In re Hotel TVPRA Litig.
| Decision Date | 25 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2:22-cv-1924,2:22-cv-2682,2:22-cv-2690,2:22-cv-2734,2:22-cv-3080,2:22-cv-3256,2:22-cv-3258,2:22-cv-3340,2:22-cv-3416,2:22-cv-3766,2:22-cv-3767,2:22-cv-3768,2:22-cv-3769,2:22-cv-3770,2:22-cv-3771,2:22-cv-3772,2:22-cv-3773,2:22-cv-3774,2:22-cv-3776,2:22-cv-3778,2:22-cv-3782,2:22-cv-3784,2:22-cv-3786,2:22-cv-3787,2:22-cv-3788,2:22-cv-3797,2:22-cv-3798,2:22-cv-3799,2:22-cv-3811,2:22-cv-3837,2:22-cv-3839,2:22-cv-3842,2:22-cv-3844,2:22-cv-3845,2:22-cv-3846 |
| Parties | IN RE HOTEL TVPRA LITIGATION[1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
OPINION & ORDER
This matter comes before this Court pursuant to this Court's February 1, 2023 Order requiring each party to address the issue of the most appropriate venue for each of the aboveidentified related cases. (L.G. v. Red Roof Inns Inc. et al., Case No: 22-cv-1924; ECF No 25).[2]As set forth more fully below, this Court DENIES Defendants' Motion in L.G. to Change Venue. (L.G., ECF No. 11). This Court also DENIES Defendants Red Roof Inns, Inc. and Red Roof Franchising, LLCs' Motion to Transfer Venue. (M.H. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. et al., Case No. 22 cv-3258, ECF No. 15). Unless otherwise indicated below, this Court will retain jurisdiction over the above-captioned cases. The following cases are TRANSFERRED to:
The stays in the above-identified cases are hereby LIFTED. (S.C. ECF No. 37). The presiding Magistrate Judge will set a conference by separate order.
Plaintiffs in the above captioned cases allege that they are victims of sex trafficking that occurred at hotel properties across the country and that the hotel defendants are liable for damages under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1595. (L.G., ECF No. 1, ¶ 138). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knew or should have known Plaintiffs were trafficked on their properties and they had a statutory obligation not to benefit financially from the commercial trafficking ventures. 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a); (Id., ¶ 38). Plaintiffs assert that Defendants “hewed to a common policy of harboring known and suspected human traffickers in exchange for financial benefit” and “actively ignoring signs of ongoing human trafficking” in their hotels. (Id.; ¶¶ 41-42). Finally, Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases allege that they were trafficked outside of the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, where this Court sits. (L.G., ECF No. 25 at 2).
Plaintiffs bring these actions against seven defendants.
On July 6, 2022, Defendants Red Roof in L.G. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., et al, filed a Motion to Change Venue to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. (L.G., ECF No. 11 at 3). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, Defendants argued that because Plaintiff was a citizen of Maryland and the sex trafficking alleged occurred almost exclusively in Maryland, this Court should transfer the matter. (Id.). The Defendants reasoned that other than Red Roof having its principal place of business in Ohio, the Complaint failed to allege a “plausible connection” to the state. (Id.). Plaintiff opposed the motion. (L.G., ECF No. 13). On September 7, 2022, the Magistrate Judge denied Defendants' Motion because the Defendants in L.G. resided in and the Defendants' conduct at issue-namely, allegations of “Defendants' corporate knowledge and lack of proper training to hamper and detect trafficking on their properties”-occurred in this District. (L.G., ECF No. 15 at 8).
In the interim, this Court issued two opinions in C.T. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. et al.-an action brought against Red Roof, Wyndham, Best Western International, Inc. (“BWI”), and LaQuinta. (C.T., Case No. 2:21-cv-5022; ECF Nos. 127; 171). This Court concluded that venue was improper in the Southern District of Ohio because this Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants Wyndham and BWI, and there was another district in which the litigation could have been brought and where venue was proper. (C.T., ECF No. 127 at 13-14). Instead of severing Defendants Red Roof, this Court transferred the entire matter to the Middle District of Florida on December 20, 2022, where C.T. had been trafficked. (Id.). The Court reasoned that there is a “strong interest in litigating the matter in [the venue] where [the plaintiff] was allegedly trafficked and evidence and witnesses can be more easily accessed.” (C.T., ECF No. 171 at 16).
Following this Court's ruling in C.T., on January 20, 2023, the Magistrate Judge withdrew her Opinion denying transfer in L.G., citing C.T. and reasoning that there is strong interest in litigating the case where the alleged trafficking events occurred. (L.G., ECF No. 22 at 1-2). Because Plaintiff L.G. was allegedly trafficked in Maryland and Virginia, not Ohio, the Magistrate Judge stayed the action pending resolution of Defendants' Motion to Transfer. (ECF No. 22).
Based on the venue-related concerns raised by the Magistrate Judge in L.G., the Magistrate Judge issued Show Cause Orders in all of the above-captioned cases, except for L.G., directing Plaintiff's to show cause why this Court should not sua sponte transfer the cases to a different venue per its discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (L.G., ECF No. 25 at 2). On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff L.G. filed a Motion for Hearing and Oral Argument on the Motion to Transfer Venue. (L.G., ECF No. 24). Because the Plaintiffs in the above captioned cases allege they were trafficked outside of the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, they are factually similar to L.G. and C.T. Given the Defendants' pattern of challenging venue and anticipating future motions to transfer, this Court ordered oral argument on the issue of the appropriate venue in all thirty-five cases. (L.G., ECF No. 25).
There are more than forty cases alleging violation of the TVPRA by hotel defendants pending before this Court. Important to the history of these cases, Plaintiffs attempted to centralize these cases as multi-district litigation. (Id.). On February 5, 2020, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) concluded that centralization, however, would not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. In re Hotel Indus. Sex Trafficking Litig., 433 F.Supp.3d 1353, 1355 ( . Given the number of cases expected to be filed, the panel did acknowledge that where multiple related actions were pending in a single district, coordination before a single judge was preferable. Id. at 1356.
Collectively, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have failed to serve them in twelve of the thirty-five above captioned cases.[3] (L.G., ECF No. 27 at 1 n. 1). Defendants only filed their briefings in the cases in which they received proper service so as not to waive the defense of untimely service. Defendants, however, addressed all the above captioned cases in their briefings in response to this Court's order. Plaintiffs allege that they had reached out already to Defendants to waive service prior to the January Show Cause Orders staying the above captioned cases and that Defendants were in the process of executing the waivers. (L.G., ECF No. 30 at 1 n. 2). Because the cases were stayed, however, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants stopped executing the waivers of service, and Plaintiffs were unable to complete the waiver of service process. (Id.).
A party's appearance in a lawsuit does not waive that party's ability to file a motion to dismiss for lack of sufficient service. King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2012) (). Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) requires a party asserting the defense of insufficient service of process to do so “in the responsive pleading if one is required,” see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), Defendants responded to this Court's order on the specific issue of venue, not to Plaintiffs' complaints. Defendants' responses do not constitute responsive pleadings.
Further the issue of improper service is not currently before this Court. Defendants, by appearing in some of the above captioned cases for the first time, have not waived their ability to challenge lack of proper service in the future. The federal district courts have inherent power to stay proceedings, see Landis v. N. Am. Co., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial