand-system practices will likely become central to the analysis.
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.
