Whitaker v. Infinite Loop Cupertino Hotel, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 23, 2021
• Docket: 5:21-cv-00483
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 21-cv-00483-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

10 INFINITE LOOP CUPERTINO HOTEL, [Re: ECF No. 15] LLC, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court is Defendant Infinite Loop Cupertino Hotel, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss 14 the First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 15 (“Motion”). Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 15 alleges that Defendant’s hotel website does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act 16 or the California Unruh Civil Rights Act because the online reservation system does not provide 17 sufficient information for Plaintiff to evaluate if any hotel room would be accessible to him given 18 his physical disabilities. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in its 19 entirety with prejudice, arguing that its website complies with both acts. Plaintiff opposes. ECF 20 No. 18 (“Opp’n”). The Court found this Motion appropriate for resolution without oral argument 21 and vacated the September 2, 2021 hearing. ECF No. 20. For the following reasons, the Court 22 GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 A. Factual Allegations in the First Amended Complaint 25 Plaintiff Brian Whitaker is a quadriplegic who suffers from a C-4 spinal cord injury, which 26 restricts his ability to stand, reach objects, and maneuver around fixed objects. ECF No. 12 27 (“FAC”) ¶¶ 1, 14. His injury forces him to use a wheelchair for mobility. Id. ¶ 1. When he 1 independently and safely.” Id. § 15. 2 Plaintiff alleges that he planned on traveling to the Cupertino, California area in October 3 2020. FAC 4 12. After searching for accommodations, Plaintiff says that he chose the Aloft 4 || Cupertino Hotel (the “Hotel’), a Marriott-affiliated hotel owned and operated by Defendant, 5 because of its “desirable price and location.” Jd. 13. Plaintiff visited the Hotel’s reservation 6 || website to book an accessible room. /d. 4 16. Plaintiff says that after selecting a room, the only 7 information provided by the website 1s that the room is a “mobility accessible room” with either a 8 || “roll-in shower or tub.” /d. J 18. Plaintiff further alleges that elsewhere on the Hotel website, a 9 “key amenities” tab makes “general statements .. . about hotel room accessibility.” Id. □ 25. 10 || Plaintiff alleges that the information presented on the website is insufficient to allow him to 11 determine if the hotel room would work for him given his disability. Jd. 26. Plaintiff says that 12 || he will continue to travel to Cupertino and plans on staying at the Hotel once it changes its system

. . . . 13 so that he can determine if the accessible room meets his needs. Id. § 30.

v 14 B. Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice

15 Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of parts of the Hotel’s website that it says

GQ 16 || undermine the claims in the First Amended Complaint. On the “Hotel Details” page on the Hotel

17 website, there is an “Accessibility” section listing several accessibility features of the Hotel:

18 Accessibility Close ~ 19 Fer more information about the physical features of our accessible rooms, common areas, or special services relating to a specific disability, please call Accessible Areas with Accessible Accessible Hotel Features Guest Room Accessibility 20 Routes from Public Entrance Accessible Self-parking Accessible quest rooms with 32” wide doorways. Business Center Braille ang tactile signage provided for permanent accessie route from public entrance to ‘Concierge desk rooms and spaces accessible guest rooms 21 rns ome Hotel □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ | Battoom ga os Meeting spaces and ballrooms Provide oral directions to hotel locations ~ Bathtub grab bars 22 Pool accessible Meeting room(s) with assistive listening devices Bathtub seat Pool pathway Self-parking facility, van-accessible spaces. Deadbolt locks, lowered ublic entrance altemative Selfparking, accessible spaces Door night guards, lowered 23 eee Service animals are welcome Doors with lever handles Registration Desk Pathway Valet parking for vehicles outfitted for drivers in Electrical outlets, lowered 24 Registration desk Sevators ° Hearing accessible rooms and/or kits RestaurantisyLoungets) No transfer showers available Rollin shower 25 ‘Shower wand, adjustable TTYITTD available 26 TV with close-captioning Toilet seat at wheelchair height Vanities, accessible 27 Viewports, lowered 28 See ECF No. 19-1 at 2. The Accessibility section also states that any potential patron who wants

1 “more information about the physical features of [the Hotel’s] accessible rooms, common areas, or 2 || special services relating to a specific disability” can call the Hotel. Jd. When a potential patron 3 browses available rooms, they can filter their results by rooms with certain accessibility features: 4 Filter Your Results: soom creezysure sweetsute Bea Type: tking 2 Queen Beds 5 Accessibitty see □□ □□□□□□ □□ 6 Hearing Accessible 7 |] [uenscertonn 8 9 See ECF No. 15-2 (“RJN”) at 9. Potential patrons can also view “Accessible Room Features” for 10 || each individual type of room. See id. at 10. 1] C. Procedural History 12 Plaintiff filed his original complaint on January 20, 2021. ECF No. 1. In lieu of 13 |) responding to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint that is 14 || the subject of this Motion. See FAC. Plaintiff alleges two causes of action, one for violation of 2 15 || the Americans with Disabilities Act, id. | 32-35, and the second for violation of California’s 16 Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. Id. J] 36-39. 2 17 || I LEGAL STANDARD Z 18 “A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a 19 |) claim upon which relief can be granted tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Conservation Force 20 v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 21 While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual 22 || matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 23 || 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A 24 |) claim is facially plausible when it “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 25 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Jd. When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the 26 |) district court must consider the allegations of the complaint, documents incorporated into the 27 complaint by reference, and matters which are subject to judicial notice. Louisiana Mun. Police 28 || Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Wynn, 829 F.3d 1048, 1063 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor

1 Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)). 2 III. DISCUSSION 3 The Court first addresses Defendant’s request to take judicial notice before turning to the 4 Motion itself. 5 A. Request for Judicial Notice 6 Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of eleven different exhibits. See ECF 7 No. 15-2 (“RJN”). Exhibits 1-2 contain screenshots of relevant pages of the Hotel’s website. See 8 RJN at 5-10. In his opposition brief, Plaintiff opposed the request, claiming the version of the 9 website in the RJN was different from the one in the Motion. See Opp. at 6. Defendant then 10 submitted a corrected Exhibit 1. See ECF No. 19-1 (corrected version of Exhibit 1). The Court 11 finds the content of the website in corrected Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 appropriate for judicial notice 12 because it is “information on certain . . . webpages that [Plaintiff] referenced” in his pleading. See 13 Love v. Ashford San Francisco II LP, No. 20-cv-8458-EMC, 2021 WL 1428372, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 14 Apr. 15, 2021) (quoting Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010)); see 15 also Whitaker v. Montes, No. 21-cv-679-EMC, 2021 WL 1839713, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2021) 16 (taking judicial notice of website screenshots over objection from plaintiff because “that website 17 information comes from a URL that matches the URL provided in the complaint [and] there is no 18 dispute . . . that the website information matches what can currently be found on [d]efendants’ 19 website”). Accordingly, Defendant’s request for judicial notice of Exhibits 1 and 2 is GRANTED. 20 The Court does not consider Exhibits 3-11 in adjudicating this Motion, and so DENIES AS 21 MOOT the request for judicial notice of those exhibits. 22 B. Motion to Dismiss 23 i. Count 1 – ADA Claim 24 Plaintiff’s ADA claim alleges a violation of 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e), more commonly known 25 as the “Reservations Rule.” The Reservations Rule requires hotels to “identify and describe 26 accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms offered through its reservations service in enough 27 detail to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a given 1 regulation itself does not provide further guidance on what features hotels must detail on their 2 website. 3 Responding to concerns from industry about the vagueness of this standard, in 2010 the 4 Department of Justice provided guidance on the scope of the information required by the 5 Reservations Rule. See 28 C.F.R. § Pt. 36, App. A, “Title III Regulations 2010 Guidance and 6 Section-by-Section Analysis” (“Guidance”). The Guidance recognized that a hotel’s reservations 7 portal is “not intended to be an accessibility survey.” Id. While “specific information concerning 8 accessibility features is essential to travelers with disabilities,” the Department of Justice stated 9 that it “c[ould] not specify what information must be included in every instance” due to variation 10 in the needs of disabled travelers. Id. Accordingly, the Guidance stated that “it may be sufficient” 11 for a hotel built in compliance with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design to note in its 12 reservation system that the hotel is accessible and, for every accessible room, to specify the type of 13 room, the size and number of beds, the type of accessible bathing facility, and accessible 14 communication features available in the room. Id. 15 The Hotel’s website here provides far more information than what the Guidance says “may 16 be required” by the Reservations Rule. The website does state that the Hotel is accessible, and for 17 each room marked accessible, the Hotel website indicates the type of room, the size and number of 18 beds, the type of accessible bathing facility, and any accessible communication features in the 19 room. See RJN at 9-10 (naming each type of room, specifying the number and type of beds, and 20 allowing filtering by the type of accessible bathing facility and communication features). The 21 website’s accessibility section further specifies, for example, that the accessible rooms have toilet 22 seats at wheelchair height, bathtub grab bars, lowered deadbolts, and adjustable shower wands, 23 among many other listed features. ECF No. 19-1 at 5. That page also states that common areas of 24 the Hotel feature accessible self-parking, Braille and tactile signage, and valet parking for vehicles 25 modified for wheelchair drivers. Id. Finally, the Hotel website states that anyone needing 26 additional information about the “physical features of [the Hotel’s] accessible rooms, common 27 areas, or special services relating to a specific disability” should call the Hotel. Id. These 1 website satisfies the Reservations Rule as a matter of law. 2 Indeed, multiple California district courts have concluded that these very same disclosures 3 (or materially similar ones) on other Marriott-affiliated hotel websites comply with the 4 Reservations Rule. See, e.g., Ashford, 2021 WL 1428372, at **3-6 (Clancy hotel); Arroyo v. AJU 5 II Silicon Valley LLC, No. 20-cv-8218-JSW, 2021 WL 2350813, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2021) 6 (Westin San Jose); Garcia v. Chamber Maid L.P., No. CV 20-11699 PA (PDx), 2021 U.S. Dist. 7 LEXIS 49411, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2021) (Chamberlain West Hollywood Hotel); Barnes v. 8 Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., No. 15-cv-1409-HRL, 2017 WL 635474, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 9 2017) (San Jose Marriott hotel). Additional cases from across the Ninth Circuit have also 10 concluded that similar disclosures from other hotel operators suffice. See, e.g., Strojnik v. 11 Orangewood LLC, No. CV 19-946 DSF (JCx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11743, at *19 (C.D. Cal. 12 Jan. 22, 2020); Rutherford v. Evans Hotels, LLC, No. 18-cv-435 JLS (MSB), 2020 WL 5257868, 13 at *16 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2020); Garcia v. Gateway Hotel L.P., No. CV 20-10752-PA (GJSx), 14 2021 WL 936176, at **4-5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2021). 15 Plaintiff responds with several unpersuasive points. First, he argues that the Guidance is 16 “some musings” by the Department of Justice, and that the Reservations Rule should be construed 17 “broadly and liberally” to effectuate the purpose of the ADA. See Opp’n at 4, 13. The Court joins 18 several others in rejecting the argument that the Guidance should not be given any weight. 19 Guidance from the Department of Justice is given Seminole Rock deference, requiring a court to 20 give it “controlling weight” unless it is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. See, 21 e.g., Love v. Lanai Garden Corp., No. 20-cv-8918, 2021 WL 3633834, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 22 2021) (citing Kohler v. Presidio Int’l, Inc., 782 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2015)); Rios v. Leadwell 23 Global Prop. LLC, No. 21-cv-267-PJH, 2021 WL 2207408, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2021) 24 (Guidance entitled to “substantial deference”). 25 Second, Plaintiff contends that the other “unpublished district court” decisions rejecting 26 similar challenges to accessibility disclosures “fail to directly address the issue on the merits” and 27 are “simply wrong.” Opp’n at 15-23. The Court disagrees. As outlined above, several courts 1 similar ones. And since the parties have completed briefing on this Motion, the weight of 2 authority has only grown more lopsided in favor of dismissing claims rooted in these disclosures. 3 See, e.g., Garcia v. Apple Seven Servs. SPE San Diego, No. 21-cv-841-ODW, 2021 WL 3568063 4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2021); Love v. Royal Pac. Motel, No. 20-cv-7308-JCS, 2021 WL 2711731 5 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2021); Love v. CCMH Fisherman’s Wharf LLC, No. 20-cv-7131-JCS, 2021 WL 6 1734924 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2021). 7 Third, Plaintiff cites two decisions denying motions to dismiss Reservations Rule claims, 8 but the Court finds both are distinguishable. In Garcia v. Patel & Joshi Hosp. Corp., No. 20-cv- 9 2666-JGB-PVC, 2021 WL 1936809 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2021), plaintiff challenged accessibility 10 descriptions that stated only the features that the Guidance states “may be sufficient” to meet the 11 Reservations Rule. The Court found that the plaintiff’s desire for information about “the 12 accessibility of toilets or of clear floor space” was “sufficiently narrow and consistent with the 13 kinds of information the DOJ Guidance identifies as potentially sufficient.” Id. at *13-14. In 14 contrast, the Hotel website here contains the additional information about toilet accessibility and 15 floor space that the plaintiff sought, and far more. See RJN at 9-10. Plaintiff also cites Love v. 16 Cow Hollow Motor Inn. Assocs., L.P., ECF No. 21, No. 20-cv-7525 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2021), 17 which found that the admonition in the Guidance that certain accessibility details “may be 18 sufficient” to meet the Reservations Rule created a factual dispute about the sufficiency of 19 accessibility details on a hotel website. The Court respectfully parts ways with that decision and 20 joins the other district courts that have found these very same disclosures sufficient as a matter of 21 law. 22 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ADA claim is DISMISSED. 23 ii. Count 2 – Unruh Act Claim 24 Plaintiff’s claim under the Unruh Act is based on the alleged violation of the ADA. See 25 FAC ¶¶ 37-38. Because the Court has dismissed the ADA claim, the Unruh Act claim will also be 26 DISMISSED. See Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc., 985 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The 27 Unruh Act is coextensive with the ADA. Thus, our analysis of Whitaker’s ADA claim applies 1 after dismissing ADA claim). 2 C. Leave to Amend 3 “[L]eave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can 4 correct the defect.” Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir. 2003). The 5 Court notes that several other decisions have dismissed ADA Reservation Rule claims with 6 prejudice after adjudicating only one motion to dismiss. See, e.g., CCMH Fisherman’s Wharf, 7 2021 WL 1734924, at *9; Apple Seven Servs., 2021 WL 3568063, at *3. It is unclear whether 8 Plaintiff can amend to correct the defects identified in this order. The Court has found that the 9 current version of the website complies with the Reservation Requirement as a matter of law. 10 Nevertheless, there are some indications that Defendant’s website may have changed since 11 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. Compare RJN at 7 (Accessibility section with fewer disclosures than 12 current website), with ECF No. 19-1 at 2 (current version of Accessibility section). Because there 13 may be a dispute about the state of the website at the time Plaintiff viewed it, it may be “possible” 14 for Plaintiff to amend to state a claim. Vess, 317 F.3d at 1108. 15 Plaintiff should carefully consider whether to amend. If Plaintiff does, and given that the 16 ADA only allows private plaintiffs to receive injunctive relief, see 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1), the 17 Court would expect to confront the argument that Plaintiff’s ADA claim is moot. If the ADA 18 claim is moot, the Court would likely decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh 19 Act claim. See Johnson v. Techbusiness Resources, LLC, No. 20-cv-6048-BLF, 2020 WL 20 7013596, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2020). The Court does not “prejudge” the mootness argument, 21 which would involve “assess[ing] the likelihood of Defendant[] returning to a noncompliant 22 website” in the future, but urges Plaintiff to consider how it affects the propriety of amendment 23 here. See Montes, 2021 WL 1839713, at *2 (dismissing ADA claim with leave to amend but 24 identifying potential mootness issue). 25 IV. ORDER 26 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to 27 Dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If he believes he can rectify the defects 1 of this Order. Failure to meet the deadline to file an amended complaint or failure to cure the 2 || deficiencies identified in this Order will result in a dismissal of Plaintiffs claims with prejudice. 3 4 || Dated: August 23, 2021 tn) 5 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28