Result: The JPML denied centralization

Here’s a tight summary of what’s actually on that FindLaw page (it’s the JPML’s order in In re: Hotel Industry Sex-Trafficking Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 3104—not an amicus brief, but it discusses the amici and the issues):

What the Panel decided

  • Result: The JPML denied centralization (again) of federal sex-trafficking suits brought against various hotel brands and operators. (Order dated April 11, 2024.) jpml.uscourts.gov

Why centralization was denied

  • Insufficient common facts across cases. The Panel said any overlapping “general” discovery (e.g., brand-level policies or industry knowledge) would be overwhelmed by individualized facts: different hotels, different trafficking ventures, brands, owners/employees, locations, witnesses, “indicia of sex trafficking,” and time periods. jpml.uscourts.gov
  • No unifying defendant or fact-intensive inquiry comparable to other MDLs; the cases involve more than 200 differently named defendants across ~113 actions. jpml.uscourts.gov
  • Brand-specific MDLs rejected as unworkable because many plaintiffs allege trafficking at multiple locations and against multiple brands. jpml.uscourts.gov
  • Informal coordination is feasible, especially since 62 of the 113 known cases were already before two judges (E.D. Tex. and S.D. Ohio), and parties were making progress on protective orders and identity-protection protocols. jpml.uscourts.gov

Where the amici fit in

  • 2024 motion: Six anti-sex-trafficking organizations filed an amicus brief opposing centralization, and the Panel noted that, unlike 2020, all responding defendants and amici now opposed creating an MDL—another reason centralization wasn’t necessary. jpml.uscourts.gov
  • Context from 2020: In the first round (MDL No. 2928), nineteen anti-trafficking groups filed two amicus briefs—one for and one against centralization. The Panel denied centralization then, too, for substantially the same “individualized-facts-predominate” reasons. jpml.uscourts.gov

Numbers & parties (from the 2024 order)

  • Movants touted a pipeline of ~1,700 potential claims and sought industry-wide or, alternatively, brand-specific centralization; defendants broadly opposed both.
  • The Panel counted ~113 actions and 200+ defendants (brand parents, franchisees, operators, management companies). jpml.uscourts.gov

Relevance to “ignored red flags” at budget hotels

  • The Panel repeatedly characterizes plaintiffs’ theory as hotels “knew or should have known” and failed to prevent sex trafficking, but emphasizes those alleged “red flags/indicia” are case-specific and vary property-to-property—one key reason it refused an MDL. jpml.uscourts.gov