S.Y. v. Naples Hotel Co.
| Decision Date | 05 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2:20-cv-118-FtM-29MRM |
| Parties | S.Y. and C.S., Plaintiffs, v. NAPLES HOTEL COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Gulfcoast Inn of Naples Owners Association, Inc., Best Western International, Inc., Choice Hotels International, Inc., Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, LLC, Marriott International, Inc., Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Naples Garden Inn, LLC, Uomi & Kudai, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Corporation, Shivparvti, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Corporation, Holistic Health Healing, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Jay Varahimata Investments, LLC., a Florida Limited Corporation, Inn of Naples, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Corporation, R & M Real Estate Co. Inc., Robert Vocisano, Hanuman of Naples, LLC, Shree Siddhivinayak Hospitality, LLC, H. I. Naples, LLC, Intercontinental Hotels Group, PLC, HIE Tollgate Blvd, LLC, Naples CFC Enterprises, Ltd., Residence Inn by Marriott, LLC, CSM RI Naples, LLC, CSM Corporation, La Quinta Properties, Inc., La Quinta Holdings, Inc., Corepoint Lodging, Inc., LQ FL Properties, LLC, Laxmi of Naples, LLC, Rist Properties, LLC, Laporta Florida Center, LLC, Inn of Naples Hotel, LLC, Seasonal Investments, Inc., SunStream Hotels & Resorts, LLC, Park Shore Resort Condominium Association, Inc., Sea Shell Management, LLC, Clayton Plaza, LLC, CPLG, LLC, and Robert Vocisano Co-Tr, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Brian J. Perkins, Pro Hac Vice, Diana Yastrovskaya, Pro Hac Vice, Michael A. London, Pro Hac Vice, Douglas & London, PC, New York, NY, Sharon M. Hanlon, Zelman & Hanlon, PA, Naples, FL, Yale T. Freeman, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Cristobal Antonio Casal, Conroy Simberg, Kenneth Michael Oliver, Kubicki Draper, Gordon R. Duncan, Duncan & Tardif, PA, Geraldo F. Olivo, III, Henderson Franklin Starnes & Holt, Fort Myers, FL, Michelle Zeiger, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Daniel J. Santaniello, Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones, LLC, J. Marcos Martinez, Wadsworth, Margrey & Dixon, LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Gregory David Jones, John Guyton, A.C., III, Rywant, Alvarez, Jones, Russo & Guyton PA, Gainesville, FL, Amanda Reagan, J. Trumon Phillips, DLA Piper US, LLP, Daniel Ari Shapiro, Dennis Michael Arendall, Jr., Cole, Scott, & Kissane, PA, Andrew Frank Russo, William Dennis, Rywant Alvarez Jones Russo & Guyton, Tampa, FL, Fredrick H. L. McClure, DLA Piper US, LLP, Christopher W. Wadsworth, Wadsworth, Margrey & Dixon LLP, Miami, FL, Christyna M. Torrez, J. Michael Coleman, Coleman, Hazzard & Taylor, PA, Donald Grayson Peterson, Yarnell & Peterson PA, Naples, FL, Ellen E. Dew, Pro Hac Vice, Michael P. O'Day, Pro Hac Vice, Michael Bakhama, DLA Piper LLP, Baltimore, MD, Kyle A. Diamantas, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Orlando, FL, Samuel L. Felker, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Nashville, TN, Sara M. Turner, Pro Hac Vice, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Birmingham, AL, Grant Edward Lavelle Schnell, John M. Hamrick, Pro Hac Vice, Holland & Knight, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Michael Anthony Holtmann, Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, PA, Coral Gables, FL, William Newton Shepherd, Holland & Knight, LLP, West Palm Beach, FL, David S. Sager, Pro Hac Vice, DLA Piper LLP, Short Hills, NJ, Brooke E. Beebe, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, Bonita Springs, FL, David P. Fraser, David P. Fraser, Esq., Mount Clemens, MI, for Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant Choice Hotels International, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, or in the alternative, To Sever and Strike and Memorandum in Support (Doc. #149) filed on May 13, 2020. Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition (Doc. #158) on June 5, 2020, and defendant filed a Reply (Doc. #174) on June 19, 2020. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiffs S.Y. and C.S. allege they were victims of sex trafficking from 2013 to 2106 at various hotels. (Doc. #85, ¶¶ 5, 10, 93-114.) The defendants in this case are the alleged hotel owners, operators, and/or franchisees of the properties where the trafficking occurred. (Id. ¶¶ 6-13, 93-114.) One such defendant is Choice Hotels International, Inc., ("Choice") who is alleged to do business as Quality Inn and Comfort Inn & Executive Suites. (Id. ¶¶ 27-29.)
The operative pleading before the Court is the Second Amended Complaint, which asserts ten claims on behalf of each plaintiff against each defendant. (Doc. #85.) The ten claims are as follows: (1) violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 ("TVPRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 1595 ; (2) violation of section 772.104, Florida Statutes ; (3) premise liability; (4) breach of contract; (5) negligent hiring, entrustment and supervision; (6) negligent rescue; (7) unjust enrichment; (8) aiding and abetting, harboring, confining, coercion and criminal enterprise; (9) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (10) assault, battery and kidnapping offenses. (Id. pp. 93-111.)
On May 13, 2020, Choice filed the motion to dismiss currently before the Court.1 (Doc. #149.) In the motion, Choice argues (1) the Second Amended Complaint should either be dismissed as a shotgun pleading or certain paragraphs therein should be stricken, (2) plaintiffs are improperly joined together in this matter, and (3) plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for each of the claims asserted against Choice. (Id. pp. 17-50.) Because the Court ultimately determines the Second Amended Complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend and file additional cases, only some of these arguments will be addressed at this time.
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, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citation omitted). To survive dismissal, the factual allegations must be "plausible" and "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ; see also Edwards v. Prime Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. 2010). This requires "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citations 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 the plaintiff, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (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). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Factual allegations that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability fall short of being facially plausible. Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Thus, the Court engages in a two-step approach: "When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
In its motion, Choice argues all ten of the claims asserted against it in the Second Amended Complaint fail to state a claim and must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. #149, pp. 22-50.) In response, plaintiffs agree to withdraw six of the claims against Choice, but oppose dismissal of the remaining four.2 (Doc. #158, pp. 5-6.) At this time, the Court will only address the arguments as they relate to the only claim upon which federal jurisdiction is founded, the assertion that Choice violated the TVPRA.
The TVPRA is a criminal statute that also provides a civil remedy to victims of sex trafficking. Section 1591 of the Act imposes criminal liability for sex trafficking, while section 1595 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). To state a claim under a section 1595(a) beneficiary theory, plaintiffs must allege facts to plausibly infer the defendant (1)" knowingly benefit[ted] financially or by receiving anything of value," (2) from participation in a venture, (3) it "knew or should have known has engaged in" sex trafficking under section 1591. A.B. v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 455 F.Supp.3d 171, 181, (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2020).
Choice first argues the TVPRA claim fails because the Second Amended Complaint does not allege Choice committed any "overt act" that furthered the sex trafficking, and without an overt act Choice cannot have "participated" under section 1595. (Doc. #149, pp. 23-24.) This argument is based on the Sixth Circuit's analysis in U.S. v. Afyare, in which the court held that section 1591(a)(2), the criminal provision of the TVPRA, "targets those who participate in sex trafficking; it does not target [those] who turn a blind eye to the source of their financial sponsorship." 632 Fed. App'x 272, 286 (6th Cir. 2016). At least two district courts have relied upon Afyare to require a plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bridges v. Poe
...However, indicia of abuse are enough to put a supervisor who likely saw those indicia on notice. S.Y. v. Naples Hotel Co. , 20-118, 476 F.Supp.3d 1251 (M.D. Fla. August 5, 2020) (finding that hotel operators should have known about sexual abuse in the hotel when traffickers rented rooms wit......
-
J.L. v. Best W. Int'l, Inc.
...F. Supp. 3d at 191 (same); H.H. v. G6 Hosp., LLC , 2019 WL 6682152, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 6, 2019) (same); S.Y. v. Naples Hotel Co. , 476 F. Supp. 3d 1251, 1256 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (same); A.B. , 484 F.Supp.3d at 936 ("The ‘knowingly benefits financially’ element of § 1595 merely requires that......
-
Norambuena v. W. Iowa Tech Cmty. Coll.
...reason to know that the offense was perpetrated by force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion. See, e.g., S.Y. v. Naples Hotel Co., 476 F.Supp.3d 1251, 1257 (M.D. Fla. August 5, 2020) (holding a hotel operator should have known about sexual abuse in the hotel when traffickers paid with cas......
-
C.S. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
...the undersigned denied various motions to dismiss, but determined severance of the parties was appropriate. S.Y. v. Naples Hotel Co., 476 F. Supp. 3d 1251, 1258-59 (M.D. Fla. 2020). Following the Court's severance order, plaintiff and the other alleged victim filed nearly thirty new actions......
-
Tvpra, State Statutes Open Door for Civil Damage Claims by Human-trafficking Victims
...22 U.S.C. § 7102 (2000).7. 22 U.S.C. § 7102 (2003).8. 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a).9. See S.Y. v. Naples Hotel Co., 476 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (M.D. Fla. 2020); A.B. v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 455 F. Supp. 3d 171 (E.D. Pa. 2020); S.J. v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., 473 F. Supp. 3d 147 (E.D.N.Y. 2020).10. Doe......