L.H. v. Marriott Int'l, Inc.

604 F.Supp.3d 1346

L.H., Plaintiff,

v.MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., and others, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-22894-Civ-Scola

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed May 20, 2022

Entered May 23, 2022

Amanda J.G. Walbrun, Pro Hac Vice, Brian J. Perkins, Pro Hac Vice, Levin Simes Abrams LLP, San Francisco, CA, Emanuella J. Paulos, Kathryn Leigh Avila, Levin Papantonio Rafferty, Pensacola, FL, Kimberly Lambert Adams, Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Echsner & Procter, Pensacola, FL, Erik L. Bauer, Pro Hac Vice, Susanna L. Southworth, Pro Hac Vice, The Law Office of Erik L. Bauer, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff.

Amanda Elizabeth Reagan, DLA Piper LLP, Tampa, FL, Ellen Dew, Pro Hac Vice, Michael P. O'Day, Pro Hac Vice, DLA Piper LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant Marriott International, Inc.

Nicole M. Perry, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, Houston, TX, Allison McQueen, Pro Hac Vice, Bethany Biesenthal, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, Ana Maria Cristina Perez Soto, Jones Day, Miami, FL, for Defendants Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., Hilton Domestic Operating Company, Inc.

Alexandra N. Burgess, Pro Hac Vice, DLA Piper LLP, North Tower, LA, Angela C. Agrusa, Pro Hac Vice, DLA Piper LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Maia Sevilla-Sharon, DLA Piper LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant G6 Hospitality LLC.

Angel A. Cortinas, Gunster, Miami, FL, Allison S. Blanco, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, Caroline A. Flynn, Pro Hac Vice, Roman Martinez, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, Ernest A. Cox, IV, Nicole K. Atkinson, Gunster, Yoakley, and Stewart, West Palm Beach, FL, Michael J. Reiss, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Perry J. Viscounty, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant Craigslist, Inc.

Omnibus Order Granting Motions to Dismiss

Robert N. Scola, Jr., United States District Judge In this case, Plaintiff L.H.¹ alleges she was trafficked for commercial sex for over a decade, beginning when she was fifteen-years old, in 2008. (2^nd Am. Compl. ("Compl." or "complaint"), ECF No. 37.) She maintains that Defendants Marriott International, Inc.; Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc.; Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc. (the two Hilton companies, together, "the Hilton Companies"); G6 Hospitality, LLC; and craigslist, Inc., should all be held responsible, under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, for their role in her exploitation and brutalization. In response, Marriott International; the Hilton Companies; and G6 Hospitality seek dismissal of L.H.’s complaint, arguing, among other things, that L.H. has failed to state a claim for either their direct or their vicarious liability under the TVPRA. (Marriott's Mot., ECF No. 46; Hilton Cos. & G6's Mot., ECF No. 68.) Separately, Hilton Worldwide submits the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. (Hilton Cos. and G6's Mot. at 28–31.) craigslist, on the other hand, maintains, primarily, that it is immune under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act. (craigslist's Mot., ECF No. 48.) L.H. has opposed the motions (Pl.’s Resp. to the Hotel Cos., ECF No. 85; Pl.’s Resp. to craigslist, ECF No. 84) and the Defendants have all timely replied. (Marriott's Reply, ECF No. 90; Hilton Cos. & G6's Reply, ECF No. 89; craigslist's Reply, ECF No. 91.) After careful review, the Court agrees with the Defendants and therefore grants their motions (ECF Nos. 46, 48, 68 ) and, for the following reasons, dismisses L.H.’s case against Marriott International, Hilton Domestic, and G6 Hospitality (together, the "Hotel Companies") with prejudice , for a failure to state a claim; against Hilton Worldwide, without prejudice , based on a lack of personal jurisdiction; and against craigslist, with prejudice , based on its immunity under § 230 of the CDA.

1. Background²

Beginning in 2008, when L.H. was fifteen, two men brutally orchestrated trafficking her for commercial sex over the next ten years. (E.g. , Compl. ¶ 132.) She was regularly held for purchase at hotels throughout Miami-Dade County. (Id. ¶ 8.) Among those hotels are the Marriot Stanton South Beach Hotel, the Hilton Bentley Hotel, the Hilton Miami Downtown, the Hilton Garden Inn Miami South Beach, the Embassy Suites by Hilton Miami International Airport, and the Motel 6 Miami Beach (the "Miami Hotels"). (Id. )

Marriot International (through its relationship with the Marriot Stanton South Beach Hotel) and the Hilton Companies (through their relationships with the Hilton Bentley Hotel, the Hilton Miami Downtown, the Hilton Garden Inn Miami South Beach, and the Embassy Suites by Hilton Miami International Airport) both require compliance with certain policies: the use of Marriott or Hilton signs; providing Marriott or Hilton branded stationery; using the Marriott or Hilton website and the mandated 1-800 number for reservations; and the implementation of the Marriott or Hilton guest-rewards programs. (Id. ¶¶ 86.j; 87.j.) Marriot International, the Hilton Companies, and G6 Hospitality (in relation to the Motel 6 at 7330 NW 36^th Street in Miami, Florida), also mandate that their hotels carry a certain level of Wi-Fi internet access for guests and require certain cybersecurity measures. (Id. ¶¶ 86.l.–m; 87.m–n; 88.m–n.)

Marriot International, the Hilton Companies, and G6 Hospitality could, and in some cases did, track and control data regarding guest preferences or information: for example, guests’ physical locations, guests’ internet activity, and room inventory information. (Id. ¶¶ 86.i.; 87.i.; 88.i.) Among the assortment of other data that the Defendant hotels’ privacy policies reveal they collect about guests at their branded hotels are government identification information; nationalities; addresses; telephone numbers; email addresses; payment data; birth dates and places; accompanying guests; loyalty-program membership information; social-media account information; purchase histories and tendencies; biometric data; vehicle information; images and footage from hotel cameras; technological data including browser and device information; and downloading and internet access data. (Id. ¶¶ 86.n.; 87.o; 88.o.) Based on the list of information L.H. says Marriott International, the Hilton Companies, and G6 Hospitality have access to, the companies could have all readily detected that rooms at their respectively associated hotels were being used to sex traffic L.H. (E.g., id. ¶¶ 86.v.; 87.w.; 88.z.) Additionally, L.H. identifies numerous published accounts, through news media or hotel reviews, of prostitution, sex trafficking, or related crimes or incidents at various Marriot, Hilton, or G6 Hospitality branded properties throughout the world. (Id. ¶¶ 86.y.–z.; 87.z.–aa.; 88.dd.)

Beginning in 2008, when L.H. was fifteen, until 2019, L.H. was continually brutalized by her sex traffickers who sold her, along with three other young girls or women, for commercial sex. (Id. ¶¶ 126–30.) The traffickers ran their sex-trafficking operations out of the Miami Hotels over the course of ten years, often renting adjoining rooms, usually towards the back of the properties. (E.g., id. ¶¶ 131–132.) The traffickers personally knew several front-desk employees at the Miami Hotels and those employees, in exchange for compensation, helped facilitate and conceal the sex-trafficking operations. (E.g., id. ¶¶ 133, 142.) The employees never asked the traffickers for their identification and allowed them to pay in cash. (E.g., id. ¶ 133.) L.H. and the other victims were not permitted to speak during the check-in process, or while in the lobby, and were frequently confined to the rooms for several days at a time. (E.g., id. ¶¶ 135–36.) L.H. and the other victims would be forced to perform commercial sex acts for between eleven and fourteen different men daily—resulting in an obvious of parade of sex buyers into and out of the Miami Hotels each day. (E.g., id. ¶¶ 138, 154.)

L.H. and the other victims had notable interactions with the employees at the various Miami Hotels. For example, a Marriott Stanton employee came to the room where L.H. was being held, in response to a complaint about the constant traffic into and out of the room. (Id. ¶ 143.) When L.H. opened the door, the employee was able to see drugs, alcohol, sex paraphernalia, and that L.H., wearing makeup, was clad only in a bra and short shorts. (Id. ) When the employee asked L.H. how old she was, she told the employee that she was not allowed to speak to anyone. (Id. ) At another hotel, the Hilton Bentley, two employees, in uniform, even paid the traffickers to have sex with L.H. and one of the other victims. (Id. ¶ 159.) Additionally, employees at the Hilton Miami Downtown witnessed one of L.H.’s trafficker's being arrested for trafficking and strangling one of the other victims. (Id. ¶ 174.) Further, on yet another occasion, a Hilton Embassy Suites housekeeper walked into the room while L.H. was being trafficked for three different buyers, simultaneously. (Id. ¶ 202.) The housekeeper made eye contact with L.H., had to have seen the drugs, alcohol, and sex paraphernalia in the room, but simply left, without offering L.H. any aid. (Id. ) In general, many of the Miami Hotel employees would have been able to readily observe large amounts of used condoms, empty lube bottles, lingerie, sex toys, and linens stained with bodily fluids. (E.g., id. ¶ 146.a.) They also would have seen that L.H. was malnourished, bruised, covered in burn marks from cigarettes, drugged, and inappropriately attired. (E.g., id. ) They would have also noticed excessive requests for new sheets and towels, cleaning supplies, and room service. (E.g., id. ¶ 146.e.)

L.H.’s traffickers also used craigslist's website platform to advertise to potential buyers and to arrange for meetings, for commercial sex acts, using craigslist's internal messaging system. (Id. ¶ 8.) Her traffickers would use thinly coded language on postings to get around craigslist's published policy against posts’...