Jordan v. Kimpton Hotel & Rest. Grp., LLC

• Docket Number: A23A0212
• Decision Date: 28 June 2023
• Citation: Jordan v. Kimpton Hotel & Rest. Grp., LLC, 368 Ga.App. 750, 890 S.E.2d 417 (Ga. App. 2023)
• Parties: JORDAN v. KIMPTON HOTEL AND RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

368 Ga.App. 750

890 S.E.2d 417

JORDAN v. KIMPTON HOTEL AND RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC et al.

A23A0212

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

June 28, 2023

Michael Devlin Cooper, Kenneth E. Barton III, Macon, for Appellant.

James Russell Doyle II, Andrew Wood Eaton, Cali Ariel Kerr, Atlanta, for Appellee.

McFadden, Presiding Judge.

After he was forcibly evicted from a hotel room on April 26, 2018, Darren Jordan brought this contract and tort action against Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group, LLC and Six Continents Hotels, Inc., collectively doing business as The Kimpton Brice Savannah (hereinafter, "Kimpton") and operating as part of the IHG group of hotels. The trial court granted summary judgment to Kimpton on all of Jordan's claims, and Jordan appeals.

Jordan bases his various claims on his assertion that he had a right to be in the hotel room at the time of his eviction, either because his reservation extended until April 27 or because he was entitled to a late check-out time on April 26 under the terms of an IHG hotel customer loyalty program. As detailed below, we find that Jordan's reservation ended on April 26 pursuant to the unambiguous terms of his written reservation agreement with Kimpton, which controls over any prior oral agreement to the contrary. But we find that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Jordan's membership in the loyalty program permitted him to remain in the hotel room past the 11 a.m. check-out time set forth in that agreement. So to the extent Jordan's contract claim asserts a breach of the terms of the loyalty program, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on that claim.

Given our conclusion that there is evidence that Jordan was entitled to occupy the room at the time of his eviction, we also reverse the grant of summary judgment on his claims for a violation of OCGA § 43-21-3.1 ; invasion of privacy; and false imprisonment. As to each of these claims, Kimpton's argument for summary judgment presumes that Jordan was not entitled to occupy the room. We also reverse the grant of summary judgment on Jordan's claim for punitive damages, which is derivative of these substantive claims.

But we affirm the grant of summary judgment on Jordan's claims for assault and battery based on the allegedly tortious actions of law enforcement officers who responded to a call from the hotel. He has not pointed to evidence that would support the imposition of vicarious liability upon Kimpton for the officers’ actions.

We also affirm the grant of summary judgment on Jordan's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, because he has not pointed to evidence showing that he experienced the type of distress required for such a claim. And we affirm the grant of summary judgment on Jordan's negligence claim, which he seeks to reverse solely on the ground that it was "wrong for any reason."

Finally, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Kimpton on Jordan's claim for promissory estoppel because Jordan has abandoned that claim on appeal, having made no argument and cited no authority in support of it.

1. Facts and procedural history.

A trial court may grant summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). We review the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo, and we must view the evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

Courtland Hotel v. Salzer , 330 Ga. App. 264, 767 S.E.2d 750 (2014).

Much of the evidence in this case comes from Jordan's deposition testimony and his verified complaint. See Shadder v. Holland , 350 Ga. App. 191, 191 & n. 1, 828 S.E.2d 418 (2019) (a plaintiff may point to allegations in a verified complaint to oppose summary judgment where the verification is made on the plaintiff's personal knowledge). To the extent Jordan's testimony and verified allegations conflict, we construe them according to the rule in Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc. , 256 Ga. 27, 343 S.E.2d 680 (1986), under which a party's self-contradictory testimony is construed against him.

So viewed, the evidence shows that on or around April 16, 2018, Jordan booked the hotel room over the telephone. He told the reservation agent that he wanted to stay at the hotel from April 20 through April 27, and the agent informed Jordan that he had made a reservation for that period. But the written confirmation of Jordan's reservation that was sent by email to Jordan (hereinafter, the "reservation agreement") did not cover a stay through April 27. Instead, it stated that Jordan would check out of the hotel one day earlier, on April 26, 2018 at 11 a.m. It also stated that "[o]nly the reservation as entered into and confirmed by our system will be honored."

When Jordan checked into the hotel on April 20, the front desk employee informed him that his reservation was only through April 26. When Jordan replied that this was a mistake and that he intended to stay until April 27, the front desk employee stated that it would not be a problem to extend the reservation and that he would fix it. From this conversation, Jordan assumed that his reservation had been extended until April 27.

But later during his stay at the hotel, other hotel personnel, including the assistant manager, informed Jordan that his reservation ended on April 26 and that he must check out on that day. Jordan attempted several times to resolve this issue both with hotel personnel and the IHG customer support line, without success. In fact, a customer support representative told Jordan that she could have fixed his reservation problem but was not going to do so because he had been rude to her.

Late in the evening of April 25, a front desk employee again told Jordan that he was scheduled to check out of the hotel the following day. She refused to extend his reservation. Jordan replied that he would not be checking out on that day.

Around 11 a.m. on April 26, the hotel's assistant manager knocked on Jordan's door and told Jordan that he must check out that morning. Jordan replied through the door that he would not check out. Understanding that there were rooms available that evening, Jordan told the assistant manager through the door to charge another night's stay to the credit card he had on file. At some point during this exchange, the assistant manager threatened to call the police. Jordan then called the IHG customer support line to inform them that the hotel was threatening to call the police to remove him from his room, even though he was a person with elite status in the customer loyalty program.

Shortly after noon, as Jordan was on the phone with the customer support line, law enforcement officers arrived at his room, along with the assistant manager and other hotel personnel. The officers pounded on his door, demanded that he let them in, then surrounded him as hotel employees blocked the doorway. The officers and hotel employees told Jordan that he must leave the room, but Jordan refused. Jordan informed them of his status as an elite member of the customer loyalty program, which permitted a later check-out time.

After Jordan refused to leave, the law enforcement officers grabbed him, twisted his body around, slammed him into the wall, and handcuffed him, injuring Jordan's elbow, wrist, and ankle in the process. The officers also screamed at him, using a derogatory slur referring to his sexual orientation. Hotel personnel who witnessed this event mocked and laughed at Jordan, also using the slur. They began throwing Jordan's clothing and other belongings into his luggage, making fun of those items as they did so.

Jordan, who was wearing pyjamas at the time, asked if he could change clothes before leaving the room. The law enforcement officers refused to allow him to change outside of their presence, even though he informed them that he was not wearing underwear beneath his pyjamas. Consequently, Jordan felt compelled to strip nude in front of the officers and the hotel personnel, who continued to taunt and mock him. Jordan felt humiliated and scared by this overall experience.

After leaving the hotel, Jordan sought immediate medical care for his physical injuries. He also experienced psychological distress, such as increased anxiety, that persisted in the months following the incident.

Jordan brought this lawsuit, in which he asserted claims for breach of written and oral contracts, promissory estoppel, violation of OCGA § 43-21-3.1, invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. He also sought punitive damages and costs of litigation. The trial court granted summary judgment to Kimpton on all of Jordan's claims, and Jordan appeals.

2. Breach of contract.

Jordan argues that there is evidence that he had a contractual right to be in the room when Kimpton evicted him. In his appellate brief, he argues that there is "evidence reflecting that the parties had actually agreed to a reservation that should have continued for one additional day[,]" through April 27, 2018. Alternatively, he argues that he was entitled to a later check-out time on April 26 under the terms of Kimpton's customer loyalty program. While we are not persuaded by the first argument, we find that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the second argument.

(a) Under the written reservation agreement, Jordan's reservation ended on April 26.

Although Jordan argues that his hotel reservation ran through April 27, the plain language of his reservation agreement with Kimpton stated otherwise. Among other things, that agreement established that Jordan's hotel reservation ended on April 26. It also expressly stated that Kimpton would honor Jordan's reservation only "as entered into and confirmed by [its] system[.]" Under the parol evidence rule, Jordan may not point to evidence of his...