Dalton v. Home Away, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:21-CV-1722 AWI HBK |
| Parties | JOHN DALTON and KATHERINE DALTON, Plaintiffs v. HOME AWAY, INC., Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO 12 & 16)
This is a disability discrimination lawsuit that stems from the unsuccessful attempt of Plaintiffs John Katherine Dalton to rent a chalet at a resort owned by Defendant Home Away, Inc. (“HAI”). The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (21 U.S.C § 12101 et seq.) (“ADA”) and various violations of the California Civil Code, the California Health & Safety Code, and the California Government Code. Currently before the Court is Defendants' combined Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs' Rule 15(d) motion to amend. For the reasons that follow, both Defendants' motions and Plaintiffs' motion will be granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND[1]
From the Complaint, John Dalton (“John”) is a physically disabled man who uses a wheelchair due to disease related amputations of his left leg, right leg, and fingers on both hands. Katherine Dalton (“Katherine”) is John's wife. Plaintiffs and their two children enjoy traveling together, and Katherine is adversely affected if public accommodations such as hotels do not have accessible rooms that meet John's needs.
Defendants own and operate the Pines Resorts, a large resort comprised in part of a hotel and 84 two-story duplex Chalets located on Bass Lake. The Pines Resort is known for its appearance in the 1988 movie The Great Outdoors. None of the Chalets are accessible to disabled individuals who use wheelchairs, despite many of them being renovated over the years and despite all of them being constructed after 1970 the year California's access laws went into effect.
In May 2021, Katherine began searching for possible vacation destinations for her family and her sister's family. Plaintiffs and their family love the movie The Great Outdoors and were excited to learn about the Pines Resort. Katherine and her sister reviewed the Pines Resort website and thought that two Chalets (cabins that consist of a bedroom, a separate living room with a pull-out sofa, and the possibility of a fully equipped kitchen) would be perfect. Preferably, Plaintiffs and their family would rent one Chalet and Katherine's sister's family would rent an adjoining chalet. The Pines Resort website did not contain any information regarding accessible Chalets, so Katherine's sister called the resort. During the call Katherine's sister was informed that there were no accessible Chalets at the Pines Resort.
Although disappointed by this news, Katherine returned to the Pines Resort website to see if there might be an option that would work for her family. The Pines Resort website had a tab entitled “Hotel Accessibility.” Katherine opened the tab and noticed that the website said that the hotel was accessible and that the resort was committed to meeting ADA standards. The website indicated that an Accessible Lakefront Spa Suite was available, but the website description said the suite was more suitable for a couple rather than a family of four. Using the website, Katherine e-mailed the Pines Resort twice about the possibility of a wheelchair accessible Chalet. Katherine received no response, and Plaintiffs concluded that there were no accessible Chalets available. Plaintiffs were very disappointed that they were unable to find rooms at the Pines Resort that could house their family of four. Instead of vacationing at the Pines Resort with Katherine's sister's family, Plaintiffs and their children camped for a few days at a nearby campground.
Plaintiffs allege that they want to experience the fun and excitement at the Pines Resort with their children, but cannot go until Defendants provide accessible rooms of all sizes and types pursuant to ADA and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) guidelines. ADA and DOJ guidelines require that accessible rooms be dispersed among the various classes of guest rooms and provide choices of types of guest rooms, number of beds, and other amenities comparable to the choices provided to other guests. The failure of HAI to offer an accessible Chalet violates these guidelines and are a barrier that render the Pines Resort inaccessible to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that they intend to utilize the Pines Resort once this barrier is removed.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)allows for a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1). It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978); K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, 653 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2011). Limits upon federal jurisdiction must not be disregarded or evaded. Owen Equip., 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978); Jones v. Giles, 741 F.2d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1984). “It is presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); K2 Am., 653 F.3d at 1027. Rule 12(b)(1) motions may be either facial, where the inquiry is confined to the allegations in the complaint, or factual, where the court is permitted to look beyond the complaint to extrinsic evidence. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014); Safe Air For Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). When a defendant makes a factual challenge “by presenting affidavits or other evidence properly brought before the court, the party opposing the motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” Safe Air, 373 F.3d at 1039; see Leite, 749 F.3d at 1121. The court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiff's allegations under a factual attack. Wood v. City of San Diego, 678 F.3d 1075, 1083 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011). The plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence each requirement for subject-matter jurisdiction, and as long as the dispute is not intertwined an element of the plaintiff's cause of action, the court may resolve any factual disputes itself. Leite, 749 F.3d at 1121.
HAI argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue relief under the ADA. First, the FAC does not allege an injury in fact. Not only are Plaintiffs incorrect in their assertion that ADA regulations require that a Chalet be accessible, but the allegations do not show that making Chalets accessible is readily achievable. Moreover, as the declaration of the Pines Resort's manager shows, no modifications are necessary because there are fully accessible Lakeside Suites available in the resort's hotel. Second, the FAC does not adequately allege an intent to return to the resort. The FAC contains only an allegation that Plaintiffs expect and intend to return when the barriers are removed, but this simple profession of an intent to return “someday” is not sufficient. There are no allegations that address Plaintiffs' proximity to the resort, any past patronage of the resort, specific plans or dates regarding a possible return, and frequency of travel near the resort. Third, the FAC contains no allegations that adequately demonstrate that Plaintiffs were deterred from returning to the Pines Resort. Instead, there is merely an allegation that HAI's actions continue to deny Plaintiffs' rights which deters them from patronizing the resort. Finally, because the Pines Resort has fully accessible and comparable accommodations at its hotel, Plaintiffs have no injuries to be redressed and cannot obtain injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs argue that they have adequately alleged standing. With respect to an injury in fact, Plaintiffs argue that that they suffered four injuries. First, they were denied the ability to stay in the only accommodation at the resort that afforded them privacy and their preferred accommodations because the Chalets are inaccessible to John. Plaintiffs had actual notice of the inaccessibility of the Chalets, particularly the stairs that John cannot manage and an inaccessible restroom. Second, they were not permitted to rent the Chalet as a matter of admitted policy because the Chalets are made unavailable to rent by people who use wheelchairs. Such a policy is a violation of the ADA. Third, they received no response to their repeated requests to be allowed to rent a Chalet. Unlike other guests who receive responses to inquiries, Plaintiffs were denied that common courtesy because they requested an accommodation. Finally, they were deterred from returning to Defendants' premises until the Chalets are made accessible.
Plaintiffs contend that each of the injuries are directly traceable to actions by HAI. Also, an entire Chalet in 2002 was renovated without making it accessible, even though approximately $22,000 was spent on renovations. Permits indicate that while making the restroom accessible was considered, that did not occur. Further, HAI is responsible for maintaining and following a policy of making the Chalets unavailable to the disabled. Also, as explained by an accessibility expert, HAI has not removed barriers that are readily achievable, such as installing ramping into a Chalet.
With respect to injunctive relief, repeated injury is certain because of HAI's has an admitted exclusionary policy of not allowing disabled persons to rent the Chalets. Further the Chalets are inaccessible to John and will continue to be so as long as the Chalets remain in their current...
To continue reading
Request your trial