PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge granted permission to the Marriott International hotel chain to file related litigation against a series of third-party defendants in a sexual abuse survivor’s pending case against the hotel company.
A sex trafficking survivor named only as A.B., who resides in Florida, alleged that the Marriott turned a blind eye to the trafficking going on at its hotels, both across the country and in Pennsylvania.
A.B. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 9 against Marriott International Inc., alleging violation of the federal William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) and Pennsylvania law.
A.B. alleged in her complaint that she was first trafficked for sex at age 18 and also suffered numerous physical assaults and false imprisonment at the defendant’s hotels, including three in Philadelphia.
During these assaults, A.B. claimed she was forced into sexual servitude at the behest of her captors, physically, verbally and psychologically abused by either her traffickers or people she was forced to sexually service.
In the lawsuit, A.B. alleged Marriott failed to properly train staff to be able to identify indicators exhibited by sex traffickers and their victims, and that its negligence led it to both benefit from and unknowingly participate in such sex trafficking activities.
On Feb. 20, Marriott filed a motion to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim. The hotel chain added the plaintiff’s theory of vicarious liability in this case fails under state law and contained a “recitation of boilerplate ‘form’ language copied from other complaints involving different victims, different perpetrators, and different hotels, and ‘shotgun’ allegations which vaguely lump Marriott International together with franchisee hotels.”
As a result, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 13 as a matter of legal course and to cure any perceived omissions from the original version, rendering the initial dismissal motion moot.
This led Marriott to file a renewed motion to dismiss on March 26, which also called into play the five-year statute of limitations on human trafficking in the state of Pennsylvania.
A.B.’s allegations stated the conduct occurred between 2009 and 2011, but the plaintiff did not file a complaint until three years after the statutory deadline, in 2019.
On April 22, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Mark A. Kearney dismissed as time-barred the state-law human trafficking claims made in plaintiff A.B.’s lawsuit.
Kearney then ruled that A.B. did not sufficiently plead Marriott “knowingly” marketed or provided its hotel rooms to A.B.’s trafficker, nor showed the hotel chain had actual knowledge of A.B.’s trafficking through an alleged agency relationship.
“We agree with Marriott and dismiss the Pennsylvania trafficking claim without prejudice for A.B. to move to amend with the benefit of more facts to possibly state a claim under Pennsylvania’s statute and if possible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11,” Kearney said.
UPDATE
Marriott then sought to bring third-party counts against its franchisees and the individuals who actually trafficked the defendant under theories of indemnity and contribution – a move the plaintiff understood towards the franchisees but opposed towards the traffickers, for fear of lost anonymity and personal harm.
“We are mindful of her concerns and will enforce strict confidentiality, such as ‘attorneys eyes only’-agreements and other reasonable steps to ensure safety. We are also mindful Marriott may not be able to serve these persons or state a claim against them. We also can sever at a later stage. But under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14, the traffickers may also be liable to the victim. Marriott may bring third-party claims against the franchisees and traffickers,” Kearney said.
Kearney added the case as pled would support claims against the traffickers.
“Marriott recites the traffickers’ alleged activity, including forcing A.B. to have sex for money with various buyers at the Marriott-branded hotels after the traffickers assisted A.B. to check-in at the hotels. These claims would support a Section 1595 claim against the sex traffickers,” Kearney stated.
“While A.B. did not elect to sue her traffickers for understandable safety and personal security reasons, her injuries if proven will all stem from the sex trafficking venture. Marriott, its franchisees, and the sex traffickers each share alleged involvement or neglect in carrying out or enabling the venture causing harm to A.B. If Marriott is found liable to A.B., it appears Marriott ‘may’ have the right of contribution from other participants who also may have had a role in A.B.’s injuries.”
Kearney said while the Court was “not convinced Marriott’s indemnity and contribution claims should be pursued until after Marriott’s liability to A.B. is established”, he added those considerations were “best left until raised by the parties after discovery can delineate where facts are intertwined or overlap.”
“With our focus on Rule 14(a)(1), and because the damages overlap and many persons and entities may be culpable in A.B.’s trafficking, we cannot preclude Marriott’s ability to attempt a recovery against the traffickers, or other businesses who also ‘knew or should have known’ of the trafficking, when the Act contemplates each may be liable,” Kearney stated.
Kearney then granted Marriott’s motion to file its third-party action.
As a result, Marriott filed a third-party complaint versus defendants Columbia Properties Philadelphia, LLC, Columbia Sussex Corporation, W2005/Fargo Hotels (Pool C) Realty, LP, Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC, Tharaldson Property Management, Inc. and John Does 1-3 on July 6.
For violations of state and federal law, the plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, special damages, punitive damages, non-economic damages, past and future lost wages, past and future medical expenses, attorney’s fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, a trial by jury, and all other appropriate relief.
The plaintiff is represented by Jerry Kristal, Jaime M. Farrell, Paul J. Pennock and Tiffany R. Ellis of Weitz & Luxenberg of Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Defendant Marriott International is represented by Michael P. O’Day, Ben C. Fabens-Lassen, Courtney G. Saleski, Ellen E. Dew and Michael Bakhama of DLA Piper in Philadelphia and Baltimore, Md.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-05770
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com