This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was a business travel guest at D. P was assigned to guest room 732. P did not authorize the Hotel to give any other person a key to her room. After checking into her room, P went to the Hotel's restaurant/bar to have dinner. P was approached by Christopher LaPointe (LaPointe), who was also a guest at the Hotel and assigned to guest room 830. LaPointe made small talk for a few minutes, then left the restaurant. Marchionda then asked for her bill from the bartender, Amy Nicholson (Nicholson). Referring to LaPointe, P asked Nicholson if the restaurant got 'a lot of people in here that are like that, meaning intoxicated,' to which Nicholson responded, '[H]e's a regular. He's harmless.' P got on the elevator to go to her room, and as she did so, LaPointe came around the corner and got on the elevator with P. When P exited the elevator at the seventh floor, LaPointe remained on the elevator. The next day after completing work, P returned to the Hotel, and went to the Hotel restaurant/bar to meet two co-workers. LaPointe approached P and sat down at her table. P's co-workers arrived, but LaPointe remained at the table. According to P LaPointe, who was visibly intoxicated, he ordered and was served 6 to 8 beers and several shots of whiskey, and he also bought a round of whiskey shots for everyone at the table. P and her co-workers left the restaurant and went to their respective rooms. P entered her room alone, closed and locked the door, and placed the metal security bar latch across the door frame. The bartender, Nicholson, told LaPointe that he 'struck out again,' to which LaPointe responded, 'The night's not over yet.' LaPointe went to the front desk and asked for a key to guest room 732. LaPointe never produced identification or any other indicator that he was entitled to a key to guest room 732. LaPointe attempted to unlock the door using the key, but the security latch was engaged, so LaPointe was only able to open the door a few inches. LaPointe then called the front desk, asking for assistance to enter guest room 732. The Hotel maintenance engineer on duty, Anthony Caligiuri, was directed to go to guest room 732 and to assist LaPointe in entering the room, which Caligiuri did. P was awakened in the early morning hours of April 11 by something touching her leg. LaPointe got onto the bed, restrained P, and sexually assaulted her. LaPointe was arrested and pleaded guilty to third-degree burglary and third-degree sexual assault. Hilton (D) had no direct responsibility of any kind for the day-to-day activities or the personnel working at the Hotel. But the Embassy Suites Franchise (D) and Hilton (D) had the right to determine that specific safety and security policies/procedures were inadequate and needed to be updated or reviewed. It also had the right to communicate with the management company . . . as to the day-to-day operation and functioning of the Hotel. Hilton(D) did not directly employ, control, or supervise any staff at the Hotel on the date of the assault. The Franchise Licensing Agreement identifies Atrium (D) as an independent contractor and that Embassy Suites (D) and Atrium (D) were not legal representatives of one another; they were powerless to obligate or to direct the daily affairs of the other; their relationship was governed solely by the FLA; and 'no partnership, joint venture, agency, fiduciary or employment relationship [was] intended or created by reason of the[e] [FLA].' Under the FLA, Atrium (D) agreed to indemnify Embassy from 'all losses, costs, liabilities, damages, claims, and expenses . . . arising out of or resulting from . . . any bodily injury, personal injury, death or property damages suffered or claimed by any guest, customer, visitor, or employee of the Hotel.' Atrium (D) was required to notify the public that it was an independent contractor and not part of Embassy Suites (D), and to notify suppliers and third parties that Embassy Suites (D) had no liability for Atrium's (D) debts. Atrium (D) was granted responsibility for management of the Hotel, and Hilton's (D) role with respect to the Hotel involved reservations, marketing, quality assurance/inspections, and access to the licensed brand's materials, policies, and programs. Hilton (D) provided training programs, trained hotel workers, designed and authored training materials, and consulted and advised in hotel operations. Participation in Hilton's (D) training programs was required of all Embassy Suites (D). Hilton (D) required the Manager on Duty program and conducted certification of Hotel employees. Under the Management Services Agreement (MSA), Atrium appointed 'Hammons as its sole and exclusive management company to supervise and direct for and at the expense of [Atrium (D)], the management and operation of [Atrium's(D) properties]. Ds aver that no defendant other than Hammon (D) employed, controlled, or supervised any staff or employees at the Hotel (D) and that Atrium (D) relied on Hammons (D) to complete the education and training of Hotel (D) employees. Brand Standards required the Hotel (D) to have written, hotel-specific plans in place and to provide ongoing training in emergency situations, including security issues such as assault, theft, robbery, or suicide. Hilton (D) did not produce or provide security manuals to franchisee hotels, nor did Hilton (D) specify the nature of the security plan the Hotel (D) should use. The Brand Standards manual did not address a key control policy for guest room keys, and it was not a function of Embassy Suites (D) or Hilton (D) to distribute keys. Hammons (D) established the written key control policy titled 'Key Control & Procedures Policy.' Atrium (D) did not review Hammons' (D) policies with respect to hotel security or the issuance of guest keys, and that although the Brand Standards allowed Embassy Suites (D) to provide required training elements, none of the training elements within the Brand Standards addressed the issuance of guest room keys or hotel and guest security and safety. P filed a two-count complaint in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey against Ds (Embassy Suites, Inc.; Embassy Suites Franchise, LLC; Embassy Suites Management, LLC; Hilton Worldwide; Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc.; Hammons, Inc. f/d/b/a John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc.; John Q. Hammons Management, LLC; Atrium TRS III, LP; and John Doe Corporations 1-10) asserting a claim for negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and willful wanton and outrageous conduct (Count One); and a claim for punitive damages (Count Two). On March 2, 2018, Ds (Atrium, Embassy Suites, HW, and HWH) filed this motion, arguing they are entitled to summary judgment on Count One because they did not owe P a duty of care under the retained control standard.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.