Hernandez v. BMV Hotels, LP

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 22, 2021
• Docket: 5:18-cv-07511
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 GERARDO HERNANDEZ, Case No.18-cv-07511-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 12 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

13 BMV HOTELS, LP, Re: ECF 52 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff Gerardo Hernandez filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on December 17 11, 2020, seeking a determination of his Americans with Disabilities Act and California 18 Unruh Act claims. ECF 52. Defendant BMV Hotels, LP filed a Qualified Non-Opposition 19 to the Motion on January 6, 2021. ECF 53. Prior to filing the Motion and Non- 20 Opposition, the parties filed a stipulation to certain facts, including an expert’s report. 21 ECF 51. Because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, the Court GRANTS 22 Hernandez’s Motion for Summary Judgment and ENTERS judgment in his favor. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Hernandez is a physically disabled individual, as defined by the ADA and relevant 25 California laws. ECF 33 at 1. BMV Hotels is the owner and operator of the Best Western 26 Plus Forest Park Inn Hotel located at 375 Leavesley Road, Gilroy, California 95020. See 27 ECF 33 at 2; ECF 36 at 2. In October 2018, Hernandez visited the Hotel and encountered 1 Hotels for violations of the ADA, Unruh Act, and California Health and Safety Code 2 §§ 19955-19959.5. ECF 33 at 15-18. After bringing suit, Hernandez hired an expert to 3 conduct a further inspection of the Hotel. ECF 52 at 6. This expert identified over one 4 hundred additional accessibility barriers at the Hotel. See ECF 33 at 3-14. 5 The parties have stipulated to the following undisputed facts: (1) Hernandez is 6 disabled under the ADA, (2) BMV Hotels owns and operates the Hotel, (3) the Hotel is a 7 place of public accommodation under the ADA, (4) Hernandez visited the Hotel on 8 October 21, 2018, and (5) barriers to access existed at the Hotel on the date of Hernandez’s 9 visit. See ECF 51. All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, in 10 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See ECF 6, 10. 11 II. LEGAL STANDARD 12 Summary judgment may be granted only when, drawing all inferences and 13 resolving all doubts in favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine dispute as to any 14 material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 651 (2014); Celotex 15 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material when, under governing 16 substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 17 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if “the evidence is 18 such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. Bald 19 assertions that genuine issues of material fact exist are insufficient. Galen v. Cnty. of L.A., 20 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007). 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 A. ADA Claim 23 Title III of the ADA ensures that “no individual shall be discriminated against on 24 the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 25 privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any 26 person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 27 U.S.C. § 12182(a). To prevail under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that: (1) they are 1 architectural barrier; and (4) the plaintiff has actual knowledge of the architectural barrier 2 that precludes their full and equal access to the facility. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(a)-(b); see 3 Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007). 4 As to the first and second elements, BMV Hotels does not dispute that Hernandez is 5 disabled and that BMV Hotels is a public accommodation. ECF 51 at ¶¶ 3, 5. As to the 6 third element, BMV Hotels does not dispute that architectural barriers in the path of travel 7 to the lobby, the lobby entrance door, and the family suites existed when Hernandez visited 8 the Hotel. ECF 51 at ¶¶ 7-11. Hernandez includes additional barriers identified his expert 9 in his claim. ECF 52 at 12-26. BMV Hotels does not dispute that these additional barriers 10 exist at the Hotel. See ECF 53. Finally, Hernandez alleges that he has actual knowledge 11 of the barriers through his personal encounters and his expert’s investigation. ECF 52 at 12 11. BMV Hotels does not dispute Hernandez’s actual knowledge. See ECF 53. 13 Ultimately, Hernandez demonstrates that there are no genuine disputes as to any material 14 facts in his ADA claim. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment. 15 B. Injunction 16 Hernandez further alleges that he is entitled to an injunction requiring BMV Hotels 17 to remove all accessibility barriers at the Hotel. ECF 52 at 9, 11. A plaintiff can establish 18 standing to sue for injunctive relief as to encountered barriers by demonstrating 19 “deterrence,” or “injury-in-fact coupled with an intent to return to a noncompliant facility.” 20 Chapman v. Pier One Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 944. Hernandez claims that he 21 was “unable to stay at the Hotel due to the lack of wheelchair-accessible suites with 22 sufficient beds to accommodate his family.” ECF 52 at 11. BMV Hotels does not contest 23 this allegation. See ECF 53. Thus, Hernandez has standing to sue for injunctive relief 24 based on the barriers he encountered. 25 Additionally, “an ADA plaintiff who establishes standing as to encountered barriers 26 may also sue for injunctive relief as to unencountered barriers related to his disability.” 27 Chapman, 631 F.3d at 944. Because Hernandez established standing based on the 1 See id. Therefore, the Court finds that an injunction against BMV Hotels to remove the 2 architectural barriers is appropriate. 3 C. California Law Claims 4 Under the Unruh Act, a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the Act. 5 Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f). The Act entitles a plaintiff to a minimum of $4,000 in statutory 6 damages for each offense. Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a); see Molski, 481 F.3d at 731. A plaintiff 7 may recover damages if they can demonstrate that they experienced “difficulty, 8 discomfort, or embarrassment because of the violation.” Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56(c). 9 Hernandez alleges that he experienced difficulty, discomfort, and embarrassment 10 when he was denied access to the Hotel. ECF 52 at 28. BMV Hotels does not dispute this 11 allegation. See EF 53. Thus, Hernandez is entitled to damages under the Unruh Act. 12 Accordingly, the Court awards Hernandez $4,000 in damages. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 The Court finds that there are no genuine disputes as to any material facts in the 15 ADA and Unruh Act claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Hernandez’s Motion. 16 The Court, having granted Hernandez’s Motion, hereby enters judgment in favor of 17 Hernandez and against BMV Hotels as follows: 18 1. Damages in the amount of $4,000 are awarded to Hernandez. 19 2. BMV Hotels is ordered to remove the following conditions such that they 20 comply with the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design, 21 codified at 28 C.F.R. part 36, subpart D, by July 7, 2021: 22 a. The slope of the small bridge along the path of travel from the designated 23 accessible parking space to the hotel lobby entrance was too steep. 24 b. The power door push plates are not maintained in a reliably functioning 25 condition. 26 c. There are no wheelchair-accessible room with three double or queen beds, 27 while there are non-accessible family suites with three queen beds. 1 to the Facility entrances, and connecting buildings on the same site, contain 2 excessive cross slopes. 3 e. There are no properly configured accessible routes of travel to the guest-use 4 fitness center and meeting rooms. 5 f. The curb ramp serving the paint-delineated route of travel between the main 6 building and the guest rooms/pool area has excessive slopes in the direction 7 of travel and upper landing slopes. 8 g. The walkways serving the building entrances contain excessive cross slopes, 9 slopes in the direction of travel, changes in level and/or gaps in the walking 10 surfaces. 11 h. Portions of the required clear width of the walkways serving the building 12 entrances lack properly secured wheel stops to prevent parked vehicles from 13 obstructing them. 14 i. The curb ramp serving the designated accessible parking stall located at the 15 rental office is excessively sloped in the direction of travel, and has an 16 excessively sloped upper landing. 17 j. The designated accessible parking stall and access aisles serving the rental 18 office contain excessive slopes. 19 k. The designated accessible parking stall and access aisle serving the meeting 20 rooms contain excessive slopes. 21 l. The built-up asphalt curb ramp serving the northwest designated accessible 22 parking projects into the stall and access aisle, is excessively sloped in the 23 direction of travel, and has excessive side flare slopes. 24 m. The northwest designated accessible parking stall and access aisle contain 25 excessive slopes. 26 n. The northeast designated accessible parking serving the guest rooms is not 27 located at the stalls in closest proximity to the door serving the interior 1 o. The built-up asphalt curb ramp serving the northeast designated accessible 2 parking projects into the stalls and access aisle and has excessive side flare 3 slopes. 4 p. The northeast designated accessible parking stalls and access aisle contain 5 excessive slopes. 6 q. The built-up concrete curb ramp serving the southeast designated accessible 7 parking projects into the access aisle, is excessively sloped in the direction of 8 travel, and lacks side flares or warning curbs. 9 r. The southeast designated accessible parking stalls and access aisle contain 10 excessive slopes and lack proper dimensions. 11 s. The ground surface of the portico contains excessive gaps. 12 t. The raised portion of the registration countertop, which is utilized to check 13 guests in and out, is too high; the lower portion of the counter, which is not 14 used to check guests in and out, does not have a staff computer, hand-outs, 15 newspapers, business cards, pens, candy dish, etc. 16 u. The customer-use items (e.g. hand-outs, newspapers, business cards, pens, 17 candy dish, etc.) located at the registration counter are positioned beyond the 18 reach requirements. 19 v. The operable parts of the fire extinguisher are positioned beyond the reach 20 requirements. 21 w. The breakfast bar counter surfaces are too high, positioning the self-serve 22 appliance controls, food items, condiments, utensils, etc., located on the 23 counter tops, beyond reach requirements. 24 x. The registration building unisex restroom, including the configuration, 25 clearances, maneuvering spaces, fixture configuration and locations and 26 accessory locations, is not accessible. 27 y. The registration building snack vending machine has operable parts that are 1 z. The fitness center door lacks a proper smooth, uninterrupted bottom portion 2 on the push side of the door. 3 aa. The required exterior landing maneuvering clearances at the two 4 westernmost doors serving the meeting rooms contain excessive slopes. 5 bb. The easternmost door serving the meeting rooms has a trash can obstructing 6 the maneuvering clearance at the exterior side of the door which also 7 prevents the door from opening fully to 90 degrees. 8 cc. The doors serving the meeting rooms have flip-down hold-opens obstructing 9 the required smooth, uninterrupted bottom portions of the push sides of the 10 doors. 11 dd. The tables within the meeting rooms do not provide the required knee 12 clearances. 13 ee. The HVAC controls within the meeting rooms have operable parts located 14 beyond the reach requirements, and the required clear floor spaces adjacent 15 to the HVAC controls are obstructed by furniture. 16 ff. The white boards within the meeting rooms have door pulls located beyond 17 the reach requirements. 18 gg. The wet bar sink counter located within a small side room of one of the 19 meeting rooms lacks proper knee and toe clearances. 20 hh. The drinking fountain located within the restroom hallway serving the 21 meeting rooms is not properly configured. 22 ii. The required maneuvering clearances at the interior side of the south gate 23 serving the pool/spa area contain excessive slopes and the gate does not 24 provide proper clear width of the opening. 25 jj. All three of the gates serving the pool/spa area lack the required smooth, 26 uninterrupted bottom portions on the push sides of the gates. 27 kk. The pool and spa decking and exterior seating areas contain excessive slopes, 1 ll. There are no properly configured accessible exterior table seating spaces in 2 the pool/spa area. 3 mm. The route of travel through the pool and spa area and to the restroom serving 4 the pool/spa area contains excessive slopes in the direction of travel. 5 nn. The route of travel to the pool/spa shut-off and time switches contains 6 excessive cross slopes. 7 oo. The operable parts of the pool/spa telephone are located beyond the reach 8 requirements. 9 pp. The pool lift is not maintained in operable condition. 10 qq. The spa lift does not allow the seat to be submerged to the required depth 11 below the water level. 12 rr. The threshold of the door to the guest-use pool area restroom and sauna 13 creates excessive changes in level. 14 ss. The guest-use pool area designated accessible unisex restroom floor has 15 excessive slopes within the door maneuvering clearances, clear floor space at 16 the lavatory and clearances around the toilet. 17 tt. The guest-use pool area designated accessible unisex restroom, including the 18 configuration, clearances, maneuvering spaces, fixture configuration and 19 locations and accessory locations, is not accessible. 20 uu. The entry/exit doors serving the hallway system of the guest room buildings 21 have excessive slopes within the required maneuvering clearances. 22 vv. Several of the entry/exit doors serving the hallway system of the guest room 23 buildings do not have the required maneuvering clearances. 24 ww. The west entry/exit door maneuvering clearances are obstructed by the 25 overhang of the adjacent vehicle parking stalls. 26 xx. The entry/exit doors serving the hallway system of the guest room buildings 27 improperly configured thresholds, which create excessive height changes. 1 required maneuvering clearance at the latch side of the door. 2 zz. The guest-use vending machine, which is located within an alcove condition, 3 does not provide the required clear floor space adjacent to the vending 4 machine. 5 aaa. The guest-use vending machine operable parts are positioned outside of 6 permissible reach ranges. 7 bbb. The designated accessible guestroom patio sliding glass door track creates 8 excessive changes in level. 9 ccc. The designated accessible guestroom patio sliding glass door does not 10 provide the required clear opening width. 11 ddd. The designated accessible guestroom patio area does not provide a proper 12 clear turning space. 13 eee. The designated accessible guestroom has the lavatory area towel bar located 14 beyond the reach requirements. 15 fff. The designated accessible guestroom has the lavatory area tissue dispenser 16 located beyond the reach requirements. 17 ggg. The designated accessible guestroom lavatory does not provide the required 18 knee clearance under the front edge, does not provide the required knee and 19 toe clearance width, and has exposed pipes under the lavatory which are not 20 insulated or otherwise configured to protect against contact. 21 hhh. The bathroom door within the designated accessible guestroom does not 22 have the required maneuvering clearances at the exterior side of the door. 23 iii. The bathroom within the designated accessible guestroom does not have the 24 side and rear grab bars positioned as required. 25 jjj. The storage shelves and clothes hangers within the designated accessible 26 guestroom are positioned beyond the reach requirements. 27 The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this Order through July 7, 2021, or further 1 || administratively close this case. Any requests for fees and costs must be filed in 2 || accordance with applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of the Court. 3 JUDGMENT IS SO ENTERED. 4 5 Dated: January 22, 2021 hbo —> _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

A 16

© 17

1g zZ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28