summaries of the below w/ red flag quotes and suggested amicus usage

Concise case summaries, short verbatim “red-flag” quotes (≤25 words each), and paraphrased, topic-organized pull-outs you can drop into an amicus.

A.B. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (M.D. Pa. July 11, 2025) — Motion to Dismiss Denied

What the court did: Denied Wyndham’s 12(b)(6) motion on TVPRA §1595 beneficiary liability and vicarious liability; plaintiff plausibly alleged franchisor profit + property-level indicia + operational control. Courthouse News

Key facts emphasized by the court: Staff allegedly observed trafficking indicia; police visits; online guest reviews about prostitution/violence; and the franchisee later convicted for sex trafficking at the same hotel (2011–2019). Courthouse News

Red-flag quotes (copy/paste)

  • “patrons regularly paying in cash” … “paying for extended stays” … “frequent requests for linen changes.” Courthouse News
  • “large numbers of condoms left in the trash.” Courthouse News
  • “a large number of men coming in and out of A.B.’s room.” Courthouse News
  • “verbal abuse in public spaces, [and] the sounds of physical and verbal abuse.” Courthouse News

Topic pull-outs (paraphrased for use in argument)

  • Beneficiary liability (§1595): Allegations that Wyndham profited from room revenues while obvious indicia persisted plausibly state “knew or should have known” knowledge. Courthouse News
  • Vicarious liability (operational control): Alleged franchisor control over training, policies, PMS, inspections, room pricing, staffing, and approvals sufficiently pleads control to proceed. Courthouse News
  • Pattern & notice: Prior guest reviews and repeated police responses at the same property support foreseeability and corporate notice theories. Courthouse News

One-paragraph, amicus-ready statements

  • Constructive knowledge from indicia: Persistent, visible indicia—cash day-rates, extended stays, frequent linens, condom debris, heavy male traffic, public abuse—plausibly establish that a branded hotel should have known and benefited from trafficking under §1595. Courthouse News
  • Franchisor accountability: Where brand parents set and enforce operations (training, pricing, systems, audits), courts may allow vicarious-liability claims to proceed beyond the pleadings. Courthouse News

PDF: (CourtHouse News mirror of the order) Courthouse News

G.M. v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. (S.D. Ohio Mar. 25, 2024) — All defense motions Denied

What the court did: Denied motions to dismiss/sever/transfer; held plaintiff sufficiently alleged (1) §1595 beneficiary liability (benefit, participation in venture, knew/should have known) and (2) franchisor control supporting agency/vicarious theories (but not joint-employer). Buchalter

Snapshot of holdings (from the order’s synopsis): Sufficient allegations for CAVRA; proper joinder; benefit/participation/knowledge under §1595; plausible franchisor control for agency; training-control alone insufficient for joint-employer. Buchalter

Red-flag quotes (copy/paste)

  • “Paying for stays in cash; Paying for extended stays on a day by day basis.” Buchalter
  • “Unusually large number of used condoms in the trash.” Buchalter
  • “Visible signs of prior and private physical abuse.” Buchalter
  • “Unusually large number of male visitors coming in and out of the room.” Buchalter
  • “Asking the front desk not to be disturbed.” Buchalter
  • “Obvious signs of illegal drug use… [and] frequent requests for linen changes.” Buchalter

Topic pull-outs (paraphrased for use in argument)

  • Participation in a venture (§1595): A “venture” need not be a sex-specific enterprise; commercial relationships (rooms, systems, revenue sharing) at the property can satisfy participation when paired with duty-violations. Buchalter
  • Should-have-known: Property-level indicia—repeated cash/day-to-day payments, heavy male traffic, condom debris, Wi-Fi ads, staff threats to evict over condom volume—support the negligence-level knowledge standard. Buchalter+1
  • Franchisor control: Allegations of standardized platforms, policy mandates, audits, and performance oversight can plausibly show control sufficient for agency/vicarious liability even if joint-employment is not pled. Buchalter

One-paragraph, amicus-ready statements

  • Venture & benefit clarified: Courts recognize a §1595 “venture” where a franchisor’s business relationship and operational standards intersect with trafficking at branded properties, coupled with profit from room sales. Buchalter
  • Indicia as notice: Detailed, repeated indicia—cash extensions, drug cues, linen turnover, condoms, do-not-disturb, surges of male visitors—are widely accepted markers establishing foreseeability and constructive knowledge. Buchalter
  • Agency vs. joint-employer: Control through policies, inspections, and systems can ground agency/vicarious liability; mere training control alone won’t establish joint-employer status. Buchalter

PDF: (Buchalter copy of the order) Buchalter

How to use these in your amicus

  • Facts appendix: Drop the short quotes under a “Common Indicators (‘Red Flags’) Recognized by Courts” heading; attribute to A.B. v. Wyndham and G.M. v. Choice. Courthouse News+1
  • Argument I (Knowledge): Use the one-paragraph statements to support “knew or should have known,” citing both orders’ acceptance of property-level indicia. Courthouse News+1
  • Argument II (Participation/Benefit): Paraphrased venture/benefit points from G.M. show why franchisors can be liable without pleading a sex-specific joint enterprise. Buchalter
  • Argument III (Vicarious Liability): Pair A.B.’s operational-control analysis with G.M.’s agency holdings to argue franchisor accountability beyond the pleadings. Courthouse News+1