Brooke v. Hyatt Corporation

Background

Theresa Brooke, who uses a wheelchair, alleged that she was deterred from renting a suite at Hyatt Regency San Francisco because Hyatt offered accessible rooms only among its standard rooms. She alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including the ADA standards requiring accessible guest rooms to be distributed among different room types and to offer choices comparable to those available to other guests. She also brought a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Hyatt moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, including standing. Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Hyatt argued that Brooke had not alleged a concrete injury, a genuine intent to return, actual accessibility barriers, or facts showing how any barrier affected her disability. Hyatt also asked the court to declare Brooke a vexatious litigant and impose a pre-filing restriction requiring her to obtain permission before bringing future ADA claims in California courts.

ADA Claim

The court held that Brooke’s allegations about the lack of accessible suites sufficiently described a possible ADA claim based on unequal room choices. The court explained that the ADA standards do not necessarily require a hotel to offer identical room types to disabled and nondisabled guests, but they do require accessible rooms to be distributed among room classes and to provide comparable choices of room types, beds, and amenities.

However, the court found that Brooke did not allege enough facts about the specific accessibility barriers at the hotel or how those barriers affected her particular disability. Her allegations referred generally to features such as roll-in showers, furniture spacing, and grab bars, but did not identify an actual barrier that she knew about or explain how it interfered with her full and equal use of the hotel. The court therefore found that she had not established standing or stated an ADA claim and dismissed the ADA claim with leave to amend.

Unruh Act Claim

The court’s jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim was supplemental, meaning it depended on the presence of a federal claim within the court’s original jurisdiction. After dismissing the ADA claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim. It dismissed that claim without prejudice to Brooke filing it in state court or realleging it in this case if she amended her ADA claim.

Vexatious-Litigant Request

The court denied Hyatt’s request to declare Brooke a vexatious litigant. Although Hyatt stated that Brooke had filed more than 800 ADA lawsuits in California federal courts, the court found the existing record insufficient. The court noted that the prior cases it reviewed had not been resolved on their merits with findings that Brooke’s litigation was frivolous or harassing. Because this case was being dismissed with leave to amend, the court also found it premature to decide whether the action was frivolous or harassing.

Disposition

The court stated that Hyatt’s motion was granted in part and denied in part. To the extent Hyatt sought dismissal of the complaint, the motion was granted, and the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend by June 3, 2020. To the extent Hyatt sought an order declaring Brooke a vexatious litigant, the motion was denied.