N.R. v. Southfield Hotel LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
N.R.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:25-cv-0486
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
v. 	Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
SOUTHFIELD HOTEL LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Kiwi Hospitality Detroit, LLC dba Best
Western Premier Southfield’s (“Kiwi”) Motion to Transfer Venue. (Mot., ECF No. 81.) For the
reasons that follow, Defendant Kiwi’s Motion is DENIED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff N.R., a resident of Ohio, alleges that she was trafficked for sex as a minor from
2020-2021 at several hotels located in the Detroit, Michigan area, owned or controlled by
Defendants. (ECF No. 56-1, at ¶¶ 2, 10, 36.) Defendant Kiwi is a Michigan limited liability
company. (Id. at ¶ 29.) Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants liable under the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 1595, and the Child Abuse
Victims Rights Act (“CAVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2255. (Id. at ¶¶ 79–92.) Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Kiwi knew that sex trafficking occurred on its property, facilitated and benefitted
from the sex trafficking of Plaintiff, and it knew or should have known of the sex trafficking of
Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 73, 86–88.)
Case: 2:25-cv-00486-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 100 Filed: 03/10/26 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Defendant Kiwi moved this Court to transfer this case to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Mot. at PageID 561.)
Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. (Resp., ECF No. 85.) Defendant Kiwi filed a reply brief
in support of its Motion. (Reply, ECF No. 87.) This matter is ripe for judicial review.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought.” The threshold issue under § 1404(a) is whether the action
could be brought in the transferee court. Kay v. Nat’l City Mortg. Co., 494 F. Supp. 2d 845, 849
(S.D. Ohio 2007). If a case could be brought in the transferee court, “the issue becomes whether
transfer is justified under the balance of the language of § 1404(a).” Id. In balancing
convenience, the Court must consider factors such as “the private interests of the parties,
including their convenience and the convenience of potential witnesses, as well as other public-
interest concerns, such as systemic integrity and fairness, which come under the rubric of
‘interests of justice.’” Moore v. Rohm & Haas Co., 446 F.3d 643, 647 n.1 (6th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Moses v. Bus. Card Exp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1131, 1137 (6th Cir. 1991)). Relevant private
interest factors to consider include the following: “(1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) where
the parties reside; (3) the location of willing and unwilling witnesses; (4) the location of
evidence; and (5) the locus of events that gave rise to the dispute.” Olin-Marquez v. Arrow
Senior Living Management, LLC, 586 F. Supp. 3d 759, 776 (S.D. Ohio 2022) (internal citations
omitted). Relevant public interest factors include: “(1) the court’s interest in judicial economy;
(2) docket congestion; (3) local interest in deciding the controversy at home; (4) the public’s
general interest in systemic integrity and fairness; and (5) the court’s familiarity with the
Case: 2:25-cv-00486-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 100 Filed: 03/10/26 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
governing law.” Id. at 778 (citing Youngblood v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 3:16-CV-34, 2016
WL 1466559, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 14, 2016)).
The moving party bears the burden to establish a need for transfer. Kay, 494 F. Supp. 2d
at 849–50 (citing Jamhour v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 211 F. Supp. 2d 941, 945 (S.D. Ohio 2002)).
Transfer pursuant to § 1404 must be “to a more convenient forum, not to a forum likely to prove
equally convenient or inconvenient.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 645–46 (1964); see
also Shanehchian v. Macy’s, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 287, 292 (S.D. Ohio 2008) (“[Section] 1404 does
not allow . . . for transfer if that transfer would only shift the inconvenience from one party to
another.”).
Even where venue is proper, a district court may exercise its broad discretion to transfer a
civil action to a more convenient forum pursuant to § 1404(a). See Reese v. CNH Am. LLC, 574
F.3d 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Phelps v. McClellan, 30 F.3d 658, 663 (6th Cir. 1994)).
“Ultimately . . . the decision whether to transfer venue under § 1404(a) is committed to the sound
discretion of the trial court.” Levy v. Cain, Watters & Assocs., P.L.L.C., No. 2:09-cv-723, 2010
WL 271300, at *9 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 15, 2010); Reese, 574 F.3d at 320 (“As the permissive
language of the transfer statute suggests, district courts have broad discretion to determine when
party convenience or the interest of justice make a transfer appropriate.”) (quotation omitted).
III. 	ANALYSIS
In front of the Court, yet again, is the issue of venue in a TVPRA case. In accordance
with its recent opinions denying motions to change venue,1 absent jurisdictional or venue
deficiencies, this Court will not exercise its discretionary power to transfer the cases to a
different district court pursuant to § 1404. Doe (S.S.) v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., et al., No. 2:24-cv-
1 See 2:24-cv-03076; 2:24-cv-03113; 2:24-cv-03919; 2:24-cv-03998; 2:24-cv-04058; 2:24-cv-
04061; 2:24-cv-04141; 2:24-cv-00389; 2:24-cv-3991.
Case: 2:25-cv-00486-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 100 Filed: 03/10/26 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
1780, 2025 WL 634434 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2025) (citing In re Hotel TVPRA Litig., No. 2:22-cv-
1924, 2023 WL 3075851, at *21 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 25, 2023)). While each case presents unique
circumstances, this Court has repeatedly explained that the “public interest factors have become
demonstrably more important, requiring this Court to consider the impact of transferring these
cases as a whole, and not in isolation.” Id. at *3.
Defendant Kiwi argues that the Court should transfer this case to the Eastern District of
Michigan because the Section 1404 venue factors weigh in favor of transfer, as Plaintiff alleges
that she was trafficked in Michigan and the Eastern District of Michigan is a more convenient
forum. (Mot. at PageID 564–568.) Defendant Kiwi, however, fails to distinguish the Court’s
numerous TVPRA decisions on venue issues. As a result, Defendant Kiwi’s Motion requires
minimal analysis. Defendant Kiwi fails to persuade the Court that it should reach a different
outcome in this case. Nothing in the record of this case indicates that the importance of the
public interest factors has diminished.
Defendant Kiwi does not assert that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction or that venue in
the Southern District of Ohio is improper.2 Further, the Court finds that it has personal
jurisdiction, and the Southern District of Ohio is a proper forum for the reasons it articulated in
In re Hotel TVPRA Litig., 2023 WL 3075851, at *10 (“Because this Court has personal
jurisdiction over all defendants named in these [] minor cases, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, they
all are considered residents of the Southern District of Ohio for venue purposes in these actions.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Therefore, venue is also properly laid in this district . . . .”). In the
2 Defendant Kiwi initially asserted that venue is improper in the Southern District of Ohio. (Mot.
at PageID 563–64.) Plaintiff countered that this venue is proper because this Court has personal
jurisdiction over Defendant Kiwi under CAVRA. (Resp. at PageID 587–88.) In its Reply,
Defendant Kiwi forfeits its improper venue contention and asserts that “it does not challenge this
Court’s ability to maintain this case.” (Reply, at PageID 608.)
Case: 2:25-cv-00486-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 100 Filed: 03/10/26 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
absence of jurisdictional or venue deficiencies and Defendant Kiwi’s failure to distinguish this
case from the Court’s previous TVPRA decisions regarding venue, the Court DENIES
Defendant Kiwi’s Motion (ECF No. 81) to Transfer Venue.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Kiwi’s Motion (ECF No. 81) to
Transfer Venue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 10, 2026 	/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-00486-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 100 Filed: 03/10/26 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>