Opinion
21-cv-02845-EMC
07-12-2021
SAMUEL LOVE, Plaintiff, v. FYI MC, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
DOCKET NO. 9
EDWARD M. CHEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pending before the Court is Defendants FYI MC, LLC and PYP GE LLC's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Samuel Love's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Docket No. 13 (“Mot.”).
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Allegations in the Complaint
Mr. Love's complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff is a paraplegic California resident who uses a wheelchair for mobility. Compl. ¶ 1. He has brought numerous lawsuits challenging the adequacy of hotels' websites in describing accessibility. See, e.g., Love v. Ashford S.F. II LP, No. 20-CV-08458-EMC, 2021 WL 1428372 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2021); Love v. Wildcat Owners Lessee, No. 4:20-cv-08913-DMR (N.D. Cal. April 5, 2021); Love v. KSSF Enters. Inc., 20-cv-08535-LB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51788 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2021); Love v. Marriott Hotel Servs., No. 20-cv-07137-TSH, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41081 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021); Love v. Gates Hotel, Inc., No. 20-cv-07191-SI, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40113 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2021). Defendants own and operate the Milliken Creek Inn & Spa, a small hotel located at 1815 Silverado Trail, Napa, California (the “Hotel”). Compl. ¶ 2.
On February 4, 2021, Mr. Love alleges he accessed the Hotel's website, located at www.millikencreekinn.com, to book an accessible room for a trip he was planning to Napa in August of 2021. Id. at 13-17. The Hotel's website had an “Accessibility” tab that, according to Mr. Love, only states: “[i]f you have any questions about the accessibility at Milliken Creek Inn & Spa, please contact the innkeeper for assistance.” Id. ¶ 20. Mr. Love complains that the website does not provide details about the guestroom's accessibility features, including the bathtub, shower, toilet, grab bars, or lavatory sink. Id. ¶¶ 20-23.
Mr. Love contends that the Hotel is required by federal regulations to describe the critical areas in the guestroom “in enough detail to permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his accessibility needs.” Id. ¶ 27. More specifically, Mr. Love alleges the Hotel's website should state:
• “that the hotel room entrance and interior doors provide at least 32 inches of clearance”;
• “that there is at least 30 inches width on the side of the bed”;
• that “the desk provides knee and toe clearance and is at least 17 inches high, 30 inches wide, and runs at least 17 inches deep”;
• “that the toilet seat height is between 17-19 inches;”
• “that [the toilet] has the two required grab bars to facilitate transfer;”
• that “the sink provide[s] the knee clearance (17 inches high, 30 inches wide, 17 inches deep)”;
• that “any plumbing under the sink [is] wrapped with insulation to protect against burning contact”;
• that “the lowest reflective edge of the mirror is no more than 40 inches high”; and
• “what shower it is; . . . whether it has an in-shower seat; . . . that there are grab bars mounted on the walls; . . . that there is a detachable hand-held shower wand; [and] that the wall mounted accessories and equipment are all within 48 inches high.”Id. ¶ 24.
Because it lacks this information, Mr. Love contends the Hotel's website violates a regulation issued pursuant to the Americans With Disability Act (ADA) of 1990, which require hotels to “describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms offered through its reservations service in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs.” FAC ¶ 34 (citing 28 C.F.R. 36.302(e)(1)(ii) (the “Reservations Rule”)).
Mr. Love raises two causes of action in the FAC for violations of (1) Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189; and (2) California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 51-53. Id. ¶¶ 32-39.
B. Supplemental Briefs
Defendants submitted a supplemental brief at the instruction of this Court explaining that the Hotel is not in compliance with the ADA's 1991 Standards because it was built before 1991. See Docket No. 14 (Defs.' Suppl. Br.) at 1-2. The Hotel was built in the 1850's as a stagecoach stop and in 1980 was converted to a hotel with eleven rooms spread throughout three buildings. Id. at 1. The current owner purchased the Hotel in 2013 with hopes of renovating the existing rooms and buildings but was unable to do so because of permitting issues with the City of Napa. Id. According to Defendants, the main reason the property is not ADA compliant is that “[t]he property has a slope in many areas that could not be economically or environmentally graded.” Id. However, the owner was able to obtain permits and begin construction in January 2020 on a new building that will house one ADA accessible room, but work has been proceeding slowly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. The Hotel will therefore not have an ADA-compliant room until the completion of the new building, which is projected for the summer of 2022. Id. at 2.
The Department originally published the ADA Standards for Accessible Design on July 26, 1991 and republished them as Appendix D to 28 C.F.R. part 36 (the “1991 Standards”).
C. Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice
Defendants ask this Court to take judicial notice of the Hotel's website, which they contend contradicts the FAC's allegations. At the very bottom of the Hotel's homepage there is a small link titled “Accessibility”:
(Image Omitted.)
Docket No. 9 (Req. for Judicial Notice (RJN)), Ex. 1. When a user clicks on that “Accessibility” link, they are taken to a separate page titled “Accessibility” that clearly states the Hotel is not accessible and does not have an ADA-compliant guestroom:
(Image Omitted.)
Id. Ex. 2. The Accessibility page also describes the following “Accessibility Features” in the Hotel's common areas:
(Image Omitted.)
Id. As for the guestrooms, the website acknowledges the Hotel does not have “a fully accessible guestroom, ” but lists the following accessibility features currently available in certain rooms:
(Image Omitted.)
Id. Finally, the website instructs guests to contact the hotel if they “have any questions about accessibility”:
(Image Omitted.)
Id.
D. Procedural Background
On April 19, 2021, Mr. Love filed his initial complaint. See Compl. On May 19, 2021, Defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Mot.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A complaint that fails to meet this standard may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss after the Supreme Court's decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), a plaintiff's “factual allegations [in the complaint] ‘must . . . suggest that the claim has at least a plausible chance of success.'” Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1135 (9th Cir. 2014). The court “accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). But “allegations in a complaint . . . may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action [and] must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Levitt, 765 F.3d at 1135 (quoting Eclectic Props. E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co., 751 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2014)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
III. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court may, without converting the motion to one for summary judgment, consider “documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice[.]” United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907-08 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, the Court can take judicial notice of the Hotel's website's contents because it is “information posted on certain . . . webpages that [Mr. Love] referenced in the [FAC].” Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, Mr. Love does not oppose Defendants' request for judicial notice. See Docket No. 14 (“Opp'n”) at 7.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' request to take judicial notice of the portions of the Hotel's website attached as exhibits 1 and 2 to its request for judicial notice. See RJN, Exs. 1 & 2.
IV. MOTION TO DISMISS
A. ADA Claim
Mr. Love's ADA claim is entirely premised on Defendants' alleged failure to comply with 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(ii), also known in the hospitality industry as the “Reservations Rule, ” which requires hotels to “[i]dentify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms offered through its reservations service in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs.” 28 C.F.R. § 36302(e)(1)(ii) (emphasis added).
Importantly, the Reservations Rule does not specify exactly what information hotels are “reasonably” required to disclose. Id. As a result, the Department of Justice received several comments when it drafted the Reservations Rule urging it to “identify the specific accessible features of hotel rooms that must be described in the reservations system.” 28 C.F.R. § Pt. 36, App. A, “Title III Regulations 2010 Guidance and Section-by-Section Analysis” (the “2010 Guidance”). The commentators' concern was that, without further clarification, the Reservations Rule “essentially would require reservations systems to include a full accessibility report on each hotel or resort property in its system.” Id. In response, the Department “recognize[d] that a reservations system is not intended to be an accessibility survey” and that “[b]ecause of the wide variations in the level of accessibility that travelers will encounter, the Department cannot specify what information must be included in every instance.” Id. (emphasis added). With that in mind, the 2010 Guidance outlined what information is likely sufficient to satisfy the Reservations Rule, which depends on whether the hotel was built before or after 1991. “For hotels that were built in compliance with the 1991 standards” the DOJ states:
it may be sufficient to specify that the hotel is accessible and, for each 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), the type of accessible bathing facility (e.g., roll-in shower), and communications features available in the room (e.g., alarms and visual notification devices).Id. (emphases added). “For older hotels with limited accessibility features, ” however,
information about the hotel should include, at a minimum, information about accessible entrances to the hotel, the path of travel to guest check-in and other essential services, and the accessible route to the accessible room or rooms. In addition to the room information described above, these hotels should provide information about important features that do not comply with the 1991 Standards.Id. (emphases added). In other words, what is required to satisfy the Reservations Rule largely depends on when the hotel was built. Here, because the Hotel was built before 1991 and is not in compliance with the 1991 Standards, the Court must apply the second part of the 2010 Guidance on the Reservations Rule. See Defs.' Suppl. Br. at 1-2.
Mr. Love's ADA claim fails as a matter of law because the Hotel's website provides the information required by the 2010 Guidance for older properties built before 1991. Indeed, the Hotel's website specifies that “due to the historic nature of the hotel, several areas of the property are not accessible for individuals who require mobility assistance, ” and more specifically, that “the property is currently not accessible to those requiring wheelchair access.” RJN, Ex. 2 (emphasis added). The website also states that, although there is “[a]n accessible parking space” and “accessible side approach registration desk, ” “the path of travel to the guestroom may not be accessible for individuals who require certain types of mobility assistance.” Id. The website is clear: the Hotel is “in the process of building a fully accessible guestroom.” Id. The website also lists the (admittedly incomplete) accessible features that are available in each of the Hotel's rooms. This information is more than reasonable, under the Reservations Rule, and is sufficient to permit Mr. Love to assess independently whether the hotel and its guest rooms meet his accessibility needs.
Mr. Love insists in his supplemental brief that “there needs to be an enhanced level of detail on a hotel website when the facility is NOT compliant.” See Docket No.15 (Mr. Love's Suppl. Br. at 1.) But his only authority for this proposition is Judge Westmore's very recent decision in Garcia v. Chancellor Hotel Associates, which is factually distinguishable. See 4:21-cv-01395-KAW (Docket No. 25) (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) (Garcia Order). In that case, Judge Westmore concluded that “it is impossible to determine whether a particular room is accessible to Plaintiff” because the hotel's website “[did] not identify which important features are not accessible.” Id. at 7. The website here, by contrast, clearly states that the entire “property is currently not accessible to those requiring wheelchair access.” RJN, Ex. 2. Judge Westmore pointed out that the hotel in Garcia did “not provide any information on the width of the doorways leading into accessible guestrooms” or “the accessible route to the accessible room or rooms, ” Garcia Order at 7, whereas here the Hotel's website specifies the rooms have an “[entrance door width of 36”” and “the path of travel to the guestroom may not be accessible for individuals who require certain types of mobility assistance, ” RJN, Ex. 2. This information provides sufficiently detailed information for Mr. Love to determine that the Hotel is not accessible to him. Moreover, a phone number is provided should he want to obtain further information.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Mr. Love's ADA claim.
B. Unruh Act Claim
Mr. Love's Unruh Act claim is predicated on his ADA claim. See FAC ¶ 45 (“The Unruh Act provides that a violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh Act.”). Therefore, [b]ecause [Mr. Love] did not adequately allege a violation of the ADA, he necessarily has not adequately alleged a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.” Whitaker v. Body, Art & Soul Tattoos L.A., LLC, No. 20-55228, 2021 WL 237321, at *2 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2021); see also Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc., 985 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The Unruh Act is ‘coextensive with the ADA.' Thus, our analysis of Whitaker's ADA claim applies equally to his Unruh Act claim.” (quoting Molski, v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 731 (9th Cir. 2007)).
V.CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court takes judicial notice of the Hotel's website screenshots and GRANTS with prejudice Ashford's motion to dismiss in its entirety.
This order disposes of Docket No. 9. The Clerk shall enter Judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.