Love v. International Hotel Associates No. 2 LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SAMUEL LOVE, Case No. 20-cv-08689-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 10 INTERNATIONAL HOTEL ASSOCIATES NO. 2 LLC, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant International Hotel Associates No. 2 LLC’s motion 14 for judgment on the pleadings. See Dkt. No. 16. The Court finds this matter appropriate for 15 disposition without oral argument, and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For 16 the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff Samuel Love filed this case against Defendant, which 19 owns and operates the King George Hotel located at 334 Mason Street, San Francisco, California. 20 Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). 21 Plaintiff, a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility, alleges that he “planned on 22 making a trip in February of 2021 to the San Francisco, California area.” See id. at ¶ 12. Plaintiff 23 states that he chose Defendant’s hotel for its “desirable price and location.” Id. at ¶ 13. Plaintiff 24 alleges that he navigated to the hotel’s website to book an accessible room for his visit. See id. at 25 ¶ 15. He asserts that “the lack of information” on the webpage made it difficult to book a room 26 because “defendant’s reservation system failed to identify and describe the accessible features in 27 the guestroom” such that he was unable to “assess independently whether the particular guestroom 1 not sufficiently detail (1) “whether the desk/table in the room is accessible”; (2) “if the sink and 2 toilet are accessible”; or (3) “if the room has accessible clear floor space.” Id. at ¶ 16. As a result, 3 Plaintiff alleges that he was ultimately deterred from booking a room at the hotel. Id. at ¶ 19. 4 Based on these allegations, Plaintiff brings causes of action for violations of (1) the Americans 5 with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.; and (2) the Unruh Civil 6 Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–53. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), a party may move for judgment on the 9 pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” “Judgment on 10 the pleadings is proper when, taking all allegations in the pleading as true, the moving party is 11 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Stanley v. Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, 12 1133 (9th Cir. 2006). “Rule 12(c) is functionally identical to Rule 12(b)(6) and . . . the same 13 standard of review applies to motions brought under either rule.” Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. 14 Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054, n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). The Court 15 will “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light 16 most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 17 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court generally may not consider materials beyond the pleadings 18 without converting the motion for judgment on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment 19 under Rule 12(d) and Rule 56. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 20 1550 (9th Cir. 1989). Whether to grant a motion under Rule 12(d) is left to the discretion of the 21 Court. See Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1289 (9th Cir. 1977); Adobe 22 Sys. Inc. v. Blue Source Grp., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 3d 945, 968 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 23 In Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, the Ninth Circuit clarified the judicial notice rule and 24 incorporation by reference doctrine. See 899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018). Under Federal Rule of 25 Evidence 201, a court may take judicial notice of a fact “not subject to reasonable dispute because 26 it … can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 27 questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). Accordingly, a court may take “judicial notice of matters of 1 Khoja, 899 F.3d at 999 (citation and quotations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has clarified that if a 2 court takes judicial notice of a document, it must specify what facts it judicially noticed from the 3 document. Id. at 999. Further, “[j]ust because the document itself is susceptible to judicial notice 4 does not mean that every assertion of fact within that document is judicially noticeable for its 5 truth.” Id. As an example, the Ninth Circuit held that for a transcript of a conference call, the 6 court may take judicial notice of the fact that there was a conference call on the specified date, but 7 may not take judicial notice of a fact mentioned in the transcript, because the substance “is subject 8 to varying interpretations, and there is a reasonable dispute as to what the [document] establishes.” 9 Id. at 999–1000. 10 Separately, the incorporation by reference doctrine is a judicially-created doctrine that 11 allows a court to consider certain documents as though they were part of the complaint itself. Id. 12 at 1002. This is to prevent plaintiffs from cherry-picking certain portions of documents that 13 support their claims, while omitting portions that weaken their claims. Id. Incorporation by 14 reference is appropriate “if the plaintiff refers extensively to the document or the document forms 15 the basis of plaintiff’s claim.” Khoja, 899 F.3d at 1002. However, “the mere mention of the 16 existence of a document is insufficient to incorporate the contents” of a document. Id. at 1002. 17 And while a court “may assume [an incorporated document’s] contents are true for purposes of a 18 motion to dismiss … it is improper to assume the truth of an incorporated document if such 19 assumptions only serve to dispute facts stated in a well-pleaded complaint.” Id. 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 A. Judicial Notice 22 As part of its motion, Defendant requests that the court take judicial notice of the following 23 documents: 24 1. A copy of Defendant’s publicly accessible website, at 25 https://www.kinggeorge.com/, Dkt. No. 16-1, Ex. 1. 26 2. Copies of specific webpages from Defendant’s website showing the ADA 27 accessibility information for the hotel, Dkt. No. 16-1, Ex. 2. 1 3. The Consent Decree in U.S. v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., No. 10-cv-1924, ECF No. 5 2 (D.D.C. Nov 29, 2010), Dkt. No. 16-1, Ex. 3. 3 4. A list of 49 cases, 24 in the Northern District of California, brought by Plaintiff or 4 by others represented by the same counsel, Dkt. No 18-1, Exs. 4–13. 5 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court may take judicial notice of a fact “not subject 6 to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose 7 accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). The Court may take judicial 8 notice of court documents already in the public record and documents filed in other courts. Thus, 9 Exhibits 4–13 are proper subjects of judicial notice. 10 Websites and their contents may be proper subjects for judicial notice. See Threshold 11 Enterprises Ltd. v. Pressed Juicery, Inc., 445 F. Supp. 3d 139, 146 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (collecting 12 cases); Wible v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 374 F. Supp. 2d 956, 965 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (recognizing that 13 “websites and their contents may be proper subjects for judicial notice” where party “supplied the 14 court with hard copies of the actual web pages of which they sought to have the court take judicial 15 notice”). 16 Further, under the doctrine of incorporation by reference, the Court may consider 17 documents whose contents are alleged in the complaint, provided the complaint “necessarily 18 relies” on the documents, the document’s authenticity is uncontested, and the document’s 19 relevance is uncontested. See Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 2010); 20 United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Even if a document is not attached to 21 a complaint, it may be incorporated by reference into a complaint if the plaintiff refers extensively 22 to the document or the document forms the basis of the plaintiff's claim.”). “The defendant may 23 offer such a document, and the district court may treat such a document as part of the complaint, 24 and thus may assume that its contents are true for purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 25 12(b)(6).” Ritchie, 342 F.3d at 908. 26 Here, Exhibits 1 and 2 are copies of publicly-accessible web pages, and Plaintiff expressly 27 cites to them in the complaint. See Compl. at ¶¶ 15–19. In his opposition brief, Plaintiff also 1 website and webpages in his brief. See Dkt. No. 17 at 7. Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN 2 PART Defendant’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 1 and 2. The Court does not rely on 3 the Hilton consent decree, Exhibit 3, and DENIES Defendant’s request for judicial notice on this 4 basis. The Court further DENIES Defendant’s request for judicial notice as to the list of cases as 5 an improper evasion of the Court’s page limits. 6 B. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 7 Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s reservation system violates 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e) 8 because the hotel website does not “identif[y] and describe[] accessible features in the hotels and 9 guest rooms in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess 10 independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs.” See 11 Compl. at ¶ 23; see also id. at ¶¶ 17–19. Plaintiff acknowledges that the hotel website does 12 provide some level of relevant detail, including noting which aspects of the hotel are accessible 13 and, specifically for the accessible guestrooms, that there is a roll-in shower with a built-in shower 14 chair and handrails. See id. at ¶ 16. Nevertheless, Plaintiff argues that more detailed information 15 is needed about the clearance space within the guestroom and the specific accessibility features 16 available in the guestroom. Id. at ¶¶ 14, 16–17. In response, Defendant contends that its 17 “[w]ebsite provides significantly more information about the hotel’s accessibility features” than is 18 required under § 36.302(e). See Dkt. No. 16 at 16. 19 Defendant asserts that “[n]ot one case supports the plaintiff’s interpretation of law,” and 20 that its website is sufficient as a matter of law. See Dkt. No. 16 at 6. But Defendant simply 21 ignores the contrary cases that Plaintiff cites in his opposition brief. See, e.g., Arroyo v. RSTP 22 Investments, LLC, 5:21-cv-00435-SVK (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2021); Love v. Cow Hollow Motor Inn 23 Associates, L.P., 20-cv-07525-SK (N.D. February 17, 2021); Whitaker v. Casa Madrona Hotel & 24 Spa, LLC, No. 21-CV-00629-EMC, 2021 WL 1615372, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2021); see also 25 Dkt. No. 17 at 17–18 (collecting cases). 26 As these cases highlight, at this stage Plaintiff need only allege “enough facts to state a 27 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 1 judgment on pleadings). And the Court finds that Plaintiff has done so here. The Court finds that 2 it is plausible that a reasonable jury could find in Plaintiff’s favor because accessibility 3 information on the website appears to be generalized and conclusory and not always easy to 4 locate. For example, the “Accommodations” and “Services” sections on the hotel’s website 5 describe “ADA Compliance Accessibility Features” of the hotel generally, but not of any specific 6 rooms: 7 • Accessible Route To Hotel Entrance And Registration Desk 8 • Accessible Valet Parking 9 • Hearing-Impaired Kits Available 10 • Accessible Corridors 11 • Elevator Landings And Stairwells Are Outfitted With Braille Signage 12 • Public Restrooms Are Accessible 13 • Visual Fire Alarms 14 • Meeting Rooms Are Accessible 15 See Dkt. No. 16-1, Ex. 2. And the website screenshots that Defendant points to only provide a 16 conclusory statement that “ADA Accessible Rooms are available for guests on a ‘First Sell’ 17 basis.” See id. More specific information about the features available in these accessible rooms 18 only appears to be available once a prospective guest begins the booking process. After finding an 19 ADA accessible room that is available to book during the timeframe in which a guest is looking, a 20 prospective guest may find room-specific amenities, including: 21 • Roll in shower with built in shower chair; 22 • Bathroom handrails; 23 • Lowered sight hold on door; and 24 • Portable kit for hearing or visually impaired guests.1 25 The barriers to finding such room-specific information on the website in this case stand in 26 sharp contrast to the detailed information provided by the defendant in Love v. Omni Hotels 27 1 Memt., No. 4:20-cv-07690-HSG (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2021), in which this Court found that the 2 || accessibility information on the hotel’s website was sufficient as a matter of law. In Omni, the 3 || hotel’s “Accessibility” section of the website explained that its ADA accessible guest rooms had 4 || specific features, including “entry that provides 32” of clear width”; “toilet and sink [] no higher 5 than 34” from the floor”; “[l]ower[] light switches, peephole, deadbolt, evacuation instructions and 6 || closet rods in guest rooms”; “[c]losed caption TV”; and “grab bars near toilet.” Jd. Here, 7 although Defendant’s hotel may in fact have some of these features available, a prospective guest 8 can only find this information by starting the booking process. Accord Whitaker, 2021 WL 9 1615372, at *1 (denying motion to dismiss ADA case based on “[t]he conclusory nature and 10 || somewhat disorganized nature of the accessibility information” on the hotel’s website). Thus, 11 drawing all inferences in Plaintiff's favor as the Court must at this stage, it is plausible that a 12 || reasonable jury could find that Defendant’s website is deficient. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 The Court DENIES accordingly Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.” 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: September 30, 2021 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 || 2 The Court informs defense counsel that the dismissive tone of its briefs was neither appreciated 2g || nor helpful to the Court in considering the relevant issues. The number of cases that Plaintiff or his counsel has filed is simply irrelevant to the merits of this case.