August 22, 2025|Publications
August 22, 2025 | United States District Court for the District of Maryland | Slip Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the District of Maryland transferred a trafficking-related lawsuit against Choice Hotels International and one of its Wisconsin franchisees, App Pro of Appleton, Inc., to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiff alleged violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), claiming she was trafficked at a Comfort Suites operated by App Pro and that Choice Hotels was liable both directly and vicariously through its control over franchise operations. While the court declined to reach the merits of the TVPRA allegations, it held that venue was more appropriate in Wisconsin, where the alleged trafficking occurred, and where jurisdiction over the franchisee was certain. The motions to dismiss for improper venue and personal jurisdiction were denied as moot, but the plaintiff’s substantive claims remain pending in Wisconsin.
Relevant Background
Jane Doe alleged that from July 2014 through March 2015 she was trafficked at the Comfort Suites in Appleton, Wisconsin. Her trafficker posed as her boyfriend, fostered her drug dependency, and coerced her into repeated commercial sex acts. According to Doe, she was “trafficked an incalculable number of times” at the property.
She identified numerous signs of trafficking that should have alerted hotel staff and management: rooms were paid for with cash or prepaid cards; her trafficker accompanied her during check-in; the same rooms were rented repeatedly over months; there was heavy foot traffic in and out of her room involving men who were not guests; she requested fresh sheets and towels multiple times a day; and she met with as many as twenty men daily, often at unusual hours and for short visits. Doe also alleged that other young women were trafficked simultaneously at the same hotel and that staff ignored these red flags.
Beyond conditions at the Appleton property, Doe claimed that both App Pro and Choice Hotels were on notice of trafficking more broadly. She cited more than a dozen news stories involving trafficking at other Choice-branded properties and pointed to online reviews on Expedia, Google, Trip Advisor, and Yelp that raised concerns about prostitution at the chain’s hotels. She alleged that Choice Hotels monitored such reviews and therefore “knew or should have known” about the prevalence of trafficking within the system. She further claimed that App Pro had reported suspected trafficking to Choice Hotels during the relevant time frame, and that both public and non-public sources—including law enforcement activity and customer complaints—reinforced that trafficking was a known problem.
Decision
The District of Maryland considered Choice Hotels’ motion to transfer the case to Wisconsin under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court found no dispute that the Eastern District of Wisconsin was a proper forum because the alleged trafficking occurred there and the franchisee was located there. With respect to the first factor, the plaintiff’s choice of venue was entitled to little weight because she resided in Wisconsin, the events took place in Wisconsin, and Maryland was chosen primarily because Choice Hotels is headquartered there.
The court emphasized that witness convenience strongly favored transfer. The key witnesses—including the plaintiff, hotel staff, traffickers, and law enforcement—were in Wisconsin. By contrast, only a few Choice Hotels’ corporate witnesses were in Maryland. On party convenience, the court found transfer appropriate because both the plaintiff and the franchisee were in Wisconsin, while Choice Hotels had already agreed to litigate there.
Finally, the court noted that the interest of justice supported transfer because personal jurisdiction over App Pro in Maryland was doubtful. The opinion cited several nearly identical TVPRA cases against hotel franchisors where courts held that the franchisee’s home jurisdiction could exercise personal jurisdiction over the franchisor. These included E.S. v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., 510 F. Supp. 3d 420 (N.D. Tex. 2021); J.C. v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc., 2020 WL 6318707 (N.D. Cal. 2020); and Doe S.W. v. Lorain-Elyria Motel, Inc., 2020 WL 1244192 (S.D. Ohio 2020). The court concluded that Wisconsin was the appropriate forum and that transferring the case would ensure efficiency and avoid injecting an uncertain jurisdictional issue at the outset.
Looking Forward
The decision illustrates the growing number of trafficking lawsuits brought under the TVPRA against national hotel brands and their franchisees. Plaintiffs frequently seek to sue franchisors in their home states, but courts are increasingly transferring such cases to the jurisdiction where the franchisee operates. The court’s ruling here reflects skepticism of what appears to be forum shopping and emphasizes that the convenience of witnesses, efficiency of proceedings, and certainty of jurisdiction weigh heavily in venue determinations.
For franchisors, the case underscores two important trends. First, these lawsuits are becoming more common and continue to test the boundaries of franchisor liability in franchise operations. Second, while franchisors may succeed in channeling litigation to franchisee forums, plaintiffs continue to allege that franchise agreements, operational policies, and system standards give franchisors pervasive control that can support vicarious liability. The line between brand protection and operational control remains under scrutiny, and franchisors should remain attentive to how courts analyze these issues in trafficking and other third-party misconduct cases.
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 or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
