Brooke v. Rihh LP
- Susan Illston
- 3:19-cv-06852
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Theresa Brooke v. RIHH LP, Judge Illston denied RIHH LP’s motion to dismiss Brooke’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
Theresa Brooke’s ADA claim against RIHH LP remains in the case after the court denied RIHH LP’s motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Theresa Brooke v. RIHH LP, Theresa Brooke alleged that RIHH LP offered accessible guests fewer lodging-room choices than other guests, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Her earlier California Unruh Act claim had already been dismissed with prejudice.
RIHH LP argued that Brooke lacked the required constitutional standing and had not adequately alleged an ADA violation. It also argued that the accessible rooms offered equivalent sleeping capacity and amenities. Brooke’s amended complaint identified larger rooms that, she alleged, were unavailable to guests with accessibility needs.
Judge Susan Illston denied RIHH LP’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim. The court accepted Brooke’s allegations at this stage and ruled that they adequately alleged that the available accessible rooms might not meet the ADA’s requirement for comparable facilities. The court declined to resolve factual questions about whether Brooke intended to return, stating that those questions were better addressed later.
The detailed version
- Brooke v. Rihh LP · No. 3:19-cv-06852
- Susan Illston
- Apr. 13, 2020
Background
Theresa Brooke filed an amended complaint asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court had previously dismissed the Unruh Act claim with prejudice, leaving only the ADA claim.
Brooke alleged that RIHH LP made only the “Studio King Suite” and “Studio Double Suite” available to guests with accessibility needs, while larger rooms—the “Penthouse Suite French Doors” and the “Two Bedroom Suite”—were available only to other guests. She claimed this failed the ADA’s requirements that accessible rooms be dispersed among different room classes and offer comparable choices.
Motion and Analysis
RIHH LP moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns whether the court has jurisdiction, including whether a plaintiff has Article III standing. Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint adequately states a legally recognized claim.
RIHH LP argued that Brooke lacked standing because she could not show an intent to return, which the company said was necessary for the injunctive relief available under the ADA. The court denied that part of the motion for the reasons given in an earlier order. It also declined to resolve the intent-to-return issue at this stage, explaining that the issue involved factual questions better considered on a motion for summary judgment.
RIHH LP further argued that it was not required to provide an accessible version of every specific room type and that its accessible rooms had the same sleeping capacity and similar amenities as non-accessible rooms. The court concluded that Brooke’s expanded allegations, taken as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage, adequately alleged that RIHH LP’s accessible rooms did not provide equivalent facilities under the 1991 and 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.
Disposition
The court denied RIHH LP’s motion to dismiss Brooke’s ADA cause of action. Because this was a Rule 12 motion, the order addressed whether Brooke had adequately pleaded her claim and whether the court could hear it; it did not make a final determination about whether RIHH LP violated the ADA.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.