Arroyo v. Davi, LLC ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAFAEL ARROYO, No. 2:21-cv-00273-MCE-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 14 DAVI, LLC, a California limited liability company, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Defendant Davi, LLC 18 (“Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages for violations of the Americans with 19 Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Civil 20 Rights Act, California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq. (“Unruh Act”). Compl., ECF No. 1 21 (“Compl.”). Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 22 Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which has been fully 23 briefed. ECF Nos. 8 (“Def.’s Mot.”), 13 (“Pl.’s Opp’n”), 14 (“Def.’s Reply”). For the 24 reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.1 25 /// 26 /// 27 1 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 28 submitted on the briefs. E.D. Local Rule 230(g). 1 BACKGROUND2 2 3 Plaintiff is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. He planned to make a 4 trip to Sacramento, California, in April 2021, and selected the Holiday Inn Express & 5 Suites Davis (the “Hotel”) because of its price and location. On October 9, 2020, Plaintiff 6 visited the Hotel’s reservation website to book an accessible room but found that there 7 was insufficient information about the accessible features in the “accessible rooms” to 8 permit him to assess independently whether a given hotel room would work for him. 9 According to Plaintiff, the reservation website does not provide the following information: 10 (1) whether the hotel room entrance and interior doors provide at least 32 inches of 11 clearance; (2) whether there is at least 30 inches width on the side of the bed; 12 (3) whether the desk in the guestroom provides sufficient knee and toe clearance; 13 (4) whether the restroom sink provides sufficient knee clearance and if any plumbing 14 under the sink is wrapped with insulation to protect against burning contact; (5) whether 15 the lavatory mirror is mounted at a lowered height; and (6) the type of shower and 16 whether it has an in-shower seat, grab bars mounted on the walls, and detachable hand- 17 held shower wand, as well as whether the wall mounted accessories and equipment are 18 all within 48 inches height. 19 Plaintiff alleges that the above information is reasonably necessary for Plaintiff or 20 any wheelchair user to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets 21 his or her accessibility needs. However, Defendant failed to identify and describe these 22 core accessibility features in enough detail. As a result, this lack of information created 23 difficulty for Plaintiff and deterred him from booking a room at the Hotel. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 2 The following recitation of facts is taken, sometimes verbatim, from Plaintiff’s Complaint. 1 STANDARD 2 3 On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil 4 Procedure 12(b)(6),3 all allegations of material fact must be accepted as true and 5 construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 6 Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). Rule 8(a)(2) “requires only ‘a short and plain 7 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ in order to ‘give the 8 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell 9 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 10 47 (1957)). A complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not require 11 detailed factual allegations. However, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of 12 his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 13 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. (internal citations and 14 quotations omitted). A court is not required to accept as true a “legal conclusion 15 couched as a factual allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 16 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief 17 above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing 5 Charles Alan Wright & 18 Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004) (stating that the 19 pleading must contain something more than “a statement of facts that merely creates a 20 suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action”)). 21 Furthermore, “Rule 8(a)(2) . . . requires a showing, rather than a blanket 22 assertion, of entitlement to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3 (internal citations and 23 quotations omitted). Thus, “[w]ithout some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard 24 to see how a claimant could satisfy the requirements of providing not only ‘fair notice’ of 25 the nature of the claim, but also ‘grounds’ on which the claim rests.” Id. (citing Wright & 26 Miller, supra, at 94, 95). A pleading must contain “only enough facts to state a claim to 27 3 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless 28 otherwise noted. 1 relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. If the “plaintiffs . . . have not nudged their 2 claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed.” 3 Id. However, “[a] well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge 4 that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and ‘that a recovery is very remote and 5 unlikely.’” Id. at 556 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)). 6 A court granting a motion to dismiss a complaint must then decide whether to 7 grant leave to amend. Leave to amend should be “freely given” where there is no 8 “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, . . . undue prejudice 9 to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of the 10 amendment . . . .” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Eminence Capital, LLC v. 11 Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (listing the Foman factors as those to 12 be considered when deciding whether to grant leave to amend). Not all of these factors 13 merit equal weight. Rather, “the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party . . . 14 carries the greatest weight.” Id. (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 15 185 (9th Cir. 1987)). Dismissal without leave to amend is proper only if it is clear that 16 “the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” Intri-Plex Techs. v. Crest Group, 17 Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1006, 18 1013 (9th Cir. 2005); Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 19 1989) (“Leave need not be granted where the amendment of the complaint . . . 20 constitutes an exercise in futility . . . .”)). 21 22 ANALYSIS 23 24 A. Defendant’s Requests for Judicial Notice 25 Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of several documents 26 submitted in support of its Motion and Reply. ECF Nos. 9 (“RJN”), 15 (“Supp. RJN”). 27 Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s requests. See Pl.’s Opp’n at 10. 28 /// 1 First, Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of several district court 2 opinions addressing similar issues. Exs. 1–7, RJN; Exs. 1–9, Supp. RJN. Defendant 3 also provides a list of lawsuits filed by Plaintiff, RJN ¶ 11, and another list of “lawsuits 4 brought by other individuals represented by Plaintiff’s counsel [which] have been 5 dismissed with prejudice,” Supp. RJN ¶ 10. A court “may take judicial notice of court 6 filings and other matters of public record.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 7 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Defendant’s 8 requests as to the district court opinions are GRANTED, but the requests regarding 9 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel’s litigation history are DENIED as irrelevant. 10 Second, Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of screenshots of 11 the Hotel’s webpages. Exs. 8–10, RJN. “[A]s a general matter, websites and their 12 contents may be proper subjects for judicial notice.” Caldwell v. Caldwell, No. C 05-4166 13 PJH, 2006 WL 618511, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006). The Court may also consider 14 documents “incorporated by reference into a complaint if the plaintiff refers extensively to 15 the document or the document forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claim.” United States v. 16 Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, Defendant’s requests as to the 17 webpages are GRANTED. 18 B. Violation of Title III of the ADA 19 Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against an individual “on the basis of 20 disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 21 advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person 22 who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 23 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). To prevail on a claim under Title III of the ADA, “a plaintiff must 24 show that: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) the defendant is a 25 private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and 26 (3) the plaintiff was denied public accommodations by the defendant because of his 27 disability.” Ariz. ex rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enters., Inc., 603 F.3d 666, 670 28 (9th Cir. 2010). At issue here is the third element, which “is met if there was a violation 1 of applicable accessibility standards.” Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 816 F. Supp. 2d 831, 2 847 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citing Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 945 3 (9th Cir. 2011)). 4 Defendant argues that the Hotel’s website complies with 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e), 5 also known as the “Reservations Rule,” which requires hotel operators, in part, to 6 “[i]dentify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms offered 7 through its reservations service in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with 8 disabilities to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her 9 accessibility needs[.]” 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(ii); see generally Def.’s Mot. at 11–22. 10 The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provides, in pertinent part, the following in an 11 appendix to the regulation: 12 The Department recognizes that a reservations system is not intended to be an accessibility survey. However, specific 13 information concerning accessibility features is essential to travelers with disabilities. Because of the wide variations in 14 the level of accessibility that travelers will encounter, the Department cannot specify what information must be included 15 in every instance. For hotels that were built in compliance with the 1991 Standards, it may be sufficient to specify that the 16 hotel is accessible and, for each accessible room, to describe the general type of room (e.g., deluxe executive suite), the size 17 and number of beds (e.g., two queen beds), the type of accessible bathing facility (e.g., roll-in shower), and 18 communications features available in the room (e.g., alarms and visual notification devices). Based on that information, 19 many individuals with disabilities will be comfortable making reservations. 20 . . . 21 [O]nce reservations are made, some hotels may wish to 22 contact the guest to offer additional information and services. Or, many individuals with disabilities may wish to contact the 23 hotel or reservations service for more detailed information. At that point, trained staff (including staff located on-site at the 24 hotel and staff located off-site at a reservations center) should be available to provide additional information such as the 25 specific layout of the room and bathroom, shower design, grab-bar locations, and other amenities available (e.g., bathtub 26 bench). 27 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. A, “Guidance on Revisions to ADA Regulation on 28 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and Commercial 1 Facilities” (“DOJ Guidance”). The DOJ Guidance is “entitled to substantial deference.” 2 Kohler v. Presidio Int’l, Inc., 782 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). 3 Here, the Hotel’s website lists areas of the Hotel that are accessible and have 4 accessible routes from the public entrance, including the public entrance, guest rooms, 5 elevators, public restrooms, registration desk, exercise facility, business center, pool, 6 and one meeting room. Ex. 8, RJN. The website also states that it provides accessible 7 self-parking, van accessible self-parking, and portable bathtub seats. Id. Furthermore, 8 the website specifies which individual guest rooms are wheelchair accessible, provides 9 photographs of the bathrooms, and lists accessible room features such as “roll in 10 shower,” “permanent shower seating,” “appropriate grab bars,” and “accessible tub.” 11 See Ex. 9, RJN. Lastly, the website provides a telephone number and virtual assistant 12 for customers to contact the Hotel should they have additional questions. Ex. 10, RJN. 13 Although the Ninth Circuit has not addressed the level of detail required by the 14 Reservations Rule, an overwhelming majority of district courts in this circuit have found 15 that compliance with the Reservations Rule and DOJ Guidance is satisfied if a hotel’s 16 website provides similar information to what the Hotel’s website provides here. See, 17 e.g., Arroyo v. Huskies Owner LLC, Case No. 21-cv-01016-JCS, 2021 WL 2711736, 18 at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2021); Love v. Ashford S.F. II LP, Case No. 20-cv-08458-EMC, 19 2021 WL 1428372, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2021) (collecting cases). 20 [T]he Reservations Rule was not intended to be an accessibility survey, and Plaintiffs cite no binding authority that 21 additional information is required, let alone the specific dimensions that Plaintiffs would require. Indeed, the [DOJ] 22 Guidance would appear to refute such a requirement, as the DOJ only suggests providing measurements for non- 23 accessible features in older hotels with limited accessibility features. Rather, the purpose of the Reservations Rule is to 24 provide guests with sufficient information to determine whether a hotel is accessible. Defendants have done so by stating that 25 the rooms are accessible, and listing the features that are accessible. . . . “[T]he term ‘accessible’ is specifically defined 26 in the [ADA Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG”)] to describe ‘a site, building, facility, or portion thereof that complies with 27 these guidelines.’” [Garcia v.] Chamber Maid L.P., [Case No. CV 20-11699 PA (PDx), 2021 WL 3557832, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 28 Mar. 15, 2021)] (quoting 1991 ADAAG § 3.5); see also 1 Garcia v. E.L. Heritage Inn of Sacramento, LLC, Case No. 20- cv-2191-JAM-AC, 2021 WL 1253346, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2 2021). Thus, describing the room and features as “accessible” adequately informs guests of the room’s and features’ 3 compliance with the ADAAG. See id. 4 Arroyo v. SC Landmark Hotels, LLC, Case Nos. 21-cv-00119-KAW, 21-cv-00338-KAW, 5 21-cv-00431-KAW, 2021 WL 4145969, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (emphasis in 6 original); see also Arroyo v. RSTP Investments, LLP, Case No. 21-cv-00435-SVK, 2021 7 WL 4459755, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2021) (“Numerous courts have concluded that the 8 Reservations Rule is not intended to be an accessibility survey and that it does not 9 require a hotel to include all potentially relevant accessibility information on its website.”). 10 “[A] website need not list its compliance or non-compliance with every ADAAG provision 11 to satisfy 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(ii).” Strojnik v. Orangewood LLC, Case 12 No. CV 19-00946 DSF (JCx), 2020 WL 11192872, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2020); see 13 also Rutherford v. Evans Hotels, LLC, Case No. 18-CV-435 JLS, 2020 WL 5257868, 14 at *17 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2020) (“[J]ust because [Plaintiff] would like additional detail 15 does not mean that he is entitled to it under Section 36.302(e)(1)(ii).”). Finally, “a 16 website need not include all potentially relevant accessibility information where an 17 inquiring patron can simply call the hotel for more information.” Garcia v. Gateway Hotel 18 L.P., Case No. CV 20-10752 PA (GJSx), 2021 WL 936176, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 19 2021). 20 In light of the above, the Court adopts the reasoning of the majority of district 21 courts in this circuit and finds that “the description and level of detail provided on 22 Defendant’s website are sufficient to comply with the ADA.” E.L. Heritage Inn, 2021 23 WL 1253346, at *2. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ADA cause of action is DISMISSED with 24 leave to amend.4 25 /// 26 /// 27 4 The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim and thus, 28 the Unruh Act cause of action is DISMISSED. 1 CONCLUSION 2 3 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, is 4 | GRANTED with leave to amend. Not later than twenty (20) days following the date this 5 | Memorandum and Order is electronically filed, Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file an G6 || amended complaint. If no amended complaint is timely filed, the causes of action 7 | dismissed by virtue of this Memorandum and Order will be deemed dismissed with 8 || prejudice upon no further notice to the parties. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: January 27, 2022 ly J 11 Mh fee ( AOA, LSS ON Sco □□ Nat 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28