McLaughlin v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 14cv0504 WQH (NLS) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | EARL MCLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff, v. HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; EMBASSY SUITES MANAGEMENT LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; FELCOR/JPM HOTELS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. |
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) filed by Defendants Hilton Worldwide, Inc. ("Hilton"), Embassy Suites Management, LLC ("ESM") and Felcor/JPM Hotels, Inc. ("Felcor").
On March 6, 2014, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint against Defendants Hilton, Felcor and ESM. (ECF No. 1). On April 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against all Defendants. (ECF No. 8).
On July 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 19). On August 27, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 23).
On August 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against Defendants Hilton, Felcor and ESM. (ECF No. 24). On September 15, 2014, Defendants filed the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (ECF No. 26). On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a response. (ECF No. 27). On October 10, 2014, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 30).
Plaintiff suffers from "Friedreich's Ataxia, a genetic-progressive neuromuscular disorder that affects ... coordination, speech, eyesight and hearing...." (ECF No. 24 ¶ 1). "[Plaintiff] is unable to walk and uses a power wheelchair for mobility." Id. Id. ¶ 12. "[Plaintiff] frequently travels to Minnesota to attend board meetings and events at the Minnesota headquarters of the National Ataxia Foundation." Id. Id. ¶ 17.
"Defendant [Felcor] was during all relevant times in this complaint, the owner of the Embassy Suites Bloomington hotel..." Id. ¶ 3. "Defendant [ESM] was during all relevant times in this complaint, the operator of the Embassy Suites Bloomington hotel..." Id. ¶ 4. "Defendant [Hilton] is the owner and operator of the website reservation system" and "handles reservations for Hilton branded and Embassy Suites hotels including the Embassy Suites Bloomington hotel." Id. ¶ 2.
at Embassy Suites Bloomington hotel in Bloomington, Minnesota. Id.¶ 13 Id. "The print at the bottom of the confirmation email noted that the [P]laintiff's room would only be provided 'if available' and that the [P]laintiff's 'preference' for an accessible room was 'subject to hotel availability.'" Id. "Thus, the defendants do not guarantee that the specific accessible room reserved through the reservation service is held for the reserving customer." Id. ¶ 14.
Id. ¶ 15. Id. ¶ 16. "[P]laintiff will continue to be discriminated against by these [D]efendants until they change their policies and practices." Id. ¶ 17.
Plaintiff's second amended complaint seeks injunctive relief for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Id. ¶ 23 Plaintiff also seeks damages for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act. Id. ¶ 25.
"A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may either attack the allegations of the complaint or may be made as a 'speaking motion' attacking the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact." Thornhill Publ's. Co.,Inc. v. Gen. Tel. & Electronics Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). "[W]hen considering a motionto dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) the district court is not restricted to the face of the pleadings, but may review any evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction." McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988). However, this standard "[is] not appropriate for determining jurisdiction in a case ... where issues of jurisdiction and substance are intertwined." Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). "A court may not resolve genuinely disputed facts where the question of jurisdiction is dependent on the resolution of factual issues going to the merits." Id. (citations and quotations omitted). "If the jurisdictional issue and the substantive issues of a cause of action are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on the resolution of the merits, the court must address the case in terms of its merits." Pro Sales, Inc. v. Texaco, U.S.A., 792 F.2d 1394, 1397-98 (9th Cir. 1986).
Federal judicial power extends only to cases and controversies over which a court has subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); Barker-Hatch v. Viejas Grp. Baron Long Capitan Grande Band of Digueno Mission Indians of Viejas Grp. Reservation, 83 F.Supp.2d 1155, 1156 (S.D. Cal. 2000). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for dismissal where there is a "lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter" of the suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A federal court must consider its own subject matter jurisdiction prior to ruling on any other motion. See U.S. v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir. 2003).
Defendants Felcor and ESM contend that Plaintiff's ADA claim is moot because they no longer own or operate the hotel. Defendant Hilton contends that the ADA claim is moot because Hilton already guarantees accessible room reservations and is under acontinuing court order to do so.
Plaintiff contends that his ADA claim against Defendants Felcor and ESM is not moot because the sale of property does not establish mootness. Plaintiff further contends that his ADA claim against Defendant Hilton is not moot because Hilton has not established that its system for reserving and providing accessible rooms complies with the ADA or that future violations will not occur.
"Mootness is a jurisdictional issue ... address[ed] at the threshold." United States v. Strong, 489 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). A case is rendered moot when "the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260, 1274 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979)). The "party asserting mootness bears a 'heavy burden of establishing that there is no effective relief remaining for a court to provide.'" Strong, 489 F.3d at 1059 (citation omitted). "[P]art or all of a case may become moot if (1) 'subsequent events [have] made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior [cannot] reasonably be expected to recur,' and (2) 'interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.'" Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 135 F.3d 1260, 1274 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omittied).
In this case, Defendants Felcor and ESM submit the sworn affidavit of Maxime Verstraete, Vice President, Sustainability and ADA Compliance, at Hilton Worldwide, which states in part that "[e]ffective March 20, 2014, Felcor sold the [Embassy Suites Bloomington hotel] to another entity and ESM ceased to be the Hotel's operator." (ECF No. 26-3, Declaration of Maxime Verstraete at ¶ 2). The Court finds Plaintiff's ADA claim against Defendants Felcor and ESM is moot. A "private plaintiff can sue only for injunctive relief ... under the ADA...." Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added). Plaintiff concedes that "the sale of the property means that [he] cannot obtain injunctive relief against defendants [ESM] or Felcor...." (ECF No. 27 at 7). Under the facts presented, Defendants Felcor and ESMhave carried their "heavy burden of establishing that there is no effective relief remaining for a court to provide." Strong, 489 F.3d at 1059. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's ADA claim against Defendants Felcor and ESM is granted.
With respect to Defendant Hilton, the record shows that a consent decree between Hilton and the U.S. Department of Justice was entered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on November 30, 2010. (ECF No. 26-1,...
To continue reading
Request your trial