Love v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc.

Background

Samuel Love, who is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair, alleged that Marriott’s online reservation system did not describe accessible hotel and guest-room features in enough detail for him to independently determine whether a room would meet his needs. He alleged that he wanted to stay at the San Francisco Marriott Marquis and was deterred from doing so because of the information available through the reservation system.

Love asserted a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), relying on a regulation requiring lodging providers to identify and describe accessible features in enough detail to let people with disabilities assess whether a room meets their needs. He also asserted a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which treats an ADA violation as an Unruh Act violation. He sought an injunction, damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Motion and judicial notice

Marriott moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Marriott argued that its reservation website complied with the ADA. The court granted Marriott’s requests to take judicial notice of the materials it submitted, including website pages, government building-permit records, court documents, and a consent decree. The court found the materials were not subject to reasonable dispute; it also found that the list of Love’s other cases was not relevant to the issues presented.

Court’s analysis

The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion, except for conclusory statements. It noted that Love could seek injunctive relief even though he had not actually visited the hotel.

The court concluded that Love’s own complaint and the website materials showed that Marriott provided accessibility information exceeding the level of detail described in Department of Justice guidance. The materials identified features including 32-inch-wide doorways, accessible routes, bathroom and bathtub grab bars, a bathtub seat, lowered locks and door guards, lowered electrical outlets, a roll-in shower, an adjustable shower wand, a wheelchair-height toilet seat, accessible vanities, and lowered viewports. The website also described accessible routes and other accessible hotel features.

The court explained that the federal guidance states that a reservation system is not intended to be a complete accessibility survey. It found that the specific details Love sought—such as room layout, bathroom configuration, grab-bar locations, and other amenities—did not all have to appear on the reservation website and could be provided after a reservation or through further contact with the hotel. The court also relied on decisions finding that hotel websites need not list every potentially relevant accessibility detail.

Disposition

The court found that Love failed to state a claim under the ADA and that the ADA cause of action must be dismissed. Because the court determined that the pleading could not be cured by alleging additional facts, it granted Marriott’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

After dismissing the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Love’s remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The conclusion states: “The Court GRANTS Marriott’s motion to dismiss” and that dismissal was “WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.”