Garcia v. DC Properties I, LP ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-00140-JLT-BAK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER REQUESTING JOINT STATUS REPORT 14 DC PROPERTIES 1, LP, a California Limited Partnership, (14-day deadline) 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 On July 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Love v. Marriott Hotel Services, 19 Inc., in which the Court interpreted the statutory and regulatory framework at issue in this case. 20 40 F.4th 1043 (9th Cir. 2022). In particular, the Ninth Circuit held the “Reservations Rule” (28 21 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)) does not require hotels to provide details on their websites regarding 22 accessibility features beyond those described by the DOJ Guidance (28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A). Id. 23 at 1046-47. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint which alleged failure 24 to provide details not outlined in DOJ Guidance—such as the space in inches around the bed, the 25 clearance beneath the sink, and whether grab bars existed near the toilet and shower—violated the 26 Americans with Disabilities Act. Id. at 1045, 1049. The mandate has not yet issued in Love and a 27 petition for rehearing is pending. See Petition for Rehearing, Love v. Marriott Hotel Services, 28 Inc., No. 21-15458 (9th Cir., filed Aug. 26, 2022) (Dkt. No. 47). 1 Garcia claims similar violations under the ADA (e.g., Defendant’s website lacks 2 | information about whether grab bars exist in the bathroom; clearances under the sinks, desks, and 3 | tables; and space in inches surrounded the beds). (Doc. | at 12-13, §f] 19-22.) On April 8, 2021, 4 | DC Properties filed a motion to dismiss arguing, in part, that Garcia’s alleged ADA violations 5 | exceed the requirements of DOJ Guidance. (Doc. 4-1 at 7.) In his response, Garcia explains the 6 | central issue concerns the extent to which hotels must “[i]dentify and describe accessible 7 | features” under the Reservations Rule, which the Ninth Circuit addressed in Love. (Doc. 6 at 9.) 8 | Given the substantial similarity of Garcia’s claims and the parties’ arguments to those in Love, the 9 | Court hereby orders the parties within fourteen days of the date of this order to meet and confer 10 | before filing a joint status report indicating whether they believe this case should be stayed and/or 11 || whether the pending motion (Doc. 4) should be held in abeyance pending a final mandate from 12 | the Ninth Circuit in Love. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: _ August 31, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28