Archie v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated
- Van Keulen
- 5:25-cv-08429
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Darrell Archie v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Judge Van Keulen denied Holiday Inn’s motion to dismiss, finding the reservation terms ambiguous about whether Archie’s spouse had to attend.
Darrell Archie’s conversion, EFTA, and California elder-abuse claims were allowed to proceed past Holiday Inn’s motion to dismiss; the order did not decide whether Holiday Inn ultimately owed Archie the $806.
What happened
Darrell Archie v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated concerns an $806 charge that Archie says Holiday Inn imposed after he attended a required timeshare presentation during a hotel stay. Archie, who is over 65, sued for conversion, an electronic-funds-transfer violation, and elder abuse under California law.
Holiday Inn argued that the reservation agreement required Archie and his spouse to attend the presentation together. It also argued that it could not be liable under some parts of the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act because it was not a financial institution. The court considered the reservation documents because Archie’s complaint relied on the reservation terms.
Judge Susan Van Keulen denied Holiday Inn’s motion to dismiss. The court found that the documents did not clearly establish whether “you” meant Archie alone or Archie and his spouse, so the issue could not be resolved in Holiday Inn’s favor at this stage. The court also declined to decide the uncontested issue about provisions of the federal law that apply only to financial institutions.
The detailed version
- Archie v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated · No. 5:25-cv-08429
- Van Keulen
- Dec. 1, 2025
Background
Darrell Archie alleged that he made a hotel reservation with Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated, used a promotional package requiring him to attend a timeshare presentation, attended the presentation, and was nevertheless charged an additional $806 after returning from his trip. The opinion describes Archie as a California citizen over age 65. He asserted claims for common-law conversion, a violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and elder abuse under California law.
Holiday Inn removed the case to federal court based in part on federal-question jurisdiction and moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Holiday Inn argued that the reservation agreement required Archie and his spouse to attend the timeshare presentation together. It argued that the charge was therefore authorized by the agreement, defeating the conversion and elder-abuse claims and the EFTA claim. For the EFTA claim, Holiday Inn also argued that it could not be liable under provisions that apply only to financial institutions.
Reservation Documents
The court incorporated the reservation confirmation and the additional terms offered by Holiday Inn into the complaint for purposes of deciding the motion. The confirmation said that, to fulfill the offer, “you” had to attend a one- to two-hour timeshare sales presentation. The additional terms stated that couples, whether married or cohabitating, had to attend together. The opinion states that Archie is married but did not attend with his spouse.
Analysis
The court held that the documents did not unambiguously establish that Archie was required to attend with his spouse. In the confirmation, “you” appeared to mean the purchaser, which could mean Archie alone. The confirmation also did not link to or incorporate the additional terms offered by Holiday Inn. The court said the instruction to review the legal disclaimers could even suggest that the confirmation contained the full extent of Archie’s obligations.
Because the contract language left doubt about the parties’ intent, the court denied the motion to dismiss the conversion, elder-abuse, and EFTA claims on that ground. The court did not resolve the contract’s meaning in Holiday Inn’s favor at the pleading stage.
As to the additional EFTA argument, the parties agreed that Holiday Inn was not a financial institution. They also agreed that Archie had not alleged violations of the EFTA provisions identified by Holiday Inn as applying only to financial institutions, while the provisions Archie expressly alleged—Sections 1693e and 1693m—apply beyond financial institutions. The court therefore declined to decide an issue the parties did not actually dispute.
Disposition
The court DENIED Holiday Inn’s Motion to Dismiss. The order also set an initial case management conference for January 13, 2025.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.