August 21, 2025|Publications
August 21, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, Judge Barry W. Ashe of the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed Hilton Worldwide Holdings and Hilton Franchise Holding for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff Thomas Lane alleged disability discrimination under the ADA and Louisiana law after an incident at a Hilton-branded Hampton Inn in New Orleans involving his service dog. Lane argued that Hilton’s ADA policies, corporate training standards, and provisions in its Franchise Agreement created sufficient Louisiana contacts. Hilton presented sworn declarations showing that it did not operate, manage, or control the hotel or its staff. The court sided with Hilton, holding that standard franchise provisions and systemwide ADA policies were too attenuated to establish purposeful availment of Louisiana law, distinguishing cases such as E.S. v. Best Western International, Inc..
Relevant Background
Lane, who requires a service dog, stayed at the Hampton Inn French Quarter Market Area in March 2024. He alleged that staff charged him a fee for his dog, required additional paperwork, and later berated him in the breakfast area despite his explanation that the animal was a service dog. Lane said hotel management ignored his concerns. He further alleged that Hilton Franchise opened a claim about the incident several days later, but while staff provided statements, the hotel destroyed all camera footage of the episode.
Lane filed suit in Louisiana state court in November 2024, asserting claims under the ADA and Louisiana Commission on Human Rights law against Hilton Hotel Employer, Baywood Hotels, and 501EFA Hotel. Baywood and 501EFA admitted that they owned and operated the property. The defendants removed the case to federal court in January 2025. In March, the court allowed Lane to file a second amended complaint substituting Hilton Worldwide and Hilton Franchise as defendants. Hilton moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and after Lane sought to add more jurisdictional allegations, the court permitted a third amended complaint. Hilton then renewed its motions to dismiss.
Lane argued that Hilton directed sufficient contacts toward Louisiana through contractual provisions in the Franchise Agreement. He emphasized Hilton’s approval rights over the management company, its ability to conduct quality-assurance inspections, its collection of franchise fees, and the requirement that franchisees follow Hilton’s ADA compliance standards. He also pointed to Hilton Worldwide’s anti-discrimination policy, which stated that service animals were welcome at Hilton-branded hotels. Hilton, in response, filed sworn declarations confirming that it played no role in the hotel’s daily operations, did not employ hotel staff, and did not supervise or control employee conduct.
Decision
The court granted Hilton’s motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2). Judge Ashe first found no basis for general jurisdiction because Hilton is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Virginia.
Turning to specific jurisdiction, the court emphasized that the plaintiff’s claims must “arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum contacts” and that “it is the defendant’s conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum State” (Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014)). Lane’s reliance on the Franchise Agreement and ADA policies was insufficient. As the court explained, “merely contracting with a resident of the forum state is insufficient to subject the nonresident to the forum’s jurisdiction” (Freudensprung v. Offshore Tech. Servs., 379 F.3d 327, 344 (5th Cir. 2004)). Provisions relating to inspections, training, and quality control reflected the type of standard franchisor language that courts have consistently found inadequate to establish jurisdiction (Diece-Lisa Indus., Inc. v. Disney Store USA, LLC, 943 F.3d 239, 253 (5th Cir. 2019)).
The court also rejected Lane’s reliance on Hilton’s ADA compliance policy, noting that it expressly required Hilton-branded hotels not to discriminate and to welcome service animals. Judge Ashe reasoned that using such systemwide standards to establish jurisdiction would mean Hilton “could be haled into court in any state whenever a local franchisee allegedly violated a Hilton-wide policy,” a result inconsistent with due process.
Finally, the court distinguished Lane’s reliance on Best Western. In that case, the franchisor allegedly owned, supervised, or operated hotels in Texas, shared in revenue from the rooms where the plaintiff was trafficked, and directly contracted to supply services in the forum state. By contrast, Hilton provided sworn evidence that it neither owned nor managed the New Orleans hotel, nor did it control its employees. As Judge Ashe concluded, “The Hotel employee’s alleged discriminatory conduct toward Lane is simply too attenuated from Hilton’s policies and its contractual relationship with the Hotel’s franchisee to confer personal jurisdiction”.
Looking Forward
Personal jurisdiction over franchisors remains a contested issue across the country. Courts apply the same constitutional standards but interpret them differently when deciding what constitutes minimum contacts or purposeful availment. This creates uneven results, particularly in discrimination and tort cases where plaintiffs attempt to use franchise agreements and brand policies as jurisdictional hooks.
The decision in Lane v. Baywood Hotels provides franchisors with an important point of reference. Judge Ashe concluded that Hilton’s ADA compliance policies and franchise agreement provisions were too attenuated to create the necessary nexus to Louisiana. His distinction from Best Western is notable: while that case involved allegations of direct ownership, supervision, and profit-sharing, the facts here showed no operational control by Hilton. The contrast underscores how fact-specific the jurisdictional inquiry remains.
For franchisors, the ruling suggests that courts may treat ADA policies and other compliance standards as insufficient, standing alone, to establish jurisdiction. At the same time, the decision illustrates that courts in other jurisdictions may reach different outcomes under similar facts, particularly if they interpret contractual provisions as evidence of operational involvement. As a result, franchisors should expect plaintiffs to continue pressing these arguments and should watch closely how courts outside Louisiana develop the law. The Lane decision does not end the debate, but it offers a starting point for franchisors seeking to limit their litigation exposure based solely on systemwide policies and franchise agreements.
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.
