A Hinesville motel accused of enabling an alleged sex trafficking operation has fired back at its accuser. An Atlanta attorney has filed suit in the U.S. Southern District of Georgia on behalf of two unnamed clients against two Hinesville hotels, the Motel 6 on General Screven Way and the Baymont Inn on Veterans Parkway. The suit, on behalf of a client identified only as J.S., against the Motel 6 owners was filed in federal court in late October. A second suit, on behalf of a client identified as B.S., against the Baymont was filed in district court two weeks ago.
In his suit against Motel 6, attorney Matthew Stoddard alleges J.S., who was 18-19 years old at the time, was “repeatedly trafficked for sex at the Motel 6 by Shaquan Graham.”
Stoddard’s complaint alleges J.S. met Graham through mutual friends while she was in high school and she was 17. They reconnected in 2020 and Graham told her she would be his girlfriend. J.S. also had run away from home, and Graham said he could help her, the complaint continued.
“Instead of helping J.S., Graham took J.S. to the Motel 6 and told her that she would be working as a prostitute, that he was her pimp, and that he would receive the money for the sex work,” the suit alleges.
Stoddard’s suit also alleges Graham beat J.S. almost daily and imprisoned her, and also forced her to use drugs. He also raped J.S. at the hotel and she “was sexually assaulted hundreds of times while at the Motel 6 by various ‘Johns,’” the suit contends.
“Graham continually sold J.S. as a sex slave to buyers at the Motel 6,” the complaint continued.
Graham also took the proceeds from the sex acts and used the money to continue to book a room at the motel, the suit alleges. He also is alleged to have used the motel’s WiFi to advertise sex with J.S.
The suit also contends Graham would not let the cleaning staff clean the rooms where J.S. was performing commercial sex acts. “Instead, either Graham or J.S. (at Graham’s direction) would ask cleaning staff for towels and sheets,” the complaint said. “These requests for towels and sheets were made multiple times each day, and staff always complied.”
In a response filed with the Southern District, the Motel 6 owners’ attorneys, of the Atlanta-based firm Freeman, Mathis and Gary, denied their client had any knowledge of any sex trafficking alleged to have taken place there.
Their answer also denied the hotel aided anyone in tracking the plaintiff for sex and asserted the complaint “does not state any factual allegations against” their client.
Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, the suit also claims the hotel “knowingly benefited” from the trafficking because, among other issues, the trafficker rented rooms at the hotel, the trafficker used the hotel WiFi network to advertise the victim for sex, the defendant collected revenue from the room rentals and the hotel took part because the trafficker “would pay in cash for one night at a time, booking the next night’s stay before checkout time.” The suit also alleges the hotel was complicit because it rented “rooms to people it knew or should have known were engaged in sex trafficking, including the trafficking of the plaintiff” and the hotel “steered the victim and trafficker to certain areas of the property and only gave the victim and trafficker rooms in its ‘prostitution wing,” adding the hotel aided in hiding the illicit activity from law enforcement and others who might report it to the police.
In a separate suit against the Baymont and its owner, Stoddard said two men known as “Big Head” and “T” repeatedly trafficked a 16-year-old girl referred to as B.S. for sex at the Baymont in June 2015.
According to the court filing, B.S. met Big Head and T while she was in high school. She smoked pot with the two men at a house, and the suit alleges the marijuana was laced with another drug and it rendered her unconscious. When she came to, she was in a hotel room and handcuffed to a bed.
The suit contends the traffickers forced B.S. to use drugs that caused her to go in and out of consciousness and she feared for her life as Big Head and T were armed. The lawsuit also alleges B.S. was sexually assaulted many times by unknown men.
As with the Motel 6 suit, the complaint contends the traffickers used the money to continue to re-rent the room and used the hotel’s WiFi to advertise sex with B.S. to prospective “Johns.” Big Head and T also would not let the hotel’s cleaning staff clean the rooms where the sex acts were taking place, and instead the two traffickers asked the staff for towels and sheets, with multiple requests made each day.
The suit against Baymont also cited similar claims under the TVPRA as those filed against Motel 6. The suit against the Baymont and its owner also charges the defendant had “constructive knowledge that Plaintiff was being trafficked for sex at the property” and “directed, operated, supervised, monitored, managed, and/or employed all employees, managers, housekeepers, and other staff at its hotel at all relevant times, giving Defendant specific and direct knowledge of sex trafficking, including the sex trafficking that victimized Plaintiff, and other crimes at the hotel during the relevant period.”
The separate suits do not seek a specific amount in damages and also ask for trials by jury.
No federal nor local criminal charges or indictments have been handed down against Graham or against those identified in the civil complaint as “Big Head” or “T.”