Jane Doe (A.L.H.) v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss an amended complaint asserting civil liability under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged beneficiary liability based on the defendants’ financial benefit, participation in trafficking-related ventures, and actual or constructive knowledge of sex trafficking. The court also held that the complaint plausibly alleged vicarious liability against the Wyndham defendants under common-law agency principles.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff adequately pleaded beneficiary liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a). Her allegations that Defendants received financial benefits from room rentals, participated in ventures involving the hotel and traffickers, and knew or should have known of the sex trafficking were sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
2. Plaintiff adequately pleaded that the Franchisee Defendant acted as Wyndham Defendants' agent and that Wyndham Defendants could be vicariously liable for the Franchisee Defendant's alleged TVPRA violations.
3. Any personal-jurisdiction defense was waived because Defendants failed to raise lack of personal jurisdiction in their Rule 12 motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff plausibly pleaded beneficiary liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) by alleging that Defendants knowingly benefited from participation in ventures that Defendants knew or should have known engaged in sex trafficking.
2. Whether Plaintiff plausibly pleaded that Wyndham Defendants may be vicariously liable under 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) for the Franchisee Defendant's alleged TVPRA violations under common-law agency principles.
3. Whether Defendants waived any personal-jurisdiction defense by failing to assert it in their Rule 12 motion.

Disposition

denied