Love v. KSSF Enterprises LTD

Background

Samuel Love is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility. In October 2020, he visited the W Hotel’s website while planning a trip to San Francisco. He alleged that the reservation website did not provide enough information for him to determine whether the hotel and its rooms were accessible to him.

Love asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination by places of public accommodation, and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The defendants—the W Hotel and its owner, KSSF—moved to dismiss, arguing that their website exceeded the information required by the applicable federal regulation.

Website Information

The website listed numerous accessible features, including 32-inch guest-room doorways, accessible routes, lowered locks and handles, grab bars, bathtub seats, roll-in showers, adjustable shower wands, accessible vanities, wheelchair-height toilet seats, lowered viewports, hearing-accessible rooms or kits, and captioned televisions. It also allowed users to search for rooms and identify features such as mobility accessibility, roll-in showers or tubs, and hearing-related features. The website included photographs of typical accessible bathtubs and roll-in showers and provided a telephone number for obtaining more information about physical features and disability-related services.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A complaint must contain enough factual allegations to state a claim that is plausible, rather than merely possible.

The court focused on 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e), which requires a public accommodation’s reservation system to allow people with disabilities to make reservations in the same manner as others and to identify and describe accessible features in enough detail to let them independently assess whether a hotel or room meets their needs.

The court followed several other courts’ decisions concerning similar hotel websites, including a prior related proceeding involving Love. It found that the W Hotel’s website provided disclosures comparable to those previously held sufficient under the regulation. The court also relied on guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice stating that a reservation system is not intended to be a complete accessibility survey and that some detailed information may be provided after a reservation is made or by telephone.

Love argued that the website also had to provide more specific information about door clearances, maneuvering space beside beds, toilet and sink dimensions, grab-bar locations, and shower and tub features. The court rejected that argument, concluding that the regulation did not require a website to include every potentially relevant accessibility detail. It held that the website complied with the regulation and that Love had not plausibly pleaded an ADA claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the ADA claim with prejudice, stating that the deficiencies could not be cured by alleging additional facts. Because the federal claim was dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—a court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the Unruh Act claim. The order disposed of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 21.