Jimenez v. Storey Hotel Management Group, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 22, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01112
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FLOR JIMENEZ, an individual, No. 2:22-cv-01112-JAM-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 14 STOREY HOTEL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC d/b/a THE AMESWELL 15 HOTEL, a Delaware limited liability company, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Flor Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) filed her First Amended Complaint 19 (“FAC”) against Storey Hotel Management Group, LLC, and various 20 fictitious persons (collectively “Defendants”) alleging 21 violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 22 California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). See Compl., 23 ECF No. 1; First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 12. Defendants 24 filed a motion to dismiss (“motion”)—which includes a request for 25 judicial notice—asking the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC 26 entirely. See Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.), ECF No. 14; Req. for 27 Judicial Notice (“RJN”), ECF No. 14-3. Plaintiff opposed and 28 Defendants replied. See Opp’n, ECF No. 16; Reply, ECF No. 17. 1 The Court then ordered supplemental briefing, which the parties 2 provided. See Order, ECF No. 20; Defs.’ Supplemental. Br., ECF 3 No. 21; Pl.’s Supplemental Br., ECF No. 22. 4 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 5 Defendants’ motion.1 6 7 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8 Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person 9 who uses Job Access With Speech (JAWS)—a screen-reading software— 10 to access website content when using her computer. FAC ¶¶ 1,16. 11 Such technology gives Plaintiff the ability to navigate websites 12 by “using keyboards in conjunction with screen access software 13 that vocalizes the visual information found on a computer 14 screen.” Id. ¶ 15. JAWS, as a result, does not work if the 15 website’s content cannot be converted into text. Id. ¶ 16. 16 On June 15 and 20, 2022, Plaintiff used JAWS to visit 17 Defendants’ website, https://www.theameswellhotel.com, to make 18 reservations. Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff attempted to navigate 19 Defendants’ website with JAWS but allegedly encountered “multiple 20 access barriers which denied Plaintiff full and equal access to 21 the facilities, goods, and services offered to the public and 22 made available to the public on [Defendants’] website.” 23 Id. ¶ 24. Despite this wide sweeping contention, Plaintiff’s FAC 24 only describes one specific impediment: Defendants’ failure “to 25 properly code its calendar to be keyboard accessible” with JAWS. 26

27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for December 6, 2022. 1 Id. Plaintiff asserts this incompatibility prevented her from 2 booking a room at Defendants’ hotel and deterred her from 3 “accessing [Defendants’] website and [Defendants’] hotel.” 4 Id. ¶ 28. She also states she would complete a booking if 5 Defendants’ website was “properly coded.” Id. 6 After reviewing the parties’ initial motion papers, the 7 Court ordered supplemental briefing on whether Plaintiff’s 8 contentions are moot given the evidence Defendants submitted with 9 their motion. See Order. Both parties filed their respective 10 briefs. See Defs.’ Supplemental Br.; Pl.’s Supplemental Br. 11 Plaintiff attached a Declaration to her submission that 12 Defendants objected to, arguing it contravened Local Rule 230(m) 13 and the Court’s Order limiting briefing to Defendants’ previously 14 submitted facts. See Defs.’ Objections, ECF No. 23. After 15 initially striking the Declaration, the Court reinstated it and 16 gave Defendants leave to file their own Declaration. See ECF 17 No. 24; ECF No. 25. Defendants, however, failed to do so, 18 implicitly conceding Plaintiff’s argument. 19 20 II. OPINION 21 A. Judicial Notice 22 Federal Rule of Evidence 201 allows the Court to notice a 23 fact if it is “not subject to reasonable dispute,” such that it 24 is “generally known” or “can be accurately and readily determined 25 from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” 26 Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The Court must take judicial notice “if 27 requested by a party and supplied with the necessary 28 information.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). The Court need not, 1 however, take notice of facts that do not provide any additional 2 relevant information. See Adriana Int'l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 3 F.2d 1406, 1410 n.2 (9th Cir. 1990) (declining to take judicial 4 notice of another action “not relevant” to the case); Neylon v. 5 Cty. of Inyo, No. 1:16-CV-0712-AWI-JLT, 2016 WL 6834097, at *4 6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2016) (”[I]f an exhibit is irrelevant or 7 unnecessary to deciding the matters at issue, a request for 8 judicial notice may be denied.”). 9 Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of 10 Plaintiff’s past litigation history. See Mot. at 1; RJN at 1. 11 Defendants, however, failed to attach a list of Plaintiff’s 12 purported suits. See generally RJN. This does not satisfy the 13 “necessary information” requirement under Rule 201(d). Further, 14 an ADA tester’s litigation history is not relevant to the merits 15 of her case. D’Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 16 1031, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e cannot agree that [plaintiff’s] 17 past ADA litigation was properly used to impugn her 18 credibility”). For these reasons, the Court declines to take 19 judicial notice of Plaintiff’s litigation history. 20 Defendants also request the Court take judicial notice of 21 relevant pages of their Website. See Exh. 1 to RJN, ECF No. 14- 22 3. Websites and their contents are proper subjects for judicial 23 notice. Threshold Enterprises Ltd. v. Pressed Juicery, Inc., 445 24 F.Supp.3d 139, 146 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Thus, the Court has taken 25 judicial notice of Exhibit 1. 26 B. Legal Standard 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) governs a motion to 28 dismiss premised on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 1 Fed. R. Civ. Pro (12)(b)(1). A federal court’s jurisdictional 2 scope is fundamentally limited. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. 3 Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). As a result, “[i]t is presumed 4 that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the 5 burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party 6 asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 7 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Rule 12(b)(1) motions are either facial or 8 factual. See Safe Air For Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 9 (9th Cir. 2004). Under the former, “the challenger asserts that 10 the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on 11 their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id. at 1039. Under 12 the latter “the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations 13 that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal 14 jurisdiction.” Id. When a defendant makes a factual challenge, 15 the Court can review evidence outside the complaint without 16 assuming the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s assertions. Id. 17 Moreover, once a defendant submits a factual motion “by 18 presenting affidavits or other evidence properly brought before 19 the court, the party opposing the motion must furnish affidavits 20 or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing 21 subject matter jurisdiction.” Savage v. Glendale Union High 22 Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n. 2 (9th Cir.2003) (internal citations 23 omitted). 24 Mootness is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised in a 25 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss since it pertains to the court’s 26 subject matter jurisdiction. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 27 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A] case is moot when the issues are no longer 28 ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the 1 outcome.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). In 2 turn, if the parties’ dispute is resolved following the filing of 3 the suit, the case must be dismissed as moot. Pitts v. Terrible 4 Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011). Whether such 5 resolution has been achieved is determined by evaluating “whether 6 there is a present controversy as to which effective relief can 7 be granted.” Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Grp., 861 F.3d 853, 862 (9th 8 Cir. 2017). If “there is no longer a possibility that [a 9 plaintiff] can obtain relief for his claim, that claim is moot 10 and must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” 11 Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003). Since the 12 ADA only affords plaintiffs injunctive relief, a defendant’s 13 removal of alleged barriers before trial can moot an ADA claim if 14 the defendant thoroughly demonstrates the purported wrongful 15 behavior cannot reasonably be expected to recur. See Oliver v. 16 Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir. 2011); Friends of 17 the Earth, Inv. v. Laidlaw Entl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 18 167, 189 (2000). 19 C. Analysis 20 In support of their motion, Defendants attached a 21 Declaration by Craig Davis—a principal of Accessible Crew LCC, “a 22 company that conducts accessibility audits for a variety of 23 organizations including commercial non-commercial entities.” 24 Davis Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 14-3. Davis is also a “member of the 25 International Association of Accessibility Professionals and a 26 Certified Trusted Tester, a designation granted by the Department 27 of Homeland Security’s Office of Accessible Systems & Technology 28 (OAST).” Id. Davis thus is “well-versed in what is required for 1 ADA compliance.” Id. 2 To assess the barriers Plaintiff allegedly encountered, 3 Davis manually audited Defendants’ website by implementing the 4 same technologies Plaintiff used when booking her stay. Id. ¶ 8. 5 As a result, Davis used JAWS in conjunction with keyboard control 6 to access Defendants’ website. In doing so, Davis claimed that: 7 When I visited the same website using SRS in combination with keyboard control, I was able to 8 successfully navigate, understand purpose of links and access information on products and services freely 9 without barriers. Using JAWS screen reader, I was able to use my keyboard to select the dates of my intended 10 stay. Using SRS and keyboard control, I can locate the input field for Check-In Date and enter month, day and 11 year. I can locate the input field for Check-Out Date and enter month, day and year then advance to next form 12 element. 13 Id. In other words, per Defendants, Davis’s testing shows 14 the “purported violation does not exist.” Mot. at 1. To 15 demonstrate his findings’ accuracy and validity, Davis provided a 16 video prepared on October 26, 2022 exhibiting the results 17 described above. See Craig Davis, Flor Jimenez v. Storey Hotel 18 Mgmt. Group, YouTube (Feb 15, 2023 @ 3:00 PM), https://www.youtub 19 e.com/watch?v=FKesVfEhgdk. 20 In response, Plaintiff submitted a Declaration by Kannan 21 Arumugam with her opposition. See First Arumugam Decl. ¶ 1, ECF 22 No. 16-1. Arumugam is an ADA consultant “with over fifteen years 23 of experience in website accessibility” who has: (1) expertise in 24 various accessibility guidelines; (2) hands-on and in-depth 25 knowledge of screen-reading software—like JAWS; and 26 (3) experience in guiding developers, testers, designers, and 27 editorial teams on Accessibility Recommendations. Id. On 28 September 30, 2022, Arumugam tested whether Defendants’ website 1 was compatible with Plaintiff’s assistive technologies. Id. ¶ 3. 2 Although Arumugam fails to detail how he assessed Defendants’ 3 website, he claimed that he found: 4 [N]umerous problems, leading me to the conclusion that . . . The Ameswell Hotel's ("Defendant") Calendar 5 is not accessible when tabbed through keyboard. [Defendants’] failure to ensure that its calendar is 6 keyboard accessible for legally blind consumers who rely on screen-readers and their keyboards results in 7 legally blind screen-reader users being unable to select dates for their intended stays. 8 9 Id. Based on these outcomes, Arumugam determined that “as a 10 result of this barrier on the Website it would not be feasible 11 for legally blind users to make a reservation using the Website” 12 and “Plaintiff . . . could not complete a booking.” Id. ¶ 4. 13 Because Davis found Defendants’ website compatible with 14 Plaintiff’s screen-reading software after Arumugam’s assessment, 15 the Court instructed the parties to brief whether Plaintiff’s 16 claims are moot given its responsibility to ensure a matter’s 17 justiciability. See Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th 18 Cir. 2004) (stating courts “have an independent duty to consider 19 sua sponte whether a case is moot.”). Predictably, Defendants 20 argue Davis’s Declaration demonstrates Plaintiff’s claims are 21 moot while Plaintiff argues the opposite. See Defs.’ 22 Supplemental Br.; Pl.’s Supplemental Br. 23 Notably, Plaintiff attached a new Declaration by Arumugam to 24 her supplemental brief that found the barriers Plaintiff 25 supposedly encountered still existed as of January 19, 2023. 26 See Second Arumugam Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 22-1. Although the Court 27 granted Defendants leave to file their own Declaration in 28 response, Defendants did not do so. See ECF No. 25. 1 1. Plaintiff’s ADA claim is not moot 2 As stated above, an ADA claim may be mooted when a defendant 3 removes the alleged barriers before trial and demonstrates the 4 purported wrongful behavior cannot reasonably be expected to 5 recur. See Oliver, 654 F.3d at 905; Friends of the Earth, Inc., 6 528 U.S. at 189. Here, Plaintiff’s Second Declaration 7 demonstrates Defendants’ website’s reservation calendar is not 8 accessible when tabbed through keyboard. See Second Arumugam 9 Decl. ¶ 3. Thus, based on Plaintiff’s facts Defendants have not 10 removed the barrier Plaintiff purportedly encountered and 11 Defendants’ website still violates the ADA. Id. The Court 12 therefore finds Plaintiff’s claim is not moot and denies 13 Defendants’ 12(b)(1) motion on this basis. 14 2. Plaintiff’s ADA claim cannot be dismissed under 15 12(b)(1) for lack of standing 16 In their motion, Defendants argue Plaintiff’s FAC fails to 17 plead the elements required to substantiate standing under the 18 ADA. Specifically, Defendants claim Plaintiff did not allege: 19 (1) an injury-in-fact; (2) an intent to return to Defendants’ 20 property; (3) how the supposed ADA violation deterred her from 21 returning to Defendants’ property; and (4) an immediate threat of 22 harm. See Mot. at 3-8. Furthermore, Defendants’ reply argues 23 for the first time that Plaintiff lacks standing because: 24 (1) there is no nexus between the claimed barrier Plaintiff 25 experienced and the services housed in the hotel’s premises; and 26 (2) Plaintiff’s FAC should be dismissed for failure to state a 27 28 1 claim. Reply at 2.2 2 In opposition, Plaintiff points to sections of her FAC 3 articulating the elements Defendants say are absent. See FAC 4 ¶ 24(Plaintiff claims injury-in-fact by stating she could not use 5 her keyboard to select booking dates and that this inability 6 prevented her from staying at Defendants’ hotel); Id. ¶ 28 7 (Plaintiff states an intent to return because she declares she 8 would visit Defendants’ hotel if she could select a date); Id. 9 (Plaintiff contends deterrence because she asserts Defendants’ 10 website’s purported inaccessibility prevented her from 11 patronizing Defendants’ hotel); Id. ¶ 40 (Plaintiff suggests an 12 immediate threat of harm by pleading she cannot navigate 13 Defendants’ website without injunctive relief requiring its ADA 14 compliance). As a result, Plaintiff argues these allegations 15 create a genuine dispute of fact that cannot be dismissed under 16 12(b)(1) due to the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Safe Air For 17 Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 In that case, the Ninth Circuit warned a “[j]urisdictional 19 finding of genuinely disputed facts is inappropriate when the 20 jurisdictional issue and substantive issues are so intertwined 21 that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on the resolution 22 of factual issues going to the merits of an action.” Id. at 1035 23 2 “Courts in the Ninth Circuit generally decline to consider new 24 arguments or issues raised for the first time in a reply brief.” Brown v. Takeuchi Mfg. Co. (U.S.), No. 2-21-CV-00392-JAM-DMC, 25 2022 WL 1204713, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2022); see also State of Nev. v. Watkins, 914 F.2d 1545, 1560 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[Parties] 26 cannot raise a new issue for the first time in their reply 27 briefs”). As a result, the Court will not consider these two new arguments raised in Defendants’ reply. 28 1 (internal quotations omitted). This type of entanglement exists 2 when “a statute provides the basis for the subject matter 3 jurisdiction of the federal court and the plaintiff’s substantive 4 claim for relief.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). As a 5 result, “[w]hen a statute provides the basis for both the subject 6 matter jurisdiction of the federal court and the plaintiffs' 7 substantive claim for relief, a motion to dismiss for lack of 8 subject matter jurisdiction rather than for failure to state a 9 claim is proper only when the allegations of the complaint are 10 frivolous.” Thornhill Publ'g Co. v. Gen. Tel. Co., 594 F.2d 730, 11 734 (9th Cir. 1979)(internal citations omitted). Plaintiff thus 12 contends this prohibition applies here because: (1) a genuine 13 dispute of fact exists between the parties; and (2) “the ADA 14 provides the jurisdictional basis for the Court’s federal 15 question subject-matter jurisdiction as well as the substantive 16 basis for the ADA discrimination claim.” Opp’n at 5. 17 In light of Safe Air and the facts discussed above, the 18 Court finds: (1) Plaintiff’s claim is not frivolous given the 19 FAC’s factual allegations; (2) Plaintiff and Defendants genuinely 20 dispute the facts underlying the former’s ADA claim; and (3) the 21 ADA provides the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction and 22 Plaintiff’s relief. The Court therefore concludes “the question 23 of jurisdiction is dependent on the resolution of factual issues 24 going to the merits of [this] action,” principally whether 25 Defendants’ website is ADA complaint, making a 12(b)(1) dismissal 26 of Plaintiff’s claim inappropriate. Safe Air, 373 F.3d at 1035. 27 Furthermore, even if the Court found Safe Air irrelevant, 28 Defendants factually challenged Plaintiff’s standing by nn enn nnn een nn ene ee I EOI IIE II EES ee

1 submitting evidence disputing Plaintiff’s claims’ truthfulness. 2 As a result, Plaintiff carried her burden of establishing 3 standing by supplying Arumugam’s Second Declaration that suggests 4 the alleged barrier still exists. See Second Arumugam Decl. @ 3. 5 | As a result, Defendants’ 12(b) (1) motion challenging Plaintiff's 6 standing must fail. 7 D. Supplemental Jurisdiction 8 Defendants ask the Court to decline supplemental 9 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim by erroneously 10 characterizing Plaintiff’s ADA cause of action as untenable. 11 Because it finds Plaintiff’s ADA claim viable, the Court denies 12 Defendants’ request. 13 Til. ORDER 14 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 15 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: February 21, 2023 18 : cp, JOHN A. MENDEZ 20 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12