Brooke v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.

Background

Theresa Brooke alleged that she visited SpringHill Suites Napa Valley in July 2020 and encountered an allegedly inaccessible passenger loading zone. She alleged that she could not enter the hotel from that area and therefore did not book a room. She further alleged that the barrier deterred her from visiting the hotel and that she would return if the barrier were removed. Her complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Motion to Dismiss

Airport Boulevard Realty LLC moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The defendant argued that the hotel did not have a legally recognized passenger loading zone and submitted a declaration from an access specialist stating that the hotel’s front area had no design features, signs, or markings identifying one. The defendant also relied on facts concerning when the hotel was built and whether it had been altered, which it argued determined whether the 1991 or 2010 ADA accessibility standards applied.

The court held that these factual disputes were intertwined with the substance of Brooke’s ADA claim and could not be resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments that Brooke had not adequately alleged how her disability affected her access, that she had not alleged a reason to be in the loading zone or an attempt to leave the vehicle, and that she lacked a sufficient intent to return. The court found that the complaint adequately alleged that Brooke would return if the barrier were removed and that the alleged barriers currently deterred her.

Ruling

The court DENIED the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Because it denied dismissal of the ADA claim, the court retained supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear a related state-law claim—over the Unruh Act claim. The court vacated the scheduled hearing and resolved the motion without oral argument.