Brooke v. Patel
| Decision Date | 24 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:20-cv-0101 JLT SKO |
| Parties | THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, v. JAVANTILAL M. PATEL, an individual dba Home2 Suits by Hilton Hanford Lemoore; and ANAND HOSPITALITY LLC, an unorganized entity dba Home2 Suites by Hilton Hanford Lemoore, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
(DOCS. 66, 67)
Teresa Brooke asserts the Home2 Suites by Hilton Hanford Lemoore violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law by not having accessible features-such as the concierge desk and loading zone-and misrepresenting the accessibility on the hotel website. (See generally Doc. 25.) Defendants seek dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing Plaintiff lacked standing when she initiated this action and she fails to state a cognizable claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 30.)
The Court finds the matter is suitable for decision without oral arguments, and no hearing will be set pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED.
Theresa Brooke is “legally disabled, confined to a wheelchair and is therefore a member of a protected class under the ADA.” (Doc. 25 at 1, ¶ 1.) She reports she resides in Arizona and has an office in San Jose, California “for ADA-related business.” (Id.) Brooke is a “serial tester, both for checking ADA compliance and to confirm whether past ADA violators abide by settlement promises to provide remediation.” (Id. at 3, ¶ 10.) She asserts that she is an “avid traveler[] to California” and visited the state “countless times over the past few years for purposes of checking ADA compliance, leisure travel, and court-related conferences.” (Id., ¶ 8.)
On an unidentified date, Brooke visited the website for Home2 Suites by Hilton Hanford Lemoore, which she assets is owned and operated by defendants Javanital M. Patel and Anand Hospitality LLC. (Doc. 25 at 2-3, ¶¶ 2, 13; see also Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 9.) Brooke alleges she visited the website for the Home2 Suites, which was “an internet homepage that operates as the online reservation system for the hotel … and which describes the hotel in detail, including accessible and inaccessible amenities.” (Id. at 2, ¶ 4.) She reports the purpose of visiting the website was “to check compliance with ADA laws and to ensure that she would have access to all of the hotel as able-bodied persons do.” (Id. at 3, ¶ 13; see also Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 9.)
According to Brooke, the website indicates a “concierge desk at the hotel is not accessible to persons in a wheelchair, which is something to which Plaintiff seeks access when visiting a hotel.” (Doc. 25 at 3, ¶ 13; see also Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 9.) Brooke reports she was “[d]eterred due to the lack of full and equal access of the hotel” and would “not visit the hotel until all of its hotel is accessible to her and other persons in a wheelchair.” (Doc. 1 at 3, ¶ 9.)
On January 20, 2020, Brooke initiated this action by filing a complaint for violations of the ADA and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act against Javantilal Patel. (Doc. 1.) At that time, Brooke asserted she had “actual knowledge of the barrier at Defendant's hotel, and she is deterred from visiting Defendant's hotel.” (Id. at 3, ¶ 10.) She alleged: “It is not possible for Plaintiff to re-encounter the injury at bar because she is deterred; it would be futile for her to re-encounter the injury because she already knows there is discrimination that does not allow her visit.” (Id., ¶ 11.) Brooke stated she would “visit the hotel and check for compliance” if the barrier was remediated “and Defendant does not require a ‘No-Visit' clause as a condition precedent to offering the remediation.” (Id.) However, Brooke also indicated she would “amend her complaint to allege and all additional barriers discovered, ” if any were identified “though an inspection of the hotel property pursuant to Rule 34.” (Id. at 4, ¶ 16.)
On February 11, 2020, Defendant Javantilal Patel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 5.) Patel argued the facts alleged were insufficient for Brooke to establish standing and the barrier Brooke identified-namely, the concierge counter- “simply do[es] not exist at the hotel.” (Doc. 5-1 at 7; see also Id. at 8-9.) In addition, Patel asserted he “does not own [the] hotel property in question.” (Id. at 9.) The same date, Brooke filed an amended complaint, which she indicated was to “remedy several false statements by Defendant arising from … [the] Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. 6 at 1.) For the first time, Brooke identified Anand Hospitality LLC as a defendant in the action, and added a cause of action for misrepresentation related to the accessibility of the concierge counter. (See id.) Based upon the filing of the First Amended Complaint, the motion to dismiss was denied as moot. (Doc. 11.)
Defendants Patel and Anand Hospitality LLC filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on February 25, 2020. (Doc. 12.) After the motion was fully briefed, Brooke filed a motion to amend her complaint.[1] (Doc. 17; see also Id. at 5.) The Court granted the motion (Doc. 24), and Brooke filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on July 30, 2020. (Doc. 25.)
In the SAC, Brooke identifies the following causes of action against Defendants Patel and Anand Hospitality: (1) discrimination in violation of Title III of the ADA, 28 C.F.R. 36.302(e); (2) discrimination in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51, 52; (3) intentional misrepresentation; and (4) failure to provide “a disability access aisle” in violation of Title III; and (5) a correlating claim for access under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. (See Doc. 25 at 8-13.) Brooke seeks a declaratory judgment that when the action was filed “Defendant was in violation of the specific requirements of Unruh” and “a permanent injunction … which directs Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring its passenger loading zone into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that the passenger loading zone is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, disabled individuals.” (Id. at 14.)
Defendants filed the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of standing on August 20, 2020.[2] (Doc. 30.) Brooke filed her opposition to the motion on September 17, 2020[3] (Doc. 33), to which Defendants replied on September 24, 2020. (Doc. 34).
Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in places of public accommodation, and provides: “No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). The ADA requires business facilities be “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, ” unless it would be “structurally impracticable.” 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(1); Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit observed, “In general, a facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities if it meets the requirements promulgated by the Attorney General in the ‘ADA Accessibility Guidelines,' or the ‘ADAAG.'” Oliver, 654 F.3d at 905. These standards are codified at 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, Appendix A, and are “essentially an encyclopedia of design standards.” See id.
For purposes of Title III, discrimination also includes “a failure to remove architectural barriers … in existing facilities … where such removal is readily achievable.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). Thus, the Ninth Circuit found:
To prevail on a Title III discrimination claim, the plaintiff must show that (1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) the defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) the plaintiff was denied public accommodations by the defendant because of her disability.
Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007). A plaintiff need not show intentional discrimination to establish an ADA violation. Lentini v. California Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837, 846 (9th Cir. 2004).
The district court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and is empowered only to hear disputes “authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). The federal courts are “presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case, unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” A-Z Int'l. v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, a plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-83 (1936)); Vacek v. United States Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006).
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may challenge a claim for relief for lack of subject matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial