B.D.G. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

B.D.G.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:22-cv-3202
v. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,
INC.,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend and File Second Amended Complaint is before the
Court. (Doc. 60). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
the Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed suit in August 2022 under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a). (Doc. 1). Relevant here, Plaintiff alleges that she was
trafficked for sex at a franchisee/branded Ohio property of Defendant Choice Hotels International,
Inc. (“Choice”), in 2020. (Doc. 5 at ¶¶ 4, 23, 37). Due to a variety of factors in the first round of
TVPRA cases filed in this Court, the Court did not set a case schedule until August 26, 2024. That
case schedule, however, did not include a deadline to amend the pleadings. (Doc. 35).
Years later, this case was reassigned to the Undersigned, and the Court ordered the parties
to file monthly joint status reports. (Doc. 48). In the required June report, Plaintiff told the Court
she intended to seek leave to amend her First Amended Complaint to add “the franchisee and/or
other defendants.” (Doc. 56 at 1). On June 24, Plaintiff filed her Motion, seeking leave to add
Defendant Choice’s franchisee, Hailey-Sai Hospitality, LLC (“Hailey-Sai”), and three unrelated
Case: 2:22-cv-03202-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/14/26 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
defendants: G6 Hospitality, LLC; G6 Hospitality Franchising, LLC (collectively, “G6”); and
Westwood Hospitality, LLC (“Westwood”). (Doc. 60). Defendant opposes the Motion (Doc. 64),
and the Motion is ready for review. (See Doc. 65 (Plaintiff’s Reply)).
II. STANDARD
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when a party seeks
leave of court to file an amended pleading, “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” This rule, which allows a liberal policy in favor of granting amendments, “reinforce[s]
the principle that cases ‘should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings.’”
Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 388 F.3d 930, 936 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Moore v. City of Paducah,
790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986)). In exercising its discretion, the court may consider various
factors, such as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of a movant, repeated failures
to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of the amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Additionally, amendment of a case schedule requires compliance with Rule 16. Shane v.
Bunzl Distribution USA, Inc., 275 F. App’x 535, 536 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Once a . . . deadline has
passed, litigants must meet the higher threshold for modifying a scheduling order found in Rule
16(b).”) (citing Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 906–07 (6th Cir. 2003)). “[T]he touchstone of
the good cause inquiry under Rule 16(b) is whether the moving party acted diligently in attempting
to meet the deadline set forth in the pretrial order.” Permasteelisa CS Corp. v. Airolite Co., LLC,
No. 2:06-cv-0569, 2007 WL 1683668, at *2 (S.D. Ohio June 8, 2007). The Court must also
consider “the potential prejudice to the nonmovant.” Leary, 349 F.3d at 909.
III. DISCUSSION
The Court will address Plaintiff’s request to add a franchisee of Defendant before turning
to her request to add unrelated hotels.
Case: 2:22-cv-03202-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/14/26 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
A. Choice Franchisee – Hailey-Sai
As noted above, Plaintiff seeks to add Defendant’s franchisee, Hailey-Sai. (Doc. 60 at 1).
The procedural history of this case, and this specific request, is substantially similar to K.F. v.
Choice Hotels International, Inc., in which this Court granted Plaintiff leave to add franchisee
defendants. Case No. 2:22-cv-03839, Doc. 133 (July 1, 2026). For the reasons explained in that
Opinion and Order, incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to
add Hailey-Sai as a defendant. Because the Court is permitting a case schedule amendment, within
ten days of Hailey-Sai’s answer or response to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, the parties
are ORDERED to file a joint case management proposal, with a mind toward efficient discovery.
B. G6 and Westwood
Plaintiff’s second request to add other hotels as Defendants, however, requires further
analysis. She argues that under Rule 15(a)(2), her request is made in good faith, without dilatory
motive, and is not futile. (Doc. 60 at 4). She further contends that this amendment will not
prejudice Defendant because the parties have yet to take any depositions, and it will not prevent
this case being ready for trial in Spring 2027. (Id. at 2, 4). In response, Defendant argues that
Plaintiff must meet Rule 16(b)’s standard before the Court considers her Motion under Rule
15(a)(2), and Plaintiff fails to meet either standard. (See Doc. 64). Defendant also notes that
Plaintiff provides no reason as to why she did not include G6 and Westwood in her original or
amended Complaints. (Id. at 3–4, 7). In reply, Plaintiff claims that “the timing of this request is
due to the nascent nature of the law as it is developing under the TVPRA” and she “seeks to add
these defendants believing that the law has developed such that all hotels, including franchisee
properties, are properly brought in one action.” (Doc. 65 at 4).
To begin, the Court previously found Defendant Choice’s argument that Rule 16(b) applies
to a request to amend a complaint unpersuasive where no deadline to amend had been set. See
Case: 2:22-cv-03202-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/14/26 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
G.M. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-3788, 2025 WL 3140363, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 10,
2025). So too here, and the Court applies only Rule 15 to the amendment request to add G6 and
Westwood because the operative case schedule does not set a deadline by which to amend. Still,
as a practical matter, Defendant is correct that such an amendment at this stage would impact
progression of the case. Fact discovery has already closed, and expert deadlines are fast
approaching. (See Doc. 54). But, as explained below, amendment here is not appropriate, so the
Court need not consider a case schedule amendment that would encompass completely new
defendants.
Turning to the substance of Plaintiff’s request to add G6 and Westwood, the Court finds
that most of the applicable Rule 15(a)(2) factors—undue delay, prejudice, and bad faith or dilatory
motive—weigh against amendment. Addressing undue delay first, as Defendant Choice points
out, Plaintiff waited nearly four years to move to add these parties. (Doc. 64 at 3–4, 7–8).
Plaintiff’s explanation for this delay is insufficient. She relies on “the development of the law” as
an excuse when, in reality, her counsel has repeatedly brought cases with multiple, distinct
corporate entities since 2019. At base, Plaintiff provides no reason as to why she did not seek to
add G6 and Westwood in the past four years. This factor weighs heavily against amendment. See
Mathews v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 953 F. Supp. 2d 811, 814 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (finding undue
delay where plaintiff provided no explanation for long delay).
Similarly, the undue prejudice factor disfavors amendment. “The standard for undue
prejudice is whether the amendment would require the opposing party to expend significant
additional resources to conduct discovery and prepare for trial or significantly delay resolution of
the dispute.” In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:23-CV-00553, 2024 WL
6969262, at *11 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2024) (citing Phelps v. McClellan, 30 F.3d 658, 663 (6th
Case: 2:22-cv-03202-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/14/26 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
Cir. 1994)). Here, adding G6 and Westwood would significantly delay resolution of this case by
effectively restarting it. “To add new claims and new defendants at this point would, however,
clearly and unjustly postpone resolution of this saga.” Dubuc v. Green Oak Twp., 117 F. Supp. 2d
610, 621 (E.D. Mich. 2000), aff’d, 312 F.3d 736 (6th Cir. 2002) (finding proposed amendment
prejudicial where new defendants would need to “familiarize themselves with the nine-years long
record in this case just to formulate an appropriate discovery strategy; Plaintiff would be entitled
to discovery from them; and the existing Defendants would have to attend to all of that discovery
as well, to protect their own interests”).
Lastly, the bad faith or dilatory motive factor does not weigh against amendment. While
there is no evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive, as Defendant notes, it and the Court are left to
speculate on Plaintiff’s motives. (See Doc. 64 at 8 (suggesting that “the most plausible reason why
Plaintiff seeks to add the Motel 6 Defendants to the case is to place improper settlement pressure
on Choice (and presumably the Motel 6 Defendants as well)”)). See also Minor v. Northville Pub.
Schs., 605 F. Supp. 1185, 1202 (E.D. Mich. 1985) (“At some point in the course of litigation, an
unjustified delay preceding a motion to amend goes beyond excusable neglect, even when there is
no evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive.”). This factor, however, is outweighed by Plaintiff’s
undue delay and the prejudice the amendment would cause.
A final note. The Court need not reach Defendant’s futility argument considering the
foregoing analysis.
***
In sum, the Court finds that under Rule 15, Plaintiff may amend her complaint to add
Hailey-Sai Hospitality, LLC only, as her request to add new, unrelated defendants was unduly
delayed and would significantly prejudice Defendant.
Case: 2:22-cv-03202-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/14/26 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend and File a Second
Amended Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file
her Second Amended Complaint on or before August 20, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 14, 2026 s/Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:22-cv-03202-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/14/26 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>