A.B. v. Extended Stay America Inc
35 F.4th 1159
| W.D. Wash. | 2023Background
- Plaintiff A.B. alleges she was sex‑trafficked at the Extended Stay America — Portland–Vancouver hotel from Sept. 2012–Mar. 2013; trafficker rented a room, provided her an unregistered key, buyers visited, and trafficker recorded encounters to blackmail her.
- Plaintiff previously sued in Oregon; that court dismissed ESA, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed TVPRA claims against other hotel brands for failure to state a claim.
- Plaintiff sued ESA, Inc., ESA P Portfolio Operating Lessee LLC ("ESA Portfolio"), and another defendant in W.D. Wash.; ESA, Inc. and ESA Portfolio moved to dismiss (personal jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) TVPRA beneficiary claim, respectively).
- ESA, Inc. submitted affidavits showing it was formed after the alleged trafficking, headquartered outside Washington, and did not operate or manage the subject hotel; Plaintiff offered no contradictory affidavits.
- The Court held ESA, Inc. not subject to personal jurisdiction (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) and held that Plaintiff failed to plead ESA Portfolio knew or should have known of trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 1595, dismissing ESA Portfolio with prejudice and denying leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction over ESA, Inc. | ESA, Inc.'s brand control and interrelated operations render it "at home" in WA | ESA, Inc. was incorporated/headquartered elsewhere, followed corporate formalities, did not operate WA hotels | No general jurisdiction; not an exceptional Daimler case |
| Specific jurisdiction over ESA, Inc. | Successor liability/brand continuity ties ESA, Inc. to WA conduct | ESA, Inc. formed after the trafficking and therefore could not have directed forum‑related conduct | No specific jurisdiction; ESA, Inc. did not purposefully direct activities at WA; dismissal for lack of PJ |
| TVPRA beneficiary liability against ESA Portfolio (knowledge element) | ESA Portfolio financially benefited and should have known from observable signs and guest internet use | Allegations show possible commercial sex but not force/coercion or facts establishing actual/constructive knowledge of trafficking | Claim fails: Plaintiff did not plausibly allege ESA Portfolio "knew or should have known" of trafficking; dismissal with prejudice |
| Leave to amend | Plaintiff sought leave to cure pleading defects | Defendants noted prior opportunities to amend, prejudice, and futility | Leave denied as futile and prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction requires corporation be "at home")
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (specific jurisdiction requires defendant's conduct to connect it meaningfully to the forum)
- Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059 (plaintiff bears burden to prove personal jurisdiction; standards for prima facie showing)
- Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co., 35 F.4th 1159 (9th Cir. 2022) (TVPRA beneficiary liability elements and "knew or should have known" standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard — plausibility requirement)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard — factual plausibility)
- United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (parent corporation not ordinarily liable for acts of subsidiary)
- Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (standards for jurisdictional discovery)