Sex Trafficking Wyndham and La Quinta MTD DENIED and bonus MTD DENIED RIST
file411.substack.com
Sex Trafficking Wyndham and La Quinta MTD DENIED and bonus MTD DENIED RIST
If you are renting hotel rooms where they are paying cash, have zero luggage, have a steady flow of “John’s” coming/going, see women dresses inappropriately, who also have visible signs of abuse...
October of 2019 Plaintiff S.Y. and another alleged victim of sex trafficking filed a case in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit and in for Collier County, Florida. See S.Y. et al v. Naples Hotel Co. et al, Case No. 2:20-cv-118 (Doc. #1, p. 3) - Thereafter the Plaintiffs filed ,a First Amended Complaint which asserted ten claims against over forty defendants. In February of 2020 the case was moved to Federal District Court, Middle District of Florida.
A notice of related case, styled as: S.Y. v. Naples Hotel Company, et al; Case No 2:20-cv-00118-JES-MRM was filed on August 19, 2021 via ECF https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/doc1/047121941928
The aforementioned cases were then consolidated under Case No: 2:20-cv-00633-JES-MRM - unless otherwise specified, heretofore relevant filings under this case.
Allegations:
plaintiff S.Y., a resident of Collier County, Florida, was a victim of continuous sex trafficking at various La Quinta Inn & Suites by Wyndham located in Naples, Florida between 2013 and February 2016. The complaint further alleges La Quinta Hotel, operated by defendants La Quinta Holdings Inc, La Quinta Properties, Inc with CorePoint Lodging Inc, CPLG L.L.C and CPLG FL Properties L.L.C.(as a franchisee of defendant Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc
The Plaintiffs state six claims:
violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), 18 U.S.C. § 1595;
violation of the Florida RICO statute, § 772.104, Florida Statutes;
premise liability;
negligent hiring, supervision, and retention;
negligent rescue; and
aiding and abetting, harboring, confining, coercion, and criminal enterprise. (Id., pp. 34-55.)
Counts One through Four are asserted against each defendant, while Counts Five and Six are asserted against La Quinta Holdings, La Quinta Properties, CorePoint, CPLG, and CPLG FL.
Shotgun Pleading
Generally defined as; “ a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts.” - typically a Defendant will use the “shotgun pleading” as the main argument in a motion to dismiss. In layman’s terms (non- legalese) if allegations are made at all defendants but lacks the specificity of each act…
-also see Shotgun complaints “fail to apprise the opposing party of the particular claims against it (and the potential extent of its liability) . . . [and] water[] down the rights of parties to have valid claims litigated efficiently and waste scarce judicial resources.” Jackson v. Waring, Civil No PJM 15-1233, 2016 WL 7228866 at *4 (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2016).
The Court found “the Complaint does not constitute a shotgun pleading.” emphasis added
Case 2:20-cv-00633-JES-MRM - Order & Memo
Failure to State a Claim;
The Defendant Motion to Dismiss argued that “certain claims should be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” - the defendants also attempted to buttress their arguments vis a vis “Participation” in a “Venture” - not exactly a compelling argument. Ambiguous arguendo while suggesting a court should apply the inferred intention …the footnote is the chef’s kiss.
As the Court noted;
…the Complaint alleges the defendants participated in a venture “by engaging in a pattern of acts and omissions that were intended to support, facilitate, harbor, and otherwise further the traffickers’ sale and victimization of the Plaintiff S.Y.. for commercial sexual exploitation by repeatedly renting rooms at La Quinta Hotel to people” the defendants “knew or should have known were engaged in sex trafficking.”
In general any Order and/or Memorandum that invokes “first of all…” that is literally the jurisprudence of “strap in, we might hit gnarly turbulence” and boy does the court deliver a serious no holds bar take down of the Defendant’s arguments.
The Court disagrees with this argument. First of all, “knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)
At which point the Court goes through detail upon detail - describing what the Plaintiffs allege (with specificity in their Complaint) setting forth distinct patterns and practices that should have alerted Hotel Staff that they were renting hotel rooms to sex traffickers.
Plaintiff has alleged that the following was “routine conduct taking place at the La Quinta Hotel as a result of the human sex trafficking enterprise”…
the Complaint alleges the defendants “knew or should have known about the nature of the sex trafficking venture at the La Quinta Hotel, including as they related to Plaintiff S.Y.” due to the following…
…The Court finds these allegations sufficient to reasonably infer the defendants knew or should have known of the sex trafficking venture.
Florida RICO Violation
The plaintiffs complaint allege under Florida RICO laws 4Florida’s civil RICO statute, section 772.104 - the Court found that the Plaintiffs had
“…these allegations sufficient to allege the defendants “shared the purpose of enriching themselves through a particular criminal course of conduct.” Cisneros, 972 F.3d at 1211; see also United States v. Church, 955 F.2d 688, 697-98 (11th Cir. 1992)
In short the Court completely eviscerated the Defendants arguments which ranged a wide gauntlet -especially as it relates to “liability” - so for now I’d watch this case because I would expect the Defendants to file an appeal. When in all actuality the Defendant should seriously consider a confidential settlement otherwise this case might open Pandora’s box of ugly and by ugly I mean how the defendants put profits and occupancy rates ahead of the duty to intervene
Document No 60 - Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim AND Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - via ECF https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/doc1/047122977655 or a highlighted and annotated copy found on my public drive
also related case: S.Y. v WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS,INC. and RIST PROPERTIES, LLC Motion to Dismiss ALSO DENIED (largely reiterative of the La Quinta Wyndham)
So why does this matter?
Now if you’re asking why does this case matter - I feel comfortable going out on a limb by saying; La Quinta, Wyndham and RIST might also be under criminal investigation too. And if I were a reporter I’d contact the USAO-MDFL and ask them if their office is investigating because I’m pretty sure if they are not, they will be soon. Because the Biden DOJ will not turn a blind eye to RICO that involves sex trafficking. But meh whadda I know.
Other related cases;
S. Y., Plaintiff, v. WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, INC. and RIST PROPERTIES, LLC - Case No: 2:20-cv-628-JES-MRM
defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, or For a More Definite Statement and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof (Doc. #10), filed on September 28, 202. Plaintiff filed an Opposition (Doc. #20) on November 2, 2020. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
S. Y., Plaintiff, v. HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, LLC and NAPLES CFC ENTERPRISES, LTD., Defendants
May 5, 2021 Order Denying Defendants Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively Motion to Strike - that’s one helluva footnote
Also BOLO:
Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within SEVEN (7) DAYS of this Opinion and Order to reflect the voluntary dismissal of the four state claims.
Which means the plaintiffs will likely file today or tomorrow. For now I think you now have all the related cases and current state of play but it is possible I may have inadvertently missed a case or two.
February 2020 - ORDER - IN RE: Hotel Industry Sex Trafficking Litigation (MDL No. 2928) United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (yes this is a real court - typically sequestered to really complex cases, involving numerous defendants) via ECF https://ecf.jpml.uscourts.gov/doc1/85011113107 or via my public drive - not that my opinion matters but I believe the panel made the correct and most equitable decision for the parties involved
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, we conclude that centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Important on the 11thCCOAs ruling an outline of four broad categories of shotgun pleadings;
which is the most common type, “a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts . . . .” Id
is “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action.” Id.
fails to separate into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief. Id.
where a plaintiff asserts multiple claims against multiple defendants absent specificity of which defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought against. Id.
