Love v. Ashford San Francisco II LP

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 15, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-08458
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SAMUEL LOVE, Case No. 20-cv-08458-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS

10 ASHFORD SAN FRANCISCO II LP, Docket No. 13 11 Defendant.

12 13 14 Pending before the Court is Defendant Ashford San Francisco II LLP’s (“Ashford’s”) 15 motion to dismiss Plaintiff Samuel Love’s first amended complaint (FAC) pursuant to Federal 16 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Docket No. 13 (“Mot.”). Also pending before the Court is 17 Ashford’s request for judicial notice in support of its motion to dismiss. 18 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Ashford’s motion to dismiss Mr. Love’s 19 claims with prejudice. The Court also GRANTS Ashford’s request for judicial notice. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 A. Factual Allegations In the Complaint 22 Mr. Love’s first amended complaint (FAC) alleges as follows. Plaintiff is a paraplegic 23 California resident who uses a wheelchair for mobility. FAC ¶ 1. Ashford owns and operates the 24 Clancy, an Autograph Collection Hotel located at 299 2nd Street in San Francisco, California (the 25 “Hotel”). Id. ¶ 2. 26 On October 6, 2020, Mr. Love accessed the Hotel’s website, located at 27 www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/sfoaw-the-clancy-autograph-collection, to book an accessible 1 || website has a conspicuous “Accessibility” button on its homepage that provides the following 2 information about “accessible areas,” “features,” and “guest rooms”: 3 4 Accessible Areas with Accessible Accessible Hotel Features Routes from Public Entrance i lf-parkin 5 Business Center Las mane Shan PF A 6 Concierge desk Meeting room(s) with assistive listening devices Fitness Center Self . facili ibl 7 elf-parking facility, van-accessible spaces Meeting spaces and ballrooms 8 Self-parking, accessible spaces Public entrance alternative 9 Registration Desk Pathway Service animals are welcome 10 Registration desk Valet parking for vehicles outfitted for drivers in 11 Restaurant(s)/Lounge(s) wheelchairs Elevators 12 en

13 = Guest Room Accessibility 5 14 Accessible guest rooms with 32” wide doorways 6 Accessible route from public entrance to accessible guest rooms = 15 Alarm clock telephone rin phone ringers 5 16 Bathroom grab bars Bathtub grab bars

17 Bathtub seat 5 Deadbolt locks, lowered Z, ] 8 Door night quards, lowered Doors with lever handles 19 Electrical outlets, lowered 20 Flashing door knockers Hearing accessible rooms and/or kits 9] Roll-in shower Shower wand, adjustable 22 TTYATTD available TV with close-captioning 23 Toilet seat at wheelchair height Vanities, accessible 24 Viewports, lowered 25 26 || Id. PP 17-19. According to Mr. Love, this information is insufficient “to permit a profoundly 27 disabled wheelchair user to have any confidence or come to any conclusions about whether any 28 || given hotel room works for him or her.” Id. P 22. rT

1 Mr. Love contends that the Hotel is required by federal regulations to describe the critical 2 areas in the guestroom “in enough detail to permit him to independently assess that the room 3 works for him and that he can book with confidence.” Id. ⁋ 25. More specifically, Mr. Love 4 alleges the Hotel is required to disclose: 5 - that “the route from the public entrance to the registration desk, to the restaurant, to the 6 exercise room, and to the guestrooms are all a minimum of 36 inches in width;” id. ⁋ 24; 7 - that “he can actually get to (and into) the bed, i.e., that there is at least 30 inches width on 8 the side of the bed so his wheelchair can pull up next to the bed for transfer,” id. ⁋ 26; 9 - that “the sink provide[s] the knee clearance (27 inches high, 30 inches wide, 17 inches 10 deep)” and “any plumbing under the sink [is] wrapped with insulation to protect against 11 burning contact;” id. ⁋ 27; 12 - that “the lowest reflective edge of the [bathroom] mirror is no more than 40 inches high,” 13 id.; 14 - that “the toilet seat height is between 17-19 inches (as required by the ADA Standards)” 15 and “that it has the two required grab bars to facilitate transfer”, id. ⁋ 28; and 16 - “what type of shower is installed,” “whether it has an in-shower seat,” “that there are grab 17 bars mounted on the walls,” “that there is a detachable hand-held shower wand for washing 18 himself,” and “that the wall mounted accessories and equipment are all within 48 inches 19 height,” id. ⁋ 29. 20 Because it lacks this information, Mr. Love contends the Hotel’s website violates a 21 regulation issued pursuant to the Americans With Disability Act (ADA) of 1990, which he asserts 22 requires hotels to “describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms offered through its 23 reservations service in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess 24 independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs.” FAC ⁋ 25 23 (quoting 28 C.F.R. 36.302(e)(1)(ii) (the “Reservations Rule”)). 26 Mr. Love also explains in the FAC that he is a “veteran ADA tester,” id. ⁋ 36, who 27 “frequents businesses to determine if they complied with the anti-discrimination mandates of the 1 year),” id. ⁋ 34–36. More specifically, Mr. Love is planning “to use the [H]otel’s website 2 reservation system to book a room and travel to [the Hotel],” id. ⁋ 36, “sometime between May 3 and June of 2021,” id ⁋ 35, because he “is aware that he needs to return to the hotel website and to 4 patronize the hotel in order to have standing to see that the hotel comes into compliance with the 5 ADA’s mandate regarding its reservation policies,” id. ⁋ 36. 6 Mr. Love raises two causes of action in the FAC for violations of (1) Title III of the ADA, 7 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189; and (2) California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), Cal. 8 Civ. Code § 51-53. Id. ⁋⁋ 40–47. 9 B. Ashford’s Request for Judicial Notice 10 Ashford asks this Court to take judicial notice of other parts of the Hotel’s website, which 11 it contends contradict the FAC’s allegations. For example, Ashford attaches a screenshot of the 12 Hotel’s website showing that the Hotel apparently allows users to search for rooms with 13 accessibility features: 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 i Feo 9, 2021 - Wed, 10, 2021 aig colt 2 eRe □ cscome Frown 46 LSD) wight From 189 USD, right 3 @Please Customers should review government guidance to confirm eligibility to travel & stay at hotel. See travelguidance.marriostcom. Reservations will note net be honored where prohiaited.. @ Please note-Face coverings ane required. Que to COVID-18, some hotel facilities or services may not be available during your stay. 5 Guest room, 1 King eeemenaii 6 ae 156 =~ ieee ee 7 a so-- am 8 Guest room, 2 Queen Rosen Datata 9 2 Fsbo = — 156 2000 ka 10 159.0. om 1 1 Guest room, 1 King, City view, High floor Foon Datals ay ao 164i fiat a 13 a — 16 fo

Cy 14 Guest room, 2 Queen, City view, High floor Rowen Data ©

15 EE serie rot rece | Pate Detain 2 Flexible Rate A 16

. . Z 18 || See Docket No. 13-2 (Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”)) at Ex. 2. Once a user clicks on a type 19 || of room, they are provided with information about the that room type’s “accessible room 20 || features:” 21 Accessible Room Features 22 Tre om toe OFes MOobmty eccessigle rans 23 Ths hom hoe Offer scnessihe rooms wih rail In Sowers 94 Tre nom toe offers Nearing scotseinle rons wen VWsunl stars ond view wobMication devices for coar ard phase 25 TRE om fee offers access rooms Wek Panter showers 26 27 Jo0n Mincriot) Bomeoy during aur bogsing ia mnicy free WF af 000+ pacticipeatng hotets 28

1 Id. Ashford also attaches a screenshot of its website’s accessibility page showing that any 2 || potential guest who needs more information about the physical features of the Hotel’s accessible 3 room is advised to call a specific phone number: 4 5 Accessibility □□□□□ 6 7 Fe = a about the physical features of our accessible rooms, common areas, or special services relating to. specific disability, please cal

8 || Td. at Ex. 1. 9 WC. Procedural Background 10 On November 30, 2020, Mr. Love filed his initial complaint, see Docket No. 1, which 11 Ashford moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on 12 December 31, 2020, see Docket No. 9. 13 Rather than respond to Ashford’s first motion to dismiss, Mr. Love filed the FAC on 14 || January 10, 2021. See FAC. On February 19, 2021, Ashford filed the pending motion to dismiss 15 for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Mot. 16 I. | LEGALSTANDARD 2 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include “a short and plain Z 18 || statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A 19 complaint that fails to meet this standard may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Fed. R. 20 || Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss after the Supreme Court’s 21 decisions in Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 22 || U.S. 544 (2007), a plaintiff’ s “factual allegations [in the complaint] ‘must . . . suggest that the 23 claim has at least a plausible chance of success.’” Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1135 (9th 24 || Cir. 2014). The court “accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the 25 || pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & 26 || Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). But “allegations in a complaint . . . may not 27 simply recite the elements of a cause of action [and] must contain sufficient allegations of 28 || underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.”

1 Levitt, 765 F.3d at 1135 (quoting Eclectic Props. E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co., 751 F.3d 2 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2014)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual 3 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable for the 4 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a 5 ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 6 unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 7 III. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 8 When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court may, without converting the 9 motion to one for summary judgment, consider “documents attached to the complaint, documents 10 incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice[.]” United States v. 11 Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907-08 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, the Court can take judicial notice of the 12 Hotel’s website’s contents because it is “information posted on certain . . . webpages that [Mr. 13 Love] referenced in the [FAC].” Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 14 2010). Moreover, Mr. Love does not oppose Ashford’s request for judicial notice. See Docket 15 No. 14 (“Opp’n”) at 13. 16 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Ashford’s request to take judicial notice of the Hotel’s 17 website’s contents. See RJN. 18 IV. MOTION TO DISMISS 19 A. ADA Claim 20 Mr. Love’s ADA claim is entirely premised on Ashford’s alleged failure to comply with 28 21 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(ii), also known in the hospitality industry as the “Reservations Rule.” The 22 Rule requires hotels to “[i]dentify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms 23 offered through its reservations service in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with 24 disabilities to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her 25 accessibility needs.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(ii) (emphasis added). 26 Importantly, the Reservations Rule does not specify exactly what information hotels are 27 “reasonably” required to disclose. Id. As a result, the Department of Justice (DOJ) received 1 accessible features of hotel rooms that must be described in the reservations system.” 28 C.F.R. § 2 Pt. 36, App. A, “Title III Regulations 2010 Guidance and Section-by-Section Analysis” (the “2010 3 Guidance”). The commentators’ concern was that, without further clarification, the Reservations 4 Rule “essentially would require reservations systems to include a full accessibility report on each 5 hotel or resort property in its system.” Id. In response, DOJ provided the following important 6 guidance on the breadth and application of the Reservations Rule:

7 The Department recognizes that a reservations system is not intended to be an accessibility survey. However, specific 8 information concerning accessibility features is essential to travelers with disabilities. Because of the wide variations in the level of 9 accessibility that travelers will encounter, the Department cannot specify what information must be included in every instance. For 10 hotels that were built in compliance with the 1991 Standards, it may be sufficient to specify that the hotel is accessible and, for each 11 accessible room, to describe the general type of room (e.g., deluxe executive suite), the size and number of beds (e.g., two queen beds), 12 the type of accessible bathing facility (e.g., roll-in shower), and communications features available in the room (e.g., alarms and 13 visual notification devices). Based on that information, many individuals with disabilities will be comfortable making 14 reservations. 15 Id. In other words, if a hotel was built after 19911 and in compliance with the ADA Standards for 16 Accessible Design, originally published on July 26, 1991, and republished as Appendix D to 28 17 C.F.R. part 36 (the “1991 Standards”), then it can satisfy the Reservations Rule by including in its 18 “reservations system” a note that the hotel is accessible and, for each accessible room, a 19 description of the type of room, the size and number of beds, the type of accessible bathing 20 facility, and communications features available in the room. 21 Ashford correctly argues that Mr. Love’s ADA claim fails as a matter of law because the 22 Hotel’s website provides more information than is required according to the DOJ’s interpretation 23 of the Reservations Rule in the 2010 Guidance. Indeed, the website screenshots produced by 24 Ashford show that the Hotel’s website specifies that the hotel is accessible, see RJN at Ex. 1, and, 25 for each accessible room, describes the general type of room (i.e., “Guest room,” “Guest room, 26 City View, High Floor,” “Pure Allergy Feather Free”), the size and number of beds (i.e., “1 King,” 27 1 or “2 Queen”), the type of bathing facility (e.g., “roll in showers”), and communications features 2 available in the room (e.g., “visual alarms and visual notification devices for door and phone”), id. 3 at Ex. 2. In addition to what is required under the 2010 Guidance, the Hotel’s website also 4 provides that accessible guest rooms are outfitted with thirty-two-inch-wide doorways, accessible 5 route from public entrance to accessible guest rooms, bathroom grab bars, bathtub grab bars, a 6 bathtub seat, lowered deadbolt locks, lowered door night guards, doors with lever handles, 7 lowered electrical outlets, flashing door knockers, adjustable shower wands, toilet seats at 8 wheelchair height, accessible vanities, lowered viewpoints, and other accessibility features for 9 visually impaired and hearing-impaired guests. Id. at Ex 1. In fact, the 2010 Guidance only 10 requires hotels to provide this level of detail after a reservation is made:

11 [O]nce reservations are made, some hotels may wish to contact the guest to offer additional information and services. Or, many 12 individuals with disabilities may wish to contact the hotel or reservations service for more detailed information. At that point, 13 trained staff . . . should be available to provide additional information such as the specific layout of the room and bathroom, 14 shower design, grab-bar locations, and other amenities available (e.g., bathtub bench). 15 16 2010 Guidance (emphasis added). In sum, the Hotel’s website exceeds the requirements of the 17 Reservations Rule as interpreted by DOJ’s 2010 Guidance. 18 Although the Ninth Circuit has not yet decided what disclosures are required to satisfy the 19 Registrations Rule, every district court in this circuit has concluded that a hotel’s website complies 20 with the Reservations Rule and the 2010 Guidance if it provides similar information to what was 21 provided here. See e.g., Rutherford v. Evans Hotels, LLC, No. 18-CV-435 JLS (MSB), 2020 WL 22 5257868, at *16 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2020) (“Plaintiffs’ contention that ‘[c]ommon sense dictates 23 that conclusorily stating that its rooms are “accessible” is not enough detail for Plaintiffs to assess 24 whether a hotel or guest room meets their particular accessibility needs,’ is dubious [in light of 25 the 2010 Guidance].” (citation omitted)); Strojnik v. Xenia Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 19-CV- 26 03082-NC, 2020 WL 3060761, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2020) (“[T]he screenshots provided by 27 Strojnik demonstrate that Xenia’s website in fact described some accessibility features, such as 1 compliance or noncompliance with each and every ADA-mandated feature.” (citation omitted)); 2 Strojnik v. Orangewood LLC, No. CV 19-00946 DSF (JCx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11743, at *19 3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2020) (“[The 2010 Guidance] provides further support that websites need not 4 include all potentially relevant accessibility information; if a website was required to have all 5 relevant information, individuals would not need to call the hotel to get further information.”); 6 Strojnik v. 1315 Orange LLC, No. 19CV1991-LAB (JLB), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185481, 2019 7 WL 5535766, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2019) (“Plaintiff does not cite any authority suggesting a 8 hotel has an obligation to describe to the public the physical layout of its rooms in exhaustive 9 detail without being asked”); Strojnik v. Kapalua Land Co., No. 19-00077 SOM-KJM, 2019 U.S. 10 Dist. LEXIS 165525, at *21 (D. Haw. Aug. 26, 2019) (“Plaintiff fails to cite to any legal authority 11 providing that failure to detail all accessible and inaccessible elements of a public accommodation 12 results in an ADA violation.”); Barnes v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., No. 15-CV-01409-HRL, 13 2017 WL 635474, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017) (Marriott’s website stating, “accessible guest 14 rooms have a 32 inch wide opening,” listing the areas of the hotel that are accessible, and 15 providing that the hotel offers “mobility accessible rooms” and “accessible rooms with roll in 16 showers” was “appropriate and acceptable” under the Reservations Rule). 17 In fact, several California district courts have recently concluded that the identical 18 disclosures from Marriott’s website at issue in the instant case satisfy the Registrations Rule and 19 thus comply with the ADA. See Lammey v. Spectrum Gateway LLC, No. 8:21-cv-00104-DOC- 20 KES, slip op at 3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021) (“In sum, the Website provides highly detailed 21 accessibility information about the Hotel facilities and guestrooms, above and beyond the 22 requirements of the 2010 Guidance.”); Love v. KSSF Enters. Ltd, No. 20-cv-08535-LB, 2021 U.S. 23 Dist. LEXIS 51788, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2021) (“The website disclosures here are like those 24 in the cases in the preceding paragraph. Mr. Love does not plausibly plead an ADA claim.”); 25 Arroyo v. AJU II Silicon Valley LLC, No. 4:20-cv-08218-JSW, slip op. at 5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 26 2021) (“The Court concludes that Defendants’ website complies with the Reservations Rule.”); 27 Garcia v. Chamber Maid L.P., No. CV 20-11699 PA (PDx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49411, at *11 1 Plaintiff's FAC and the judicially noticeable documents, the descriptions and level of detail 2 provided on Defendant’s website are sufficient to comply with the ADA.”); Salinas v. Apple Ten 3 SPE Capistrano, Inc. et al, No. 8:20-cv-02379-CJC-DFM, slip op. at 5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2021) 4 (“Defendants’ Website provides the accessibility information required to satisfy the ADA.”); 5 Arroyo v. JWMFE Anaheim, LLC, No. SACV2100014CJCKESX, 2021 WL 936018, at *3 (C.D. 6 Cal. Feb. 16, 2021) (“This information more than satisfies Defendant’s obligation under § 7 36.302(e)(ii)” (emphasis added)). 8 Notably, the Hotel’s website conspicuously states that “[s]hould [Plaintiff or any other 9 potential guest] have further questions about accessibility, [the Hotel staff] would be happy to 10 accommodate [their] needs and can be reached by phone or email.” RJN at Ex. 2 (emphasis 11 added). The words “phone” and “email” in this disclaimer are linked directly to the Hotel’s 12 telephone number and email address. Id. This is important because the 2010 Guidance 13 acknowledges that “individuals with disabilities may wish to contact the hotel or reservations 14 services for more detailed information,” 2010 Guidance, which further supports a finding that the 15 Hotel’s website does not violate the Reservation Rule. See Garcia, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49411, 16 at *14 (“Courts have interpreted [the 2010 Guidance] to mean that a website need not include all 17 potentially relevant accessibility information where an inquiring patron can simply call the hotel 18 for more information.”); Strojnik, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11743, at *21 (“[I]f a website was 19 required to have all relevant information, individuals would not [be directed by the 2010 20 Guidance] to call the hotel to get further information.”). For this additional reason, the Court 21 concludes Mr. Love has failed to state a claim that Ashford’s website violates the ADA. 22 Mr. Love does not cite a single case where a Court has found the information on the 23 Hotel’s website—or anything like it—inadequate under the Reservations Rule. Instead, he argues 24 that all the cases cited by Ashford incorrectly relied on the 2010 Guidance, which he contends is 25 not entitled to deference because it is nothing more than “musings by the DOJ.” See Docket No. 26 14 (“Opp’n”) at 5. But the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly and unequivocally held that the DOJ’s 27 guidance on, and interpretation of, ADA regulations is entitled to Seminole Rock deference, such 1 plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” See Miller v. Cal. Speedway Corp., 536 2 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 3 (1945)); see also id. (“[T]he Justice Department’s interpretation of its own regulations, such as the 4 Technical Assistance Manual, must also be given substantial deference and will be disregarded 5 only if ‘plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” (quoting Bay Area Addiction Rsch. 6 v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725, 732 n. 11 (9th Cir.1999)); Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 913 7 F.3d 898, 904 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 122, 205 L. Ed. 2d 41 (2019) (“DOJ’s 8 administrative guidance on ADA compliance is entitled to deference”); Kohler v. Presidio Int’l, 9 Inc., 782 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2015) (“We have repeatedly held that manuals promulgated by 10 the Department of Justice to interpret the ADAAG, are ‘entitled to substantial deference’ and ‘will 11 be disregarded only if plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” (quoting Miller, 536 12 F.3d at 1028)); Fortyune v. City of Lomita, 766 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The DOJ’s 13 interpretation of its ADA implementing regulations is entitled to ‘controlling weight unless it is 14 plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” (quoting Miller, 536 F.3d at 1028)). Under 15 this precedent, the Hotel’s website does not violate the Reservations Rule because it complies with 16 the DOJ’s 2010 Guidance, which is controlling authority for this Court because it is not plainly 17 erroneous or inconsistent with the Reservations Rule. 18 At oral argument, Mr. Love also argued that the Hotel’s website violates the Reservations 19 Rule, even if its disclosures satisfy the 2010 Guidance, because the disclosures are not sufficiently 20 conspicuous on the Hotel’s website. See Docket No. 23 (“Hr’g Tr.”) at 7:13–8:15. According to 21 Mr. Love, the term “reservations service” in the Reservations Rule only encompasses the exact 22 screen where patrons select and pay for a room (the “booking screen”), not the Hotel’s website as 23 a whole, such that Ashford is required to put all the required accessibility disclosures on that 24 screen. Id. at 10:21–24. The Court is not persuaded by this argument because nowhere in the 25 applicable statute or regulations is the term “reservations service” defined in such specific terms. 26 See 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.101–36.609. Instead, the term “reservations service” read in context applies 27 to the Hotel’s entire website; patrons of the Hotel must access the homepage before reaching the 1 details” that triggers a pop up with the required accessibility disclosures, as the Court has 2 || highlighted below: 3 4 5 Guest room, 2 Queen 6 i) Member Rate Flexible © 4 Flexible Rate 8 = Rate Details 18950 ricre

9 - - UUesT room, Z QUEEN 10 11 ~ 12 — ae 1 . 13 | = 44 < □□ ee > 6 = i ‘ - - 2 15 a = = =e 16 . &

17 5 Queen/Queen Guest Room Image 1076 Z, 18 Mages ma’ notfu y rep esent the room features yo Dooxed. 19 Beds and Bedding Furniture and Furnishings Entertainment Maximum Occupancy: 4 Chair, oversized with ottoman TW features: remote control, 32in/8icm 20 2 Queen Alarm Chock Piugdn High Tech room Rollaway beds not permitted Safe, in room Premium movie channels Cribs permitted: 1 Desk, writing / work, electrical outlet Cable/satellite 21 Maximum cribs/rollaway beds permitted: 1 [ron and ironing board CNN, ESPN, and HBO Duvet Mowies, pay-per-view 22 Food & Beverages Racio Room Features 23 Boer □□□ ot ate Accessible Room Features 350sqft/32sqm Coffee maker / tea service Air-conditioned This room type offers mobility accessible rooms 9A a Ss room is non-smoking Kitchen Features Sts type offers accessible rooms with roll in Connecting rooms are available (for some rooms) peewee Windows may be opened Mini-tefrigerator This room type offers hens accessible rooms with ; = visual alarms and visual notification devices for door and 25 Windows, soundproof pie Internet and Phones Tas type offers accessible rooms with transfer 26 Bath and Bathroom Features Phones: 2 Bathroom amenities (Paul Mitchell) Phone features: voicemail SSIS NESTTICU Be me RIFT PORN □□□□□□□□ □□ ACY: free Wi-Fi at 7.000 participating hotels 27 Hair dryer High speed Intemet, for a fee 28 See RJN. The accessibility disclosures are conspicuously linked to the booking screen. 19

1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Ashford’s motion to dismiss as to Mr. Love’s ADA 2 claim.2 3 B. Unruh Act Claim 4 Mr. Love’s Unruh Act claim is predicated on his ADA claim. See FAC ⁋ 45 (“The Unruh 5 Act provides that a violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh Act.”). Therefore, [b]ecause 6 [Mr. Love] did not adequately allege a violation of the ADA, he necessarily has not adequately 7 alleged a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.” Whitaker v. Body, Art & Soul Tattoos L.A., 8 LLC, No. 20-55228, 2021 WL 237321, at *2 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2021); see also Whitaker v. Tesla 9 Motors, Inc., 985 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The Unruh Act is ‘coextensive with the 10 ADA.’ Thus, our analysis of Whitaker’s ADA claim applies equally to his Unruh Act claim.” 11 (quoting Molski, v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 731 (9th Cir. 2007)). 12 Accordingly, the Court also GRANTS Ashford’s motion to dismiss as to Mr. Love’s 13 Unruh Act Claim. 14 V. CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court takes judicial notice of the Hotel’s website and 16 GRANTS with prejudice Ashford’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. Further amendment of the 17 FAC would be futile because the undisputed information on the Hotel’s website more than 18 satisfies the Reservations Rule. See Arroyo, 2021 WL 936018, at *3 (dismissing complaint with 19 prejudice because “the Court [cannot] contemplate how Plaintiff could cure the deficiencies in his 20 Complaint when the undisputed information on Expedia’s and Defendant’s websites more than 21 satisfy the ADA’s requirements”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mr. Love’s request for leave 22 to amend. 23 /// 24 /// 25

26 2 The FAC also alleges, in one sentence, that the Hotel’s website “failed to ensure that individuals with disabilities can make reservations for accessible guest rooms during the same hours and in 27 the same manner as individuals who do not need accessible rooms.” FAC ⁋ 43. The Court also 1 This order disposes of Docket No. 13. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to issue a 2 judgment and close the case. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: April 15, 2021 7 8 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27