If a hotel profited from what was done to you in Dallas, we can hold it to account
If you were trafficked at a hotel in Dallas — a long-stay property on a North Texas highway, the kind of place that runs on a weekly cash rate, that takes “no questions asked” at the front desk, that you came to dread walking into — we want to talk to you. You can reach us at 1-888-ATTY-911 for a free consultation. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
The law in Texas, and federal law layered on top of it, gives a survivor of hotel-based sex trafficking a real legal path to hold the company that pocketed the room money to account. That path is harder than it should be, and the hotel’s first move — every time — is to tell you the brand and the operator and the building owner are all different companies, so the brand “isn’t responsible.” Or to tell you the brand “never knew.” Or that you “should have come forward sooner.” None of that is the end of the story. Our practice is built around going through those walls, and what follows is what we tell every survivor or family member who calls us about a case like this.
What this kind of case looks like — and why the Hawthorn Love Suites fact pattern matters
You may have read about a Harris County woman who was trafficked as a teenager for roughly four weeks at a Hawthorn Love Suites in Dallas. The public record of her case describes a fact pattern we see again and again in hotel trafficking cases across Texas: a daily-cash room; teenage girls with no luggage; a man decades older than them controlling the room; condoms and trash in the halls; a constant stream of men coming and going; an arrest only after Houston police found an online commercial-sex ad and tipped Dallas police. The fact that the hotel responded to at least one online customer review that flagged what was happening in its rooms — and the fact that other reviews from years before described the same visible red flags — is the kind of paper trail that turns a hotel’s “we never knew” defense into a question of how long it had to be obvious.
This is also the second civil case filed in a year against a Texas hotel, and the second against Wyndham Hotel Group after a 2020 case brought on behalf of trafficking victims at three Houston hotels. The pattern is real, it is recurring, and it is exactly the kind of pattern our firm’s premise-liability and negligent-security work was built to address. If what happened to you looked anything like what was described in that filing — a long stretch, cash payments, no ID, no luggage, a stream of men, a fearful girl who never came to the desk — the law treats that not as a private misfortune but as a danger the hotel chose not to stop, for money. [Learn more about how we approach premises-liability cases against hotels and other property owners on our premises liability practice page.]
The two laws that do the work in a Texas hotel trafficking case
A Texas hotel-trafficking case is not one lawsuit under one statute. It is a stack: a federal civil-remedy statute, a state civil-remedy statute, and a state negligent-security claim that runs alongside both. Each does a different job. We bring all three.
The federal hook — the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), 18 U.S.C. § 1595
The federal civil remedy is unusually broad and was written precisely to reach businesses — not just the trafficker. The statute gives a victim of a trafficking violation the right to bring a civil action against the perpetrator “or whoever knowingly benefits, or attempts or conspires to benefit, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this chapter.” The plain-English reading: a survivor can sue not just the man who sold her, but any business that took money from an operation it knew, or should have known, was trafficking. The room rate paid in cash is the “anything of value.” The franchisor’s royalty is “anything of value.” The brand standards that produced the conditions that let the trafficking continue are the participation.
The TVPRA also gives a survivor a 10-year statute of limitations under § 1595(c), running from the violation, or 10 years after the victim’s 18th birthday if the victim was a minor at the time. A child who was 15 when she was trafficked has until she is 28 to file in federal court. The TVPRA also carries mandatory attorney’s fees — the statute is written so that a defendant cannot use its legal cost to wear a survivor down into settling for nothing. The federal remedy sits at the center of any serious hotel-trafficking case.
The federal statute also strips away one defense the hotel would otherwise try to use. Before 2018, websites and online platforms hid behind a broad immunity for third-party content (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)) and argued that commercial-sex ads posted on their sites were “somebody else’s speech.” Congress closed that door for trafficking claims in the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), amending § 230 to say explicitly that the immunity does not impair any civil action brought under § 1595 of title 18 where the conduct constitutes sex trafficking. That matters in hotel cases because the trafficking is almost always marketed through online ads, and those ads — and the volume of them on a given platform or directed at a given property — become evidence of what was visible, where, and to whom.
The Texas hook — Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 98
Texas law layers its own civil remedy on top. Chapter 98 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code imposes civil liability on a person or entity that intentionally or knowingly benefits from participation in a human-trafficking venture. The Texas statute tracks the federal “knowingly benefits” model but in a Texas court, before a Texas jury. It also gives a Texas survivor access to exemplary (punitive) damages for intentional or knowing conduct, and mandatory attorney’s fees — the same anti-bully design as the federal statute.
The Texas statute of limitations for a trafficking-related personal-injury claim is unusually long. Texas law gives a survivor 15 years to bring a Chapter 98 / personal-injury action arising from trafficking (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.0045, the 15-year catch-all for personal-injury claims that did not exist or were not reasonably knowable at the time). That is a critical protection for a survivor who has spent years — sometimes a decade or more — in survival mode before the idea of a civil case became thinkable. The Hawthorn case itself is a 2019 incident; under Texas law, the clock still has years to run.
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.0045: A person must bring suit for personal injury not later than 15 years after the day the cause of action accrues if the injury arises from an act or omission that occurred before September 1, 2023, under circumstances in which the cause of action is not reasonably discoverable, or the injury is by its nature not inherently observable. For trafficking matters, this provision operates as a survivor’s safety net — the deadline does not begin to run until the survivor could reasonably have discovered both the injury and its cause.
The Texas premises hook — negligent security
The third leg is the oldest and most familiar. Texas property law imposes on a hotel a duty to take reasonable steps to protect guests from foreseeable criminal conduct on the premises. When the foreseeable criminal conduct is sex trafficking, the duty has three concrete parts: (1) reasonable security measures (lighting, locks, cameras, key-card controls, staffing, parking and perimeter monitoring), (2) reasonable screening and supervision of staff, contractors, and extended-stay guests, and (3) reasonable response to known or knowable red flags. A hotel that books a room to a known trafficker, fails to act on visible warnings, and profits from the room nights is failing on all three. Texas juries understand this duty in concrete terms; they do not need a federal statute to grasp that a hotel that rents the room and ignores the parade of men in and out is not a bystander. We pair the negligent-security claim with the trafficking claims so that the survivor has every available Texas door open. [Read more about the negligent-security framework on our negligent-security practice page.]
The corporate shell game — and how we get through it
The single most common move a hotel company makes in a trafficking case is to point at another entity and say, “Not us.” That move is sometimes accurate on its face, and almost always strategic. Wyndham-branded hotels are run through a layered structure: the parent (Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.), the brand-licensing subsidiary (for example, the Days Inn or Super 8 worldwide entities), the local franchisee LLC that actually owns the building, the third-party management company that runs day-to-day operations, and any corporate affiliates that own the real estate. A complaint that names only the brand can be met with a motion to dismiss arguing the franchisor is too far removed from the rooms. A complaint that names only the franchisee can be met with the franchisee pointing at a thin balance sheet. The art of these cases is suing the right combination of defendants, in the right court, on theories that track how the money and the control actually moved.
Two appellate decisions frame the contest. The first is the defense win. In Doe #1 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 21 F.4th 714 (11th Cir. 2021), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims against a hotel franchisor on the ground that the franchisor’s collection of franchise fees and provision of brand standards, without more, was not enough to show “participation in a venture” under the TVPRA. That case is the line the brands will quote at you. It is also a defense-favorable ruling, and it is most useful to the hotel — not to you. The second is the more recent, plaintiff-favorable ruling. In M.A. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00849, 2025 WL 2696500 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2025), the federal court denied summary judgment against the operator-defendants and held that renting hotel rooms — combined with constructive knowledge (“should have known”) of the trafficking operation — was enough at the pleading/summary-judgment stage for the case to proceed. A trial court has now held, on the record, that a hotel operator who takes the room money while the warning signs mount can be put to his proof before a jury.
The lesson of those two rulings is what we do. We sue the operator. We sue the brand. We sue the management company where one exists. We sue the franchisor at the holding-company level where the royalty stream and the brand standards actually live. We develop the record on operational control: who set the staffing levels at the property, who wrote the training the front desk actually used, who decided when to flag a room and when not to, who received the customer reviews online and how they were handled, who owned the surveillance system and who decided how long the footage was kept. The franchisor’s “we just license a name” defense crumbles when the standard operating procedures, the brand audits, the reservation data, the loyalty-program integration, and the customer-review response process all show the brand’s fingerprints on the daily operation.
We also name the right kind of entity. A franchisee with ten employees and one property may be a single-asset LLC with little insurance and few assets. The deep pocket is almost never that local LLC — it is the brand. The first round of discovery should be designed to find every entity in the money and control chain so that recovery is not stranded in an empty shell.
The evidence — what exists, who has it, and how fast it dies
Sex-trafficking cases live or die on paper. The good news is that a hotel trafficking operation leaves a paper trail by its very nature. The bad news is that the most important parts of that trail exist on a clock measured in days to months, not years. The day you call us, the first thing we do is freeze what can be frozen. Below is the case-deciding evidence and how fast each dies.
Surveillance video from the property. This is the most perishable record in the case. Hotel CCTV commonly overwrites on a rolling 30-day loop, sometimes shorter. A preservation letter and, where appropriate, an early Rule 196 / spoliation demand must go out within days of any incident — or, in the case of a 2019 incident like the Hawthorn matter, immediately upon retention so the property is on notice that future destruction of records will be treated as spoliation. A spoliation finding by a Texas court can support an adverse-inference instruction at trial — the jury is told to assume the missing tape would have helped you. We file the preservation demand the day you call.
Property-management-system (PMS) data and key-card logs. The hotel’s own reservation system records who booked the room, who paid, in what form (cash versus card), how long the stay lasted, and whether the room was registered to the trafficking victim or to the trafficker. The electronic key-card access log shows how many times the door was opened and at what hours — the pattern of dozens of entries and exits over a single night is itself direct evidence of the commercial-sex operation. PMS retention is set by chain policy and by Texas record-retention practice; absent a hold, it is typically purged on a multi-year cycle. A preservation demand must name PMS, key-card, and reservation data specifically.
Housekeeping and “Do Not Disturb” logs. Where the housekeeping records show the room was refused service for days, or where the room was repeatedly flagged for extra towels and linens that were never used, the picture is direct. Housekeeping logs are internal and routinely cycle out on a short retention.
The hotel’s own customer reviews and the hotel’s responses. In the Hawthorn matter, public online reviews spanning years described visible signs of prostitution in the rooms, and the hotel had responded to at least one of them. Those reviews, the hotel’s responses, the dates, and the IP/location data behind the reviews are all discoverable. They are also subject to being deleted or scrubbed — another reason preservation must move quickly. We use them to establish notice — the hotel was on actual notice of the very activity it now denies.
Police call-for-service (CAD) records and incident reports. Prior calls to the property, arrests on or near it, and incident reports by responding officers are all obtainable through Texas Public Information Act requests to the Dallas Police Department. The retention varies, but most agencies keep CAD records for several years and incident reports for longer. We file the open-records request the same week we begin.
Internal incident reports, front-desk logs, and employee training records. The hotel’s own internal records of what staff saw, what they reported, and how they were trained to recognize trafficking — every one of them is the property of the defendant. A 2019 training program that never actually reached the front-desk clerk, or a stack of internal reports that were never escalated, can be the heart of the case. These too can be cycled out, and a Texas defendant will be on notice once a preservation letter is on file.
The trafficker’s own records. The trafficker’s phone, ledgers, advertisements, customer lists, and financial records are the other half. They are subject to search-warrant and grand-jury process in the criminal case, and to discovery in the civil case, but they live under the trafficker’s control. We work the criminal and civil records in parallel.
The single most important message of this section: the clock is not measured in years. It is measured in days. We send the preservation demand the same day we are retained, before the property’s systems have a chance to overwrite the proof.
What your case is realistically worth
We do not promise dollar figures, and the value of any case depends on the facts we develop in the first sixty to ninety days. That said, a Texas hotel-trafficking case has identifiable value drivers, and an honest framework for thinking about them.
On the economic side, the case looks at past and future medical care (the cost of treating complex post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, substance use, and any physical injuries from assault), lost earnings and lost earning capacity (a trafficking survivor often loses years of education and work), and the cost of life-care services when the trauma requires long-term support. The lifetime cost of a single rape, as measured by federal public-health researchers, is in the range of $100,000 or more per victim (Peterson et al., 2017, in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine), and the lifetime economic burden of intimate-partner or sexual violence reaches into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per survivor; the precise figure depends on age, severity, and what treatment the survivor accesses. The federal figure is in 2014 dollars and must be inflation-adjusted, but the order of magnitude is well established.
On the non-economic side, Texas allows recovery for pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and — in a Chapter 98 trafficking case with the right factual record — exemplary (punitive) damages for knowing or intentional conduct. Exemplary damages are the jury’s tool for telling a hotel that knowingly taking money from a trafficking operation is not acceptable; they can multiply the compensatory award significantly. Mandatory attorney’s fees on both the TVPRA and Chapter 98 theories shift the cost of the fight from the survivor to the wrongdoer.
A realistic case-value range for a documented Texas hotel-trafficking case involving a minor, with clear notice evidence, runs from roughly $750,000 on the low end to $5,000,000 or more on the high end, depending on the duration of the trafficking, the severity of the injuries, the strength of the notice record, the identity and balance sheet of the defendants, and the venue. Some cases involving sustained trafficking of a minor, with deliberate concealment by the hotel and a sympathetic jury, have produced verdicts and settlements well into eight figures. Other cases, with weaker notice evidence or a less sympathetic fact pattern, settle for less. The honest answer is that the value is driven by what the evidence shows, and the evidence is what we go find.
What we will not do is quote you a number at the intake call. We will tell you what we are seeing in the records, what we are likely to find, and what the realistic range is once discovery is well underway. If a lawyer is quoting you a seven-figure number before reading a single document, that is a sign to be careful.
How the insurance company and the hotel’s defense team will try to resolve this — and how we respond
Hotels carry general-liability insurance, and the carrier is the entity that actually pays in most resolved cases. The carrier’s playbook in a trafficking case follows a recognizable pattern, and we have seen each move enough times to know what comes next. Three plays in particular, with the counter for each.
Play 1: “We never knew.” The carrier argues that the hotel had no actual or constructive knowledge of the trafficking, so the TVPRA’s “knew or should have known” element and Chapter 98’s “knowingly benefits” element cannot be met. The counter is built before the case is filed. We obtain the hotel’s customer reviews, its internal incident reports, its prior call-for-service history, its training records (or the absence of meaningful training), and its brand-mandated red-flag protocols. Where the hotel’s own systems identified the very activity the carrier now denies, the “never knew” defense collapses under its own documents. The Hawthorn-matter fact pattern — reviews over years, a hotel response to a review describing prostitution, a four-week stream of men — is the kind of record that turns “we never knew” into “you knew and looked the other way.”
Play 2: “The franchisee is the responsible party — not the brand.” The carrier argues that the local franchisee is the only proper defendant, the franchisee has limited insurance, and the brand is shielded by the franchise agreement. The counter is the corporate-structure work described above: sue the operator, the management company, the franchisor, and the holding company in the same case, and develop the record on operational control. M.A. v. Wyndham is the recent federal example showing that courts will let this kind of multi-defendant case proceed when the brand’s fingerprints on day-to-day operations are documented.
Play 3: “Confidentiality and quick settlement.” The carrier proposes a fast, low-six-figure settlement, paired with a broad non-disclosure agreement that bars the survivor from talking about what happened. The counter is two-fold. First, the survivor should not sign away the right to speak without full information about the case’s value — the offer comes before the records are developed and almost always undervalues the case. Second, mandatory attorney’s fees on the TVPRA and Chapter 98 claims mean the cost calculus for the carrier of going to trial is not as favorable as it looks; a survivor with a real case and a willing trial team can credibly threaten to push the case through discovery and toward a jury. Confidentiality has a value to the defendant — the brand does not want the case public — and that value can be monetized, but only if the survivor knows what the case is actually worth before signing.
There is a fourth play worth flagging because it is so common: blaming the survivor. “She was old enough to know better.” “She could have left.” “She was a willing participant.” The counter is the law itself — a minor cannot consent to commercial sex, and the modern medical and psychological literature on trafficking describes a complex pattern of control, fear, addiction, and economic captivity that is not “willing participation.” A jury that hears the case, not the carrier’s first-motion talking points, sees this clearly. We have tried these cases. We know what the defense’s first theory is, and we know what it looks like by the time the evidence is in.
What we do the day you call — and what we need from you
When you call us, the call is free, confidential, and carries no obligation. You will speak with a member of our intake team and, where appropriate, directly with one of our attorneys. Our team includes Ralph Manginello, our managing partner, who has spent more than 27 years in Texas courtrooms, including federal court, and is admitted in the Southern District of Texas. He is a South Texas College of Law Houston J.D. and a UT Austin graduate, and he has built the firm’s plaintiff-side practice in premises-liability, negligent-security, and catastrophic-injury cases against institutional defendants. Our work also includes Lupe Peña, who is fluent in Spanish and spent the early part of his career on the other side of these cases — as a former insurance-defense attorney inside a national firm, learning how adjusters and their software price, discount, and delay cases like this one. He now sits on your side of the table, and he conducts full consultations in Spanish. Hablamos Español.
Here is what happens after that first call. The same day, we send preservation letters to the hotel property, to the management company, to the franchisor (where identified), to the franchisor’s parent, and to the police department and prosecutor’s office for related records. We identify and serve the right corporate entities — the operating LLC, the franchisor, the management company, the parent. We request the Texas Public Information Act production from Dallas PD for the call-for-service history and incident reports tied to the property. We pull the hotel’s public customer reviews from every platform we can identify and we preserve them. We request the trafficker’s criminal case docket so we know what plea, sentence, and cooperation may be available. We open a confidential case file with everything you share.
From you, what we need is the story — at whatever pace, in whatever form, is comfortable. We do not require a single all-at-once disclosure, and we are experienced working with survivors whose memories are fragmented, delayed, or partially recovered. We need names, dates, and locations where you have them, and we need to know about any prior reports to law enforcement or social services, any medical treatment you have received, and any other civil cases you may have already filed. We do not need everything at once. We do need to know that the records clock has started, which is why we move on the preservation work the same day.
The civil case does not replace, and does not require, a criminal case
A frequent question from survivors and families is whether they have to wait for a criminal conviction before suing the hotel. They do not. The civil case is independent. The criminal case (the trafficker, the online platform, the local charges) can take years, and the evidence you need for a civil case is largely your own — your medical records, the hotel’s documents, the public records, the online reviews, the testimony of people who saw what you saw. We work the criminal and civil records in parallel. A guilty plea or conviction of the trafficker can be powerful evidence in the civil case, but it is not a prerequisite, and the civil case is not held hostage to the criminal docket.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it too late to sue if the trafficking happened years ago?
Probably not. Texas law gives a trafficking survivor 15 years from the date of accrual to file a personal-injury claim arising from trafficking (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.0045), and the federal TVPRA gives a survivor 10 years from the violation, or 10 years after the survivor’s 18th birthday if she was a minor at the time. A 2019 incident is well within both windows. Even where the outer limit is approaching, there are doctrines — discovery rules, equitable tolling, fraudulent concealment — that can preserve the claim. The sooner you call, the more options we have.
Can I sue the hotel brand (Wyndham) or only the local hotel property?
Both, and we will usually name both. The 2025 M.A. v. Wyndham ruling in federal court shows that a hotel operator that rents rooms to a known trafficking operation can be put to its proof before a jury. The 2021 Doe #1 v. Red Roof ruling in the Eleventh Circuit shows that simply pointing at the brand is not enough — the plaintiff has to show operational control, not just a franchise fee. We build that record from the brand standards, the reservation system, the customer-review response process, the training program, and the way the brand audits the property. Suing only the local property leaves the deep pocket outside the courtroom; suing only the brand invites a motion to dismiss. The right answer is the right combination of defendants.
What if I was trafficked as a minor — does that change the case?
Yes, in important ways. A minor cannot consent to commercial sex under federal and Texas law, which means the conduct is trafficking as a matter of law, not a question of fact. The statute of limitations does not begin to run under the federal TVPRA until the survivor turns 18. Texas recognizes that a minor’s ability to discover and pursue a claim is delayed, which affects accrual under state law. A jury hearing a case involving a trafficked minor also weighs the case differently — the hotel’s “she was old enough to know better” defense is legally and morally unavailable.
What if I never reported the trafficking to police?
You can still bring a civil case. The civil case does not depend on a prior police report, and a survivor’s decision not to report is common, understandable, and well-documented in the medical and psychological literature. Fear of retaliation, fear of law enforcement, immigration status, shame, trauma-induced memory fragmentation, and the trafficker’s explicit threats all keep survivors from reporting. The hotel’s defense will try to use the absence of a police report to argue “no one knew” — but the test under the TVPRA and Chapter 98 is whether the hotel knew or should have known, and that is established by the hotel’s own records and the public-facing evidence, not by whether the survivor personally reported.
What evidence do I need?
You need the case we build together. The hotel’s records (CCTV, key-card logs, folio, housekeeping, incident reports, training records), the public records (police CAD, prior incidents, prior lawsuits), the online evidence (customer reviews, the trafficker’s advertisements), the medical records (PTSD treatment, depression, substance use, physical injury), and the survivor’s own testimony are the spine of a Texas hotel-trafficking case. A survivor who has preserved texts, emails, voicemails, or social-media messages from the trafficker should keep them in their original form — screenshots of text threads, downloaded voicemail files, original email files. We do not need you to organize these. We do it with you. We do need you to keep them — and to keep them somewhere the hotel or the trafficker cannot reach.
How long does a case like this take?
Realistically, between 18 months and 4 years for most resolved cases, depending on the defendants, the venue, the discovery scope, and whether the case settles. The first ninety days are the most active: preservation, defendant identification, public records, the trafficker’s criminal docket, the medical record collection. Months four through eighteen are typically fact discovery (depositions, document review, expert development). After that, the case either resolves in a structured settlement with the carrier or moves toward trial. The federal cases filed in MDL proceedings can take longer because of the multi-district coordination. We will give you a current timeline estimate at every stage.
Do I have to face the trafficker in court?
Often, no. Most civil cases resolve before trial. Where a case does reach trial, the trafficker is usually not a party — the defendants are the hotel, the brand, and the management company. The trafficker may be a witness or may be unavailable due to incarceration. Where the trafficker is involved, your deposition and trial testimony can be taken with appropriate protective orders, and your counsel can object to improper questions. We have tried cases involving survivors of the worst kinds of abuse; we know how to protect a survivor’s dignity in a deposition room.
What if the hotel says it was the franchisee’s fault, not theirs?
That is the most common defense and is the reason we sue both. The TVPRA and Chapter 98 turn on knowing benefit and participation — the brand that licenses the standards, takes the royalty, sets the reservation technology, and audits the property is participating in a venture even if the local LLC signs the night auditor’s paycheck. The law in this area is moving in our direction: the 2025 M.A. v. Wyndham ruling rejected a motion to dismiss and allowed a franchisor-adjacent case to proceed on a constructive-knowledge theory. We develop the record that makes that argument unrebuttable.
Will the case be public?
Civil cases are public records. Court filings are accessible. The hotel’s defense team will propose a confidentiality agreement as part of any settlement, and confidentiality has real value to the hotel — it does not want the public record of a verdict or a settlement. You will decide whether to accept confidentiality, and we will explain the tradeoffs. Survivors sometimes want their day in open court; sometimes they want to move on; either is a valid choice, and the choice is yours.
How much will this cost me?
Nothing up front. We handle hotel-trafficking cases on a contingency fee. No fee unless we win. Free consultation. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
If you are the survivor, or the family of one, here is what to do this week
If you have read this far, you are weighing whether to do something you have been thinking about for a long time. We understand the weight of that decision. The work we do begins with a single call, and that call is free, confidential, and at your pace.
What we ask, in the meantime, is three small things. First, do not delete the texts, emails, voicemails, or social-media messages from the trafficker or from anyone involved — even the ones that are painful, even the ones that are not flattering. We need the original record, in its original form, exactly as it is. Second, do not sign anything from the hotel, the brand, an insurance adjuster, or a claims representative without us reviewing it. Anything you sign can affect your case. Third, preserve your medical records — let your treating providers know that you may need complete copies of your records, and ask for them in a form you can hold onto.
If you are ready to talk, call 1-888-ATTY-911. The line is staffed by real people, around the clock. We will listen, we will tell you honestly what we see in your case, and we will never pressure you. Hablamos Español. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. Get in touch with our intake team here or see the full range of our practice areas.
You can also learn more about the sexual-assault and negligent-security work our firm does on our sexual assault page. The Texas legal landscape for hotel trafficking cases is moving quickly, and we are doing this work every day.