September 22, 2025|Publications
September 22, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished memorandum opinion, Senior Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater of the Northern District of Texas denied a motion to dismiss Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1595, claims brought against G6 Hospitality entities, including Motel 6 and Studio 6 affiliates. Plaintiff alleged she was trafficked in 2014–2015 at a Studio 6 hotel in Dallas. Defendants argued that her claims were untimely, inadequately pleaded, and, in any event, could not be asserted against franchisors. The court disagreed, holding that equitable tolling could preserve her claims and that allegations of “participation in a venture” and constructive knowledge were sufficient to survive dismissal. Most notably, the court rejected defendants’ attempt to escape liability by arguing they were franchisors rather than operators, concluding that at the pleading stage it must accept plaintiff’s allegation that defendants owned and operated the hotel. The franchisor-versus-operator issue was left for later stages.
Relevant Background
Plaintiff alleged that in 2014 she visited a Studio 6 in Dallas for what she believed to be a job interview. Instead, she was taken captive by a trafficker named Malik and his armed associate, who coerced her with violence, threats, and drugs. For eight months, Malik allegedly trafficked her at the hotel, up to two times per week.
Plaintiff alleged that hotel staff observed and ignored numerous red flags, including: Malik renting the same room repeatedly, paying in cash or with prepaid cards; a steady flow of men entering and exiting at all hours; trash cans filled with condoms; victims appearing with restricted movement and demeanor indicative of coercion; and Malik standing outside the door while commercial sex acts occurred.
She claimed staff reported these indicators to management but the hotel continued to rent Malik the same room. Plaintiff escaped in June 2015 and filed suit in March 2025. Her complaint alleged that defendants knowingly benefited from and participated in her trafficking by profiting from Malik’s repeat rentals and failing to implement adequate anti-trafficking policies.
Decision
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing plaintiff’s claims were untimely, insufficiently pleaded, and improperly directed at franchisors who did not own or operate the Studio 6.
On the statute of limitations, the court held that the TVPRA’s ten-year limitations period, 18 U.S.C. § 1595(c), is subject to equitable tolling. Citing Arellano v. McDonough, 598 U.S. 1, 6–7 (2023), the court emphasized the “hornbook law” presumption that federal statutes of limitations are subject to tolling unless Congress clearly states otherwise. Because plaintiff alleged she escaped in June 2015, less than ten years before filing suit, and because her allegations did not foreclose tolling, dismissal on limitations grounds was improper.
On the merits, the court addressed the split definitions of “participation in a venture.” The Eleventh Circuit defines it as “taking part in a common undertaking or enterprise involving risk and potential profit.” Doe #1 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 21 F.4th 714, 726 (11th Cir. 2021). The Seventh Circuit has adopted the broader “continuous business relationship” test. G.G. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 76 F.4th 544, 559–60 (7th Cir. 2023). Judge Fitzwater held that under either approach, Doe plausibly alleged participation: “Malik always rented the same room … He was a repeat customer and was known at this location. Malik had a continuous business relationship between Defendants as he was a regular.” Am. Compl. ¶ 78.
The court also found plaintiff plausibly alleged actual or constructive knowledge. Her complaint described indicators that went beyond voluntary prostitution: traffickers confiscated her car keys, plied her with drugs, and controlled her movements. Employees allegedly saw and reported these conditions. Accepting these facts as true, the court concluded defendants plausibly “knew or should have known” she was trafficked “as a result of force, fraud, or coercion”.
The most significant portion of the decision, however, concerned franchisor liability. Defendants argued that the Studio 6 in question was not franchised at the time of plaintiff’s trafficking, and therefore the franchisor defendants did not belong in the suit. Judge Fitzwater rejected that argument at the pleading stage:
“Defendants contend in their reply that the Studio 6 hotel in question was not franchised at the time Doe was trafficked, and, therefore, that the franchisor defendants do not belong in the suit. But at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage the court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to Doe as the nonmovant … [and] it is unable to grant dismissal based on the instant Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”
By accepting plaintiff’s allegation that defendants were owner-operators, the court allowed the case to proceed against all G6 entities, while making clear that the franchisor-versus-operator issue could be revisited at summary judgment.
Looking Forward
This decision highlights the risk franchisors face in TVPRA litigation: plaintiffs can plead that the franchisor was an “owner-operator” and survive early dismissal, even where the franchisor disputes its role. Courts may defer the issue until discovery, forcing franchisors to remain in the case and endure expensive fact development before obtaining clarity.
For franchisors, the lesson is twofold. First, early motions may not succeed where the plaintiff alleges ownership or operational control; courts must accept those allegations as true under Rule 12(b)(6). Second, franchisors should maintain meticulous records distinguishing ownership, management, and franchise functions to present at summary judgment. Procedurally, this case illustrates that while statute of limitations and sufficiency challenges may be overcome by equitable tolling and detailed allegations, the franchisor status dispute is often the most consequential for whether a case proceeds.
In short, Doe v. G6 Hospitality underscores that franchisors cannot count on being dismissed at the pleading stage simply by pointing to their role in the franchise system. Courts may treat them as operators until discovery proves otherwise. That reality reinforces the importance of both strong compliance programs and clear structural separation between franchisors and franchisees.
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 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.
