484 F.Supp.3d 921
D. Or.2020Background:
- Plaintiff A.B., trafficked at age 22 during Sept. 2012–Mar. 2013, alleges she was sold for sex at six branded hotels in Oregon and Washington (Hilton DoubleTree Portland; Wyndham Days Inn Vancouver; Marriott Residence Inn Portland Airport; Choice Rodeway Inn Vancouver; ESA Extended Stay America Vancouver; Red Lion Salem).
- She alleges visible "red flags" (used condoms, lubricant, heavy male foot traffic, malnourishment, cash/debit payments, employee-discount bookings, operation of trafficker from hotel Wi-Fi) and that branded companies profited from room rentals/royalties.
- Claims: single TVPRA claim (18 U.S.C. § 1595) against each corporate defendant for knowingly benefiting from participation in a trafficking venture they knew or should have known about; alternative theories include direct and vicarious liability (agency, joint-employer, alter ego).
- Motions: Choice Hotels and Extended Stay America moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Hilton, Marriott, Wyndham, and Red Lion moved to dismiss for failure to state a TVPRA claim; Hilton moved to be dropped under Rule 21; plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously.
- Holdings summary: Court dismissed Choice and ESA for lack of personal jurisdiction (claims arose from WA hotels not Oregon); granted 12(b)(6) motions by Hilton, Marriott, Wyndham, and Red Lion with leave to amend (TVPRA claims insufficiently pleaded as to knowledge/participation and vicarious liability theories); denied Hilton’s Rule 21 motion; allowed plaintiff to proceed anonymously; 30 days to amend.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Choice & ESA | Choice/ESA operate/brand hotels in Oregon and solicit business there, so Oregon courts may hear claims tied to branded hotels | Events giving rise to claims occurred at Choice/ESA properties in Washington, not Oregon; contacts do not render them "at home" or purposefully directed to Oregon | Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (no general or specific jurisdiction; "but-for" nexus to Oregon absent; no jurisdictional discovery granted) |
| TVPRA direct: "knowingly benefited" financially | Royalties/room rentals from rooms where A.B. was trafficked constitute a financial benefit sufficient under §1595 | A financial benefit must be tied to trafficking or require actual knowledge of trafficking to support liability | Court: Allegations that defendants received rental/royalty payments are sufficient at pleading stage to satisfy the "knowingly benefited" element |
| TVPRA direct: participation in a trafficking venture (knew or should have known) | Branded companies had notice of trafficking at branded hotels generally and failed to implement/ enforce policies—so they participated or should have known | Plaintiff fails to allege that corporate defendants had notice of A.B.’s specific trafficking or took overt acts with knowledge; criminal §1591 standard should not be imported into §1595 | Court: Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege defendants "knew or should have known" about A.B.’s trafficking at the specific properties; direct TVPRA claims dismissed as insufficient |
| Vicarious liability (actual/apparent agency, joint employer, alter ego) | Corporations exercised ongoing control over branded hotels (bookings, training, inspections, employment decisions), so they are vicariously liable for hotel/staff conduct | Alleged brand-control is insufficient to show the companies knew or should have known of force/fraud/coercion specific to A.B.; alter ego not pled | Court: Actual agency and joint-employer theories were plausible at pleading level re: control, but fail because complaint does not plausibly show hotels/staff knew or should have known A.B. was trafficked via force/fraud/coercion; apparent agency and alter-ego not sufficiently pled; vicarious claims dismissed |
| Hilton Rule 21 dismissal (drop as improper party) | Hilton says it is a holding company and is too remote in structure to be a proper defendant | — | Denied: Court declines to drop Hilton under Rule 21; Hilton’s arguments are merits-based and properly addressed under Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Proceeding anonymously | A.B. is a sex-trafficking victim and needs anonymity for safety and privacy | Defendants/public interest in identification | Granted: Court allows plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym (anonymity outweighs prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction standard)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (foundational personal-jurisdiction principles)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 ("at home"/exceptional general jurisdiction standard)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (application of "at home" analysis to extensive in-state operations)
- Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (Ninth Circuit "effects" test for purposeful direction)
- Panavision Intern., L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 ("but-for" test for relatedness in specific jurisdiction analysis)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for factual plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading plausibility framework)
- Ditullio v. Boehm, 662 F.3d 1091 (TVPRA private right of action and statutory background)
- Mavrix Photographs, LLC v. LiveJournal, Inc., 873 F.3d 1045 (federal common-law agency principles applied by Ninth Circuit)
- U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Global Horizons, Inc., 915 F.3d 631 (agency/control factors in employment contexts)
- Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (vicarious liability/common-law limits on statutory interpretation)