Garcia v. Heritage Inn of Sacramento, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORLANDO GARCIA, No. 2:20-cv-02191-JAM-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 14 E.L. HERITAGE INN OF SACRAMENTO, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Orlando Garcia (“Plaintiff) filed two suits against Heritage 18 Inn of Sacramento (“Defendant”) under the ADA and Unruh Civil 19 Rights Act regarding the lack of information about accessible 20 rooms on two of their hotel’s websites. First Am. Compl. in 20- 21 cv-02162, ECF No. 6; First Am. Compl. in 20-cv-02191, ECF No.6. 22 Defendant moved to dismiss both actions for failure to state a 23 claim. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss in 20-cv-02162, ECF No. 11; Def.’s 24 Mot. to Dismiss in 20-cv-02191, ECF No. 10. On March 23, 2021, 25 the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Garcia v. E.L. 26 Heritage Inn of Sacramento, LCC, 20-cv-02162-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal. 27 March 30, 2021). For the same reasons the Court detailed at the 28 1 hearing in the prior Garcia case, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 2 in this case is GRANTED.1 3 Based on the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaints and 4 judicially noticeable documents2, the description and level of 5 detail provided on Defendant’s website are sufficient to comply 6 with the ADA. Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 20 at *14, Garcia v. E.L. 7 Heritage Inn of Sacramento, LCC, 20-cv-02162-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal. 8 March 30, 2021). While, as Plaintiff points out, the website in 9 this case differs from that in the previous case, it does so only 10 slightly, and the Court still finds it sufficient to comply with 11 28 C.F.R. 36.302(e)(iii). The website states the hotel has 12 wheelchair accessible rooms available and that the elevators, 13 registration desk, exercise facility, business center, pool, and 14 two meeting rooms are “accessible.” Def.’s Request for Judicial 15 Notice (“RJN”), ECF No. 10-2 Ex. 1. The site also notes that 16 accessible self-parking is available, van accessible self-parking 17 is available, that there is ramp access to the property, closed- 18 captioned TV, telephones with Amplifier or TDD, a visual alarm in 19 guest rooms and communication kits with visual alarms. Id. The 20 site also includes a list of hotel areas with accessible routes 21 22 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 23 scheduled for March 23, 2021. Defendant’s counsel, however, failed to appear and the Court took the Motion under submission. 24 2 Defendant has requested the Court take judicial notice of copies of certain portions of the hotel’s website. Def.’s Req. 25 for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 10-2. Plaintiff did not object. See Opp’n, ECF No. 15 at 2. Websites and their contents are 26 proper subjects of judicial notice. Threshold Enter. Ltd. v. 27 Pressed Juicery, Inc., 445 F.Supp.3d 139, 146 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Accordingly, the Court will take judicial notice of these 28 documents. 1 from the accessible public entrance which are: the registration 2 desk, ADA compliant guest rooms and access routes, meeting rooms, 3 business center, exercise facility, and the pool. Id. 4 Additionally, when one goes to select a specific room the website 5 specifies the type of room and unique features. Id. at Ex. 2. 6 For example, a king bed option states: “One bedroom suite with a 7 king bed. Bathroom features a shower stall with no curb where an 8 individual can roll a wheelchair all the way into the shower and 9 maneuver in the space.” Id. The site also includes a photograph 10 of the bathroom. Id. 11 As the Court in Garcia v. Gateway Hotel explained, the 2010 12 DOG ADAAG guidance on 28 C.F.R. 36.302(e)(iii) “recognizes that a 13 reservations system is not intended to be an accessibility survey 14 and because of the wide variations in the level of accessibility 15 that travelers will encounter . . . it may be sufficient to 16 specify that the hotel is accessible and to provide basic facts 17 about each accessible room. That is exactly what Defendant does 18 here.” Garcia v. Gateway Hotel L.P., No. CV2010752PAGJSX, 2021 19 WL 936176, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb 25, 2021). While Plaintiff 20 argues that claiming something is accessible is a conclusion or 21 opinion, “the term ‘accessible’ is specifically defined in the 22 ADAAG to describe a site, building, facility, or portion thereof 23 that complies with these guidelines” so the use of the “term 24 ‘accessible’ is not merely conclusory, it means that the 25 features” comply with the ADAAG. Id. 26 Because Defendant’s website complies with the ADA and 27 Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is premised on an ADA violation, both 28 claims are DISMISSED. These claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE eee IEEE OSE OS MEI EE INE EEO II IRIE II IE IIE) IIE ESOS 1 as the Court finds amendment would be futile given the judicially 2 noticed documents demonstrate Defendant’s website complies with 3 the ADA. See Garcia v. Gateway Hotel, 2021 WL 936176 at *5 4 (finding future amendment would be futile as Plaintiff’s own FAC 5 and the judicially noticed documents demonstrated Defendant’s 6 | website complied with the ADA). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: April 2, 2021 kA 10 Geren aaa pebrsacr 00k 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28