A federal court in Ohio recently granted, in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss various TVPRA claims and denied their motion to transfer in a suit concerning alleged sex trafficking at two Red Roof Inn locations in Virginia Beach. A.M.G. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 2025 WL 588645 (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 24, 2025).
In December 2023, plaintiff A.M.G. sued defendants Red Roof Inns, Inc. and six alleged corporate affiliates as well as a franchisee. A.M.G.’s claims concerned one franchised Red Roof Inn and one company-owned Red Roof Inn. She alleged that from 2012 to 2014 she was subject to sex trafficking at the two hotels, and sought to hold the Red Roof Inn defendants directly and vicariously liable for TVPRA violations under both a beneficiary theory and perpetrator theory. The Red Roof Inn defendants moved to dismiss all the TVPRA claims.
The court granted the Red Roof Inn defendants’ motion to dismiss the perpetrator liability claims, finding that A.M.G. failed to allege that they had “actual knowledge” of A.M.G.’s trafficking as is necessary to state a claim for perpetrator liability under the TVPRA. The court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that her allegations supported an inference of actual knowledge and explained that they “hew[ed] more closely to legal conclusions.” Accordingly, the court dismissed A.M.G’s perpetrator liability claim. The court, however, denied the Red Roof Inn defendants’ motion to dismiss the beneficiary and vicarious liability claims.
The Red Roof Inn defendants also moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia, primarily on the grounds that A.M.G. is a Virginia resident and the alleged events took place in Virginia. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the proposed transferee venue was no more convenient to witnesses, that a “significant portion” of the alleged wrongful conduct actually occurred in Ohio where certain corporate decisions took place and records were located, and that the plaintiff’s choice of forum weighed against transfer. The court also rejected the RRI Defendants’ argument that the public interest weighed in favor of transfer. The Red Roof Inn Defendants argued that the Virginia community where the inns are located has a greater interest in the matter. The court wrote that this argument “ignored” the plaintiff’s focus on the policies, procedures, and management practices that arose from the Red Roof Inn corporate headquarters in Ohio.