Federal judge advances swath of sex trafficking suit against hotels

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A woman claiming she was trafficked for sex at Northern California hotels received a mixed bag in a Tuesday ruling in her case against hotel operators and franchisees.

U.S. District Judge Dale Drozd denied a motion to dismiss by the Wyndham-brand defendants and Vitarag Hospitality, advancing a beneficiary liability claim. It’s a claim for an entity that faces no criminal liability but knowingly benefitted from an illegal act.

The judge granted their motion to dismiss perpetrator liability claims against them — a claim for those accused of a criminal offense.

Marriott International will face both the beneficiary and perpetrator liability claims, Drozd ruled.

The plaintiff, referred to as “Jane Doe” in court records, claims she was trafficked for sex from 2012 to 2018. The crimes occurred at least twice in 2013 at the Sacramento Days Inn, operated by Wyndham and Vitarag, and at the Campbell Marriott in September 2013.

Doe claims her traffickers interacted with Sacramento Days Inn staff. Hotel workers saw behavior and injuries consistent with people who are trafficked for sex. Additionally, Vitarag reported to Wyndham about the traffickers’ activities before she stayed there.

“Additionally, she alleges that the Wyndham-brand defendants should have known about her traffickers’ trafficking through their regular monitoring of online reviews, their collection of customer surveys and complaints, their data collection about guests including identification, payment information, and websites visited on Wi-Fi,” Drozd, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote.

Being told about the traffickers’ activity, and staff seeing Doe’s injuries and behavior, led Drozd to rule that Wyndham and Vitarag should face beneficiary liability claims.

However, Doe failed to show evidence that Vitarag and Wyndham had actual knowledge of sex trafficking, the judge ruled. Lacking that knowledge led him to dismiss the perpetrator claims against them with prejudice, meaning Doe cannot further amend the complaint.

Marriott will face both kinds of liability, Drozd ruled.

The judge in a prior ruling found that renting a room is a financial benefit and meets Doe’s burden for beneficial liability.

“Plaintiff has now alleged that defendant Marriott was notified about her traffickers’ activities before she was trafficked, and yet defendant Marriott participated in the venture that ultimately trafficked her at the Campbell Marriott on at least five occasions,” Drozd wrote. “Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff has now connected the dots so as to plausibly allege a continuous business relationship between defendant Marriott and plaintiff’s traffickers.”

Pivoting to the perpetrator claim, Drozd wrote that Doe claimed a Campbell Marriott employee gave a master key to a trafficker to help with the trafficking. That same trafficker fist-bumped staffers.

Marriott argued that Doe needed to claim that its franchisee had an intent to commit a crime. However, Drozd wrote that the law requires no intent for harboring a victim, and that hotels can harbor someone by renting rooms to a trafficker.

Those accusations, along with Doe’s statement that she had visible injuries when she arrived at the hotel, led Drozd to find the franchisee, and by extension Marriott, had actual knowledge. That means it can face Doe’s claim of perpetrator liability.

Drozd also denied a motion by Vitarag for a definite statement — a request made when a complaint is vague and ambiguous, making it unreasonable to respond.

Vitarag wanted Doe to explain how it benefitted financially from the sex trafficking. Drozd ruled Doe’s amended complaint properly informed it of the claims.

Attorneys for the parties did not respond to emails seeking comment by press time.