19-311/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO: 0:20-cv-61385

LYNN DOE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HOTEL MOTEL INC.

Defendant.

______________________________/

DEFENDANT, HOTEL MOTEL, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

Defendant, HOTEL MOTEL, INC., pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 

requests the Court to dismiss the Complaint filed by Plaintiff, LYNN DOE, for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. In support of this Motion, Defendant states:

Introduction

Plaintiff’s Complaint attempts to bring an action against the Hotel related to allegations of 

sex trafficking of children by force, fraud, or coercion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1591(a) and 18 

U.S.C. §1595. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for which relief can 

be sought and must be dismissed. 

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff’s Complaint makes numerous assertions regarding “human trafficking” generally

without providing sufficient facts that would allow the Court to draw any reasonable inferences 

that Defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Specific to the Defendant (hereinafter 

“Hotel”), the Complaint makes general and conclusory allegations that the Plaintiff was brought 

to the Lafayette Hotel in 2012 where unidentified individuals based a sex-trafficking operation. 

Case 0:20-cv-61385-RS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 1 of 11
See Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dn. 1 at ¶¶ 27-28, 56, 77, 110-111.

The Complaint continues to make general and unspecified allegations that the Hotel

benefitted from receiving payments for rooms used by traffickers. See Dn. 1 at ¶¶ 32-33, 62

Additionally, an unidentified general manager is alleged to have checked the Plaintiff into the 

Lafayette Hotel on one occasion during the second week of June, 2012, been inside a room where 

unidentified individuals were keeping the Plaintiff, and participated in a sexual act involving the 

Plaintiff. See Dn. 1 at ¶¶ 59-62, 88-89, 93.

Specific to the Hotel, the remainder of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges mere general 

statements, conclusory allegations, and legal assertions devoid of sufficient factual enhancement 

to state a claim that is plausible and not merely possible.1

Memorandum of Law

A complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible and not merely possible on its 

face. Almanza v. United Airlines, Inc., 851 F.3d 1060, 1066 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)); accord 

1 Plaintiff’s Complaint contains many conclusory allegations and legal assertions without any/sufficient factual 

enhancement in support of the allegations, e.g. below:

¶ 8(a) through (y) “Prior to June 2012 and the victimization of the Plaintiff....., Defendant was aware of the following:

a. that both the United States Congress and The Florida Legislature have found that human trafficking is a form of 

modern-day slavery which victimizes young children, teenagers, and adults. 

b. Thousands of victims, including minors such as Plaintiff, are trafficked annually across international borders 

worldwide and many of these victims are trafficked into this state.

.......

y. Defendant was aware that hotels which elected not to utilize preventative training and resources or engage in 

preventative policies and practices were often choosing profits over people.”

¶ 125 “[The Hotel’s] acts and omissions facilitated and furthered the human trafficking venture which victimized [the 

Plaintiff.”

¶ 127 “[The Hotel] knowingly benefitted, either financially, or by receiving something of value, from participation in 

a venture which [the Hotel] knew or should have known had engaged had engaged in an act in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§1591.

Case 0:20-cv-61385-RS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 2 of 11
Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Hornbeam Special Situations, LLC, 391 F. Supp. 3d 1218, 1222 (N.D. Ga. 

2019) (Ray, J.).

The plausibility standard is met only where the facts alleged enable the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Simpson v. Sanderson 

Farms, Inc., 744 F.3d 702, 708 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678); see also 

Hornbeam, 391 F. Supp. 3d at 1222.

Mere assertions devoid of further factual enhancement are insufficient. Rather, a complaint 

must present sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level. Legal conclusions are insufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, Simpson, 744 F.3d at 

708 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555), Hornbeam, 391 F. Supp. 3d at 1222.

If a court determines that well-pleaded facts, accepted as true, do not state a claim that is 

plausible, the claims must be dismissed. Valentine Communications, LLC v. Six Continents Hotels, 

Inc., 389 F. Supp. 3d 1223, 1229 (N.D. Ga. 2019) (Ray, J.).

Plaintiff’s Complaint Does Not Allege Plausible Claims Against The Hotel

18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) is a criminal statute regarding forced or coerced sexual activity by 

adults and commercial sexual activity by minors. Under limited circumstances it can give rise to 

civil claims. See 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), 1595(a).

Section 1591(a) provides as follows:

Whoever knowingly –

(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce . . . recruits, entices, 

harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or 

solicits by a means a person; or

(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from

Case 0:20-cv-61385-RS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 3 of 11
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, 

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. § 1595(a) is a civil remedy portion which in turn provides that;

“[a]n 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...” 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a).

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to meet the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) for a valid civil 

claim against the Hotel since it fails to allege sufficient factual allegations to plausibly allege that 

the Hotel benefited from participation in a venture which it knew or should have known violated 

1591(a).

I. The Hotel Did Not Knowingly Benefit From Plaintiff’s Alleged Trafficking

To establish a violation of 1595(a) the Plaintiff must show that the Hotel knowingly 

received a valuable benefit from knowing participation in the sex trafficking. United States v. 

Flanders, 752 F.3d 1317, 1338 (11th Cir. 2014). 

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain sufficiently plead allegations that the Hotel

Case 0:20-cv-61385-RS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 4 of 11
knowingly participated in or knowingly benefitted from the alleged trafficking. The controlling 

question is whether a trafficker provided benefits to a hotel as a result of a defendant’s facilitation 

of sexual misconduct. Geiss v. Weinstein Co. Holdings, LLC. 383 F. Supp. 3d 156, 170 (S.D.N.Y. 

2019).

In this matter, Plaintiff alleges that the Hotel benefitted by receiving room revenue, 

however the Hotel is a company in the business of operating a hotel and commonly receives room 

revenue from many individuals totally unrelated to any alleged trafficking. Plaintiff’s Complaint 

makes no allegations that the Hotel received any additional revenue as a result of the alleged 

trafficking than it would have if the room were rented for any other purpose. 

It is not sufficient to allege that the Defendant received revenue from hotel rooms used for 

alleged trafficking. Instead, it must be plausibly shown that the Hotel benefitted “on account of 

the sex acts.” Id. at 170.

At best, the Complaint alleges generally that the Hotel benefitted financially from the rental 

of rooms, rather than on account of any trafficking which is insufficient to survive a motion to 

dismiss. See Geiss, 383 F. Supp. at 170; Kolbek v. Twenty First Cent. Holiness Tabernacle 

Church, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 4124, 2013 WL 6816174, at *16 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 24, 2013) (“Nor have 

Plaintiffs offered evidence to show that Defendants were compensated ‘on account of’ the sex acts. 

. . . The fact that sexual abuse was committed by the ministry’s leader and that members of the 

ministry had their expenses paid for through ministry funds is simply not sufficient to establish a 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591.”).

To the extent that the Complaint alleges that employees of the Hotel may have benefitted 

from the alleged trafficking of the Plaintiff, those allegations relate solely to benefits received 

outside of the scope of their employment with the Hotel. There are no allegations contained in the 

Case 0:20-cv-61385-RS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 5 of 11
Complaint that the Hotel, or its owners knew, should have known, or participated in the alleged 

trafficking. The Complaint does not make adequate and plausible allegations regarding any 

specific benefit knowingly received by the Hotel or its owners. 

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain sufficient allegations that 

the Hotel knowingly benefitted from Plaintiff’s alleged trafficking and it must be dismissed on that 

basis.

II. The Hotel Did Not Participate In Any Alleged Trafficking Venture

Allegations that rooms were rented at the Lafayette Hotel for the purposes of trafficking 

the Plaintiff are insufficient to show that the Hotel participated in any venture under 1595(a). 

“In the absence of a direct association, Plaintiff must allege at least a showing of a 

continuous business relationship between the trafficker and the hotels such that it would appear 

that the trafficker and the hotels have established a pattern of conduct or could be said to have a 

tacit agreement. See, e.g., In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, 152 F. Supp. 3d 968, 983 

(N.D. Ohio 2015) (citing In re Baby Food Antitrust Litig., 166 F.3d 112, 126 (3d Cir. 1999)) 

(acknowledging that price-fixing can be shown be tacit agreement); McGuire v. Lewis, No. 1:12-

cv-986, 2014 WL 1276168, at *6 (finding allegations sufficient “to identify the individuals alleged 

to have conspired, to plausibly suggest some joint action among the individuals, and to explain 

how the purported joint action led to the alleged deprivation of [plaintiff’s] rights. In particular, 

they plausibly show a tacit agreement....”).” H.H. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC., et al., No. 2:19-CV755, 2019 WL 6682152 at *4.

Plaintiff’s Complaint makes no allegations whatsoever regarding a “continuous business 

relationship,” “tacit agreement,” “pattern of conduct,” or “prior dealings” between the Hotel and 

the alleged traffickers sufficiently to constitute a joint venture under section 1595(a).

Case 0:20-cv-61385-RS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 6 of 11
While the Court in H.H. v G6 Hospitality ultimately denied the defendant’s motion to 

dismiss, the court noted significant factual allegations made by the Plaintiff in H.H. which are 

totally absent in, and thus highly factually distinguishable from, the present matter. H.H. v. G6 

Hospitality, LLC., et al. at 1*. 

In H.H., the complaint alleged that the hotel Defendants knew that sex trafficking occurred 

frequently on their properties and failed to prevent it. Plaintiff also made specific allegations 

regarding what would have been observable to hotel staff as indicia of trafficking, including

“bottles of lubricants, boxes of condoms, excessive requests for towels and linens, cash payments,” 

and physical signs of human trafficking including “branding, restraints, bruises, physical 

deterioration.” Additionally, in H.H., Plaintiff alleged that while she was at each hotel property

she was routinely escorted by her trafficker to the front desk to hand deliver cash payments, that 

she was discovered by the hotel cleaning staff at the Motel 6 Columbus “tied to the guest room 

bed,” and that “despite her desperate pleas for help, the staff ignored her.” Finally, the Plaintiff in 

H.H. alleged that housekeeping staff discovered her chained up in the bathroom and ignored her 

pleas for help.

In the present matter, the only specific allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint regarding the 

participation of the Hotel or any of its employees in any alleged trafficking relate to an unidentified 

general manager, outside of the scope of his employment, and the Plaintiff during a single stay 

occurrence on one property.

Mere allegations regarding the participation of an unidentified general manager employee 

in one instance of trafficking are insufficient to state a plausible claim against the Hotel under the 

foregoing case law. Additionally, the allegations against the unidentified general manager in 

Plaintiff’s Complaint relate to actions that would have been wholly outside of the scope of his 

Case 0:20-cv-61385-RS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 7 of 11
employment with the Hotel, and done for the general manager’s own benefit or the benefit of third 

parties, but not the benefit of the Hotel.

For a corporation to be liable for the criminal actions of its employees, an employee must 

have acted with the intent to benefit the corporation. Standard Oil Company of Texas v. United 

States, 307 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1962). An intent to benefit the corporation is required to insulate the 

corporation from criminal liability for actions of its agents which are inimical to the interests of 

the corporation or which may have been undertaken solely to advance the interests of that agent or 

of a party other than the corporation. Id.

Plaintiff’s allegations that the general manager was present in the room where alleged 

trafficking activities occurred and participated in sexual acts with the Plaintiff are not allegations 

of conduct in the scope of Plaintiff’s employment or for the benefit of the Hotel, and do not state 

a plausible claim that the Hotel participated in a joint trafficking venture under 1595(a).

Due to the Complaint’s failure to sufficiently allege that the Hotel, its owners, or its 

employees in the course of their employment participated in a venture which trafficked the Plaintiff 

it must also be dismissed on that basis.

III. The Hotel Did Not Know Of Plaintiff’s Alleged Trafficking 

18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) requires plausible allegations that the Hotel knew or should have 

known that the Plaintiff was being trafficked in violation of section 1591(a).

Plaintiff makes no allegations that the Hotel knew or should have known that the Plaintiff 

was a minor at the time of the alleged trafficking, and it is insufficient to allege only that the Hotel

knew, recklessly disregarded, or should have known that a non-minor was participating in 

commercial sexual activity, such as prostitution, to constitute a viable cause of action under section 

1595(a).

Case 0:20-cv-61385-RS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 8 of 11
Instead, a civil cause of action based upon a criminal violation of section 1591(a) must 

allege that the Hotel knew or should have known that the Plaintiff was forced or coerced to commit 

commercial sex acts, not merely participated in them. Plaintiff’s Complaint makes no specific 

allegations that the Hotel knew or should have known that the Plaintiff was forced or coerced to 

commit sexual acts on its premises. 

In J.B. v. G6 Hospitality, the Court held that a Plaintiff’s allegations were not sufficient to 

show that the defendant should have known she was being trafficked and dismissed her complaint 

where she merely alleged that she was brought into rented rooms and never sought any help from 

hotel staff. J.B. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC. et al., No. 19-cv-07848-HSG, 2019 WL 4901196.

The J.B. court held that the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s complaint clearly fell 

short of the allegations made in cases in where courts had found constructive knowledge 

sufficiently pled. For example, in M.A. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., a sex trafficking victim 

specifically alleged that “while she was at each hotel property, ‘the hotel staff would have or should 

have observed visible physical changes, such as bruising,’ and that ‘[d]espite her desperate pleas 

and screams for help, after being beaten or choked at the Defendants’ hotel properties, the hotel 

staff ignored her and did nothing to prevent the ongoing and obvious torture she endured.’ ” 425 

F. Supp. 3d at 962 (citation omitted). Similarly, in Ricchio v. McLean, the First Circuit found 

significant “[alleged trafficker's] coercive and brutal behavior to a physically deteriorating

[plaintiff], who pleaded for help,” as well as interactions between the alleged trafficker and the 

hotel owner. 853 F.3d 553, 557 (1st Cir. 2017). These cases contain allegations that the victim 

sought help and was seen by employees with physical injuries or other facts suggesting coercion 

allow courts to infer that motel or hotel employees should have known that human trafficking was 

occurring, as opposed to other criminal conduct, such as prostitution. J.B. v. G6 Hospitality at 11*

Case 0:20-cv-61385-RS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 9 of 11
In the current matter, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not make any allegations regarding visible 

injuries, audible cries for help, or interactions with the hotel owner. There are no plausible 

allegations that the Hotel knew or should have known that the Plaintiff was being forced or coerced 

to engage in trafficking as opposed to general commercial activity, as required to plead a claim 

under section 1595(a).

Once again, due to Plaintiff’s failure to make sufficient allegations that the Hotel knew of 

should have known that Plaintiff was forced or coerced to commit sexual acts on its premises, the 

Complaint fails once again to state a plausible cause of action and must be dismissed on that basis

as well.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Hotel’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint should be Granted 

the Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

 ROBERTS, REYNOLDS, BEDARD & TUZZIO, PLLC

 Counsel for Hotel Motel

 470 Columbia Drive, Bldg. C101

West Palm Beach, FL 33409

 Phone: 561/688-6560

 Fax: 561/688-2343

 Email: bbedard@rrbpa.com

 Service Email: service_BLB@rrbpa.com

 

 /s/ John J. George for

 BENJAMIN L. BEDARD

 FBN: 983772

(Certificate of service on the following page)

Case 0:20-cv-61385-RS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 10 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I HEREBY CERTIFY this 8

th day of September, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/EFC. I also certify that the foregoing document 

is being served this day to Justin Grosz, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff, 10360 W. State Rd 84, Ft 

Lauderdale, FL 33324, justin@justiceforkids.com; stacie@justiceforkids.com; 

howard@justiceforkids.com; marisela@justiceforkids.com;, in the manner specified, either via 

transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized 

manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to received electronically Notices of 

Electronic Filing.

ROBERTS, REYNOLDS, BEDARD & TUZZIO, PLLC

470 Columbia Drive, Bldg. C101

West Palm Beach, FL 33409

Phone: 561/688-6560 Fax: 561/688-2343

Email: bbedard@rrbpa.com; skaufer@rrbpa.com

Attorneys for Hotel Motel

 

/s/ John J. George for

BENJAMIN L. BEDARD

Florida Bar No: 983772

Case 0:20-cv-61385-RS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 11 of 11