Brooke v. IA Lodging Santa Clara LLC

Background

Theresa Brooke alleged that she is legally disabled and uses a wheelchair. She planned to visit the Bay Area and wanted to rent the Hyatt Regency Santa Clara’s Executive Suite, which she alleged had more living space, better views, and more luxurious amenities than standard rooms. She alleged that the hotel’s only accessible rooms were standard rooms and that the lack of comparable accessible rooms deterred her from visiting the hotel.

Brooke asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. IA Lodging Santa Clara LLC moved to dismiss the first amended complaint and asked the court to declare Brooke a vexatious litigant, which would have imposed restrictions on her ability to file future cases. The court had previously denied an earlier motion to dismiss without prejudice after Brooke stated that she intended to amend her complaint.

ADA Claim

The court explained that an ADA plaintiff must show standing, meaning a concrete injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a court ruling could likely remedy. A plaintiff may establish standing by showing an injury and an intent to return, or by showing that an access barrier deterred her from returning. The alleged barrier must also affect the plaintiff because of her particular disability.

The court found that Brooke alleged enough facts to plausibly suggest that the hotel may have failed to provide accessible rooms with choices comparable to those offered to other guests. The court noted that the ADA standards require accessible rooms to be distributed among different room types and to provide comparable choices of room types, beds, and amenities; they do not necessarily require accessible and non-accessible rooms to be identical.

But the court found that Brooke did not explain how the Executive Suite’s alleged lack of accessibility features affected her particular disability. She alleged that the suite had superior space, views, and amenities, but did not identify the accessibility features she required or explain how the suite’s alleged noncompliance denied her full and equal access. The court therefore found that she had not shown an injury in fact or deterrence and granted IA Lodging’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim with leave to amend.

Unruh Act Claim

The Unruh Act claim was based on state law. After dismissing the ADA claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over the related state-law claim, and also granted IA Lodging’s motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claim with leave to amend.

The court observed that the Unruh Act applies to people within California’s jurisdiction. Brooke alleged that she was an Arizona resident and did not allege that she accessed the reservation website in California. The court found that her allegation that she had a San Jose office was not enough to show that she was injured within California’s jurisdiction.

Vexatious-Litigant Request

The court denied IA Lodging’s motion to declare Brooke a vexatious litigant. It explained that a pre-filing restriction is an extreme remedy and requires, among other things, substantive findings that the litigant’s filings were frivolous or harassing. Although Brooke had filed numerous lawsuits in the district, the court stated that some were not frivolous or harassing and that it had not found this lawsuit to be frivolous or harassing. The court also noted that it was allowing amendment because the complaint’s deficiencies could plausibly be cured with additional facts.

Disposition

The court granted IA Lodging’s motion to dismiss Brooke’s ADA claim with leave to amend and granted the motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claim with leave to amend. It denied IA Lodging’s request for an order declaring Brooke a vexatious litigant. If Brooke chose to amend, the court required her to file the amended complaint by July 22, 2020, and stated that she could not add claims or parties without further permission.