Brooke v. Woodside Hotel Group LTD

Background

Theresa Brooke alleged that she is disabled and uses a wheelchair for mobility. According to the complaint, she visited the Monterey Plaza Hotel & Spa in 2020 and observed that both of the hotel’s passenger-loading zones lacked an access aisle. An access aisle is a designated space for maneuvering a wheelchair or other mobility device when entering or leaving a vehicle. Brooke alleged that the missing access aisle prevented her from entering the lobby, caused her not to book a room, and would be willing to return if the hotel complied with the applicable requirements.

Woodside Hotel Group LTD filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and sought judicial notice of records from the federal court filing system concerning Brooke’s prior lawsuits. Woodside also submitted a declaration from an accessibility expert concerning the hotel’s age and physical features. Brooke opposed the motion and asked the court to take notice of a November 2020 order by another district judge.

Conversion to Summary Judgment

The court explained that a motion under Rule 12 generally tests whether the complaint adequately states a claim, while a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction disputes facts that would otherwise establish federal jurisdiction. The court determined that Woodside’s expert declaration was being offered to show that Brooke was not injured and that the hotel fully complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The declaration therefore sought to resolve factual issues at the outset of the case.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), when a court considers material outside the pleadings that it does not exclude, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. The parties must then receive a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and conduct discovery relevant to the motion. The court held that Woodside’s expert declaration was not appropriate for judicial notice or consideration under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine. It therefore converted the motion into a motion for summary judgment and concluded that the motion could not be decided on the incomplete record.

Judicial Notice and Discovery

The court granted the requests for judicial notice concerning the records from the federal court filing system and the November 2020 order submitted by Brooke, stating that the documents were not subject to reasonable dispute. The court did not treat the expert declaration as subject to judicial notice.

The court allowed Brooke to depose the declarant and take other discovery reasonably necessary to respond to the summary-judgment motion. Woodside could conduct discovery on the issues raised, including deposing Brooke. At this stage, however, the court barred questioning about whether Brooke’s prior accusations of access violations were true or false and about settlement strategies in those matters.

Deadlines and Disposition

The parties were given 91 days from the order to complete discovery and submit supplemental materials explaining the new evidence. Those materials, and any cross-motion for summary judgment by Brooke, were due February 16, 2021, at noon. The parties’ opposition and reply deadlines followed in March, and the court set a hearing for April 22, 2021. Judge William Alsup vacated the hearing previously scheduled for November 19, 2020. This order converted the motion, allowed discovery, granted judicial notice of the specified documents, and did not decide the ultimate merits of Brooke’s claims.