A.D. v. Choice Hotels Int'l

• Docket Number: 2:22-cv-646-JES-NPM
• Decision Date: 25 August 2023
• Parties: A.D., an individual, Plaintiff, v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., R&M REAL ESTATE COMPANY, INC., ROBERT VOCISANO, and MARIO VOCISANO, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

1

A.D., an individual, Plaintiff, v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., R&M REAL ESTATE COMPANY, INC., ROBERT VOCISANO, and MARIO VOCISANO, Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-646-JES-NPM

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division

August 25, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN E. STEELE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant Choice Hotels International, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #56) filed on June 1, 2023, and R & M Real Estate Company, Inc., Robert Vocisano, and Mario Vocisano's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #57) filed on June 7, 2023. Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Response in Opposition (Doc. #62) on July 3, 2023. Both defendants filed Replies. (Docs. ## 65, 66.) Plaintiff filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. #67) on August 8, 2023.

I.

On April 19, 2023, the Court granted in part defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to file an Amended Complaint. A.D. v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., No 2:22-CV-646-JES-NPM, 2023 WL 3004545, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2023). On May 10, 2023 plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #50) and defendants have now essentially renewed their motions to dismiss.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a Complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This obligation “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), but “[l]egal conclusions without adequate factual support are entitled to no assumption of truth,” Mamani v. Berzain, 654 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff's (second) amended complaint is brought pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). As previously stated, The TVPRA is a criminal statute that also provides a civil remedy to victims of sex trafficking. Section 1591(a) of the Act imposes criminal liability for certain sex trafficking:

(a) Whoever knowingly-- (1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a person;

or

(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in violation of paragraph (1),

knowing, or, except where the act constituting the violation of paragraph (1) is advertising, in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

18 U.S.C.A. § 1591(a). In addition to a criminal punishment, the TVPRA provides the following civil remedy:

(a) An individual who is a victim of a violation of this chapter may bring a civil action against the perpetrator (or whoever knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this chapter) in an appropriate district court of the United States and may recover damages and reasonable attorneys fees.

18 U.S.C. § 1595(a).

Thus, the TVRPA authorizes a victim of sex trafficking to bring a direct civil claim against the perpetrator of the trafficking and a “beneficiary” civil claim against “whoever knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of [the TVPRA].” 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a). To state a claim for beneficiary liability under the TVPRA, Plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendant “(1) knowingly benefited (2) from participating in a venture; (3) that venture violated the TVPRA as to [A.D.]; and (4) [Defendants] knew or should have known that the venture violated the TVPRA as to [A.D.].” Doe v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 21 F.4th 714, 726 (11th Cir. 2021).

A.D. v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., at *1-2. The Court will consider each of the elements as applied to the amended pleading.

II.

The operative amended complaint alleges the following: Defendant Choice Hotels International, Inc. (Choice Hotels) knows and has known for years that sex trafficking and prostitution occur at their branded hotel locations. Defendants R&M Real Estate Company, Inc., Robert Vocisano, and Mario Vocisano (R&M Real Estate collectively) also know and have known for years of both occurring specifically at the Comfort Inn & Executive Suites Naples (Comfort Inn). (Doc. #50, ¶¶ 2-3.) This action for damages is brought by the Plaintiff, identified by her initials A.D., a survivor of sex trafficking under the TVPRA. (Id. at ¶ 12.)

“With knowledge of the problem, and as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' multiple failures and refusals to act, mandate, establish, execute, and/or modify their anti-trafficking efforts at the Comfort Inn hotel, A.D. was continuously sex trafficked, sexually exploited, and victimized repeatedly at the Comfort Inn hotel.” (Id. at ¶ 18.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants “participated in a hotel operating venture and knowingly benefited from this venture through room rentals, profits, third party fees, and the value of the “good will” of the Choice® brand. The venture knew or should have known that they were profiting from sex trafficking, including the sex trafficking of A.D., in violation of the TVPRA.” (Id. at ¶ 19.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Choice Hotels and R&M Real Estate participated in a hotel operating venture that included staff at the Comfort Inn. R&M Real Estate owns the Comfort Inn pursuant to a franchise agreement entered into with Choice Hotels. Plaintiff alleges an agency relationship through Choice Hotels' “exercise of ongoing and systemic right of control over the Comfort Inn hotel.” (Id. at ¶¶ 29-32.) Choice Hotels makes decisions that directly impact the operations and maintenance of their branded hotels, including the Comfort Inn. (Id. at ¶ 39.) R&M Real Estate directly offered public lodging services at the Comfort Inn where A.D. was trafficked for sex. (Id. at ¶ 49.) Defendants “participated in a hotel operating venture in connection with the management and operating of the Comfort Inn hotel involving risk and potential profit.” (Id. at ¶ 52.)

During at least 2008 to 2012, emails were exchanged by employees of Choice Hotels that related to sex trafficking in hotels, including the Comfort Inn. (Id. at ¶ 57.) Choice Hotels had actual and/or constructive knowledge of sex trafficking, including A.D.'s sex trafficking and victimization, occurring on its branded property. (Id. at ¶ 63.) Choice Hotels continued to permit and profit from male clientele who rented hotel rooms to buy sex despite having access to sex trafficking indicators. (Id. at ¶ 75.) In 2017, a reviewer described the Comfort Inn as having prostitutes hanging out in the parking lot at night. (Id. at ¶ 79e.) In 2020, another reviewed the Comfort Inn noting that it was known for drugs and prostitution and that the owner knows it means money “coming into his degenerate establishments.” (Id. at ¶ 79j.) Choice Hotels monitors customer reviews. (Id. at ¶ 81.)

R&M Real Estate employees and staff openly observed signs of trafficking and did not aid plaintiff. R&M Real Estate received revenue and a percentage was provided to Choice Hotels. (Id. at ¶ 108.) Through Choice Hotels' relationship with the staff at the Comfort Inn, it benefited or received royalty payments, licensing fees, membership fees and dues, reservation fees, and percentages of the gross room revenue. (Id. at ¶ 109.) Through their “continuous business venture of renting hotel rooms”, R&M Real Estate knowingly benefited. (Id. at ¶ 111.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants benefit from the steady stream of income that sex traffickers bring to their hotel brands and from their reputation for privacy, discretion, and the facilitation of commercial sex. (Id., ¶¶ 120-121.)

III.

As previously stated, plaintiff must sufficiently plead that a defendant knowingly benefited from participating in a venture, that the venture violated the TVPRA, and that defendants knew or should have known that the venture violated the TVPRA.

A. Knowingly Benefited

To satisfy the first element of a TVPRA beneficiary claim, plaintiff must allege that defendant “knew it was receiving some value from participating in the alleged venture.” Red Roof Inns, 21 F.4th at 724. As the Eleventh Circuit stated,

“Knowingly benefits” means “an awareness or understanding of a fact or circumstance; a state of mind in which a person has no substantial doubt about the existence of a fact.” Knowledge, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). And Section 1595(a) explains that a defendant may benefit “financially or by receiving anything of value.” Accordingly, a plaintiff like the Does must allege that the defendant knew it was receiving some value from participating in the alleged venture.

Id. at 723-24. In the absence of a more stringent statutory pleading requirement, knowledge “may be alleged generally.”...