The lawsuit, filed by plaintiffs Terri Timko, Anthony Robinson, and Stephanie Darnell against Wyndham and a group of franchisee defendants, centers on allegations of labor exploitation and trafficking at properties operating under the Days Inn brand and a separate motel. The franchisee defendants include NSPA Lounge LLC, NSPA Suites LLC, Milan LLC, and several individual operators. Plaintiffs accused Wyndham of bearing liability as the franchisor for the franchisees' alleged misconduct.
Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the Western District of Pennsylvania granted Wyndham's motion to dismiss specific counts with prejudice on April 1, 2026, ruling that further amendment would be futile given that plaintiffs had already amended their complaint — which Wyndham characterized as a sprawling 29-count, 823-paragraph, 143-page document — and had not fully cured prior deficiencies.
On the TVPRA and Pennsylvania trafficking claims brought by plaintiff Darnell, the court held that she failed to plead a predicate criminal act. Darnell had invoked document-servitude statutes, which criminalize destruction of travel documents such as passports, immigration documents, and other government IDs whose absence would restrict a person's ability to travel. The court held those statutes do not reach the withholding of wage documents like W-2 forms and pay stubs, and without a viable predicate violation, the TVPRA and state trafficking claims against Wyndham could not stand.
The RICO conspiracy count failed because the amended complaint alleged only that Wyndham should have known of its franchisees' corrupt activities — not that Wyndham actually knew of and agreed to participate in a RICO-violating enterprise. The court held that constructive knowledge is insufficient to state a RICO conspiracy claim.
Plaintiff Robinson's Section 1981 race-discrimination claim against Wyndham was dismissed on joint-employer grounds. The court held there was no plausible basis to conclude that Wyndham functioned as Robinson's employer or as a joint employer alongside the franchisee.
The unjust-enrichment claims fared no better. Plaintiffs argued that Wyndham benefited from the franchisees' nonpayment of wages because Wyndham collects royalties and franchise fees. The court held that benefit remote or incidental at best, insufficient to support an unjust-enrichment claim under Pennsylvania law.
The dismissals are with prejudice. Claims against Wyndham and the other defendants not addressed in this ruling remain pending.