Doe (D.E.G.) v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.
2:23-cv-04256
| S.D. Ohio | Mar 5, 2025Background
- Plaintiff D.E.G. alleges she was sex trafficked at a Red Roof Inn in Columbus, Ohio, between 2010 and 2013.
- The lawsuit, filed in December 2023, seeks damages under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a), against the franchisors, managers, owners, and operators of the hotel.
- She claims the corporate Red Roof defendants exercised significant control and supervision over the hotel, and hotel staff observed obvious signs of trafficking but took no action.
- The complaint asserts three TVPRA claims: perpetrator liability, beneficiary liability, and vicarious liability.
- Defendants moved to dismiss all claims, arguing the statute of limitations had run and the allegations failed to state a claim under the TVPRA
- The Court addressed the motion to dismiss under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, assessing the sufficiency of the pleadings and timeliness of the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of Limitations | Suit is timely as claims were filed within 10 years of last trafficking, or should be tolled due to ongoing coercion/force. | Claims are time-barred; trafficking ended by 2013 but suit filed in late 2023. | Not time-barred at pleading stage; possible continuing violation/tolling, so dismissal is inappropriate. |
| Perpetrator Liability (direct under § 1591) | Sufficient facts support actual or willful blindness by defendants; hotel had control, observed red flags, yet allowed trafficking. | No facts of actual knowledge or concrete action linking defendants directly to plaintiff's trafficking; allegations too conclusory. | Dismissed; allegations insufficient to show actual knowledge or participation by defendants as perpetrators. |
| Beneficiary Liability (under § 1595) | Defendants knowingly benefited financially (room rentals), participated in commercial ventures enabling trafficking, and should have known of trafficking based on obvious red flags and industry knowledge. | Ordinary commercial operations and mere observation of trafficking signs do not constitute participation; no direct link to sex trafficking ventures. | Denied; sufficient facts support beneficiary liability based on financial benefit, participation in venture, and constructive knowledge. |
| Vicarious Liability | TVPRA allows for vicarious liability; agency relationship exists due to Red Roof's significant control over franchisee operations. | TVPRA does not contemplate vicarious liability; no sufficient allegations of agency or control. | Denied; TVPRA allows for common-law vicarious liability and allegations support agency relationship at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Golden v. City of Columbus, 404 F.3d 950 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
- M.A. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 3d 959 (S.D. Ohio 2019) (TVPRA's differing knowledge standards for perpetrator vs. beneficiary liability)
- G.G. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 76 F.4th 544 (7th Cir. 2023) (Section 1595 civil liability can attach to those who benefit from a venture even without direct criminal violation)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standards for plausibility under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards; legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations)