Brooke v. Hyatt Corporation

Background

Theresa Brooke alleged that she uses a wheelchair and has only one leg. She said she reviewed Hyatt’s website while planning a California trip and was deterred from booking a suite at the Hyatt Regency San Francisco because, according to her allegations, Hyatt’s suites were not accessible. She identified alleged barriers including narrow doorways, insufficient room for wheelchair movement, and inaccessible toilets and showers.

Brooke asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including provisions concerning equal enjoyment of places of public accommodation and accessible hotel-room choices. She also asserted a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Hyatt moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, asked the court to declare Brooke a vexatious litigant and impose filing restrictions, and requested a $100,000 bond for attorney’s fees and costs. Brooke moved for $3,000 in sanctions against Hyatt’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

ADA Claim

The court held that Brooke adequately alleged standing and a plausible ADA claim. For standing, the court found that she sufficiently alleged an injury in fact and an intent to return. Brooke alleged that she knew about the accessibility barriers from reviewing Hyatt’s website, and the court explained that a plaintiff need not personally encounter a physical barrier if she has actual knowledge of an illegal barrier at a place she wants to access.

The court also found Brooke’s allegations about unequal room choices sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The applicable accessibility standards require hotels offering different classes of rooms to provide accessible rooms with choices of room types, beds, and amenities comparable to those offered to other guests. Brooke alleged that Hyatt offered accessible standard rooms but no accessible suites, and that she was deterred from staying at the hotel until the room-choice problem was corrected.

The court further found that Brooke adequately connected the alleged barriers to her disability. She alleged that she could not enter or move around in the suites or use their toilets and showers because she required a wheelchair. The court also accepted, for purposes of the motion, her allegations that she frequently traveled to the Bay Area and would visit the hotel if Hyatt corrected the barriers. The court therefore denied Hyatt’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim.

Unruh Act Claim

The court granted Hyatt’s motion to dismiss Brooke’s Unruh Act claim without leave to amend. California’s law applies to persons “within the jurisdiction of this state,” which the court interpreted to mean persons within California. Because Brooke did not allege that she was in California when she viewed the reservation website, and because she had already had three opportunities to plead the claim, the court found the claim implausible and did not allow another amendment.

Vexatious-Litigant Request and Bond

The court denied Hyatt’s request to declare Brooke a vexatious litigant and impose a pre-filing order. It found that the record before it was insufficient to support that relief, noting that the relevant prior cases had not been resolved on their merits and had not resulted in findings of frivolousness or harassment.

The court also denied Hyatt’s request for a $100,000 security bond. Although Brooke was an Arizona resident, Hyatt still had to show a reasonable possibility that it would prevail and that Brooke’s ADA claim was frivolous. The court was not prepared to make either finding at that stage.

Sanctions Motion

The court denied Brooke’s motion for sanctions. Brooke argued that Hyatt’s counsel had made false statements about the jurisdictions where she had filed lawsuits and had pursued unsupported vexatious-litigant motions. Hyatt’s counsel attributed the jurisdiction list to a clerical error. The court found no indication of bad faith or recklessness and concluded that the alleged conduct was not sanctionable under Section 1927.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Hyatt’s motion to dismiss and declare Brooke a vexatious litigant. Specifically, it granted the motion as to Brooke’s Unruh Act claim without leave to amend and denied it in all other respects. The court denied Brooke’s motion for sanctions. The parties were ordered to meet and confer and file a status report about the case schedule by July 7, 2020.