Love v. Wildcats Owner LLC

Background

Samuel Love alleged that he is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair. He planned to travel to San Francisco and visited the Argonaut Hotel’s reservation website to book an accessible room. He claimed that the website did not provide enough detail about accessibility features, including doorway width, space beside the bed, sink features, toilet height and grab bars, and the type and features of bathing facilities.

Love sued Wildcats Owner LLC and Wildcats Lessee LLC under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. After Love filed an amended complaint, the defendants moved to dismiss it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim.

Judicial Notice

The defendants asked the court to take judicial notice of hotel-website printouts, a list of cases Love had filed in California federal courts, a Department of Justice consent decree involving a hotel chain, and another court’s order concerning an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The court did not rely on those materials and denied the request as moot.

Reservations Rule

The court considered the Americans with Disabilities Act regulation requiring lodging facilities to describe accessible features in enough detail to reasonably allow people with disabilities to independently assess whether a hotel or room meets their needs. The court referred to this requirement as the “Reservations Rule.”

The court relied on Department of Justice guidance explaining that a reservation system is not intended to be an accessibility survey. The guidance states that information such as the room type, bed size and number, type of bathing facility, and communication features may be enough in some circumstances. It also recognizes that more information may be needed for older facilities with features that do not comply with current standards, or for features that may lawfully be provided in different ways, such as a bathtub or a roll-in shower.

The court rejected both sides’ broad interpretations. It held that a fully up-to-date facility generally need not specifically confirm compliance with features that the current standards require in only one way. An older facility that does not comply with current standards must disclose important noncompliant features. Hotels must also identify important features that can be provided through different acceptable alternatives. The Department of Justice’s list was illustrative, not exhaustive.

Specific Features

The court addressed Love’s proposed categories of information as follows:

- Doors: Love acknowledged that the website provided information about 32-inch doorways. The court therefore considered this issue moot and also concluded that his argument failed on the merits under the court’s interpretation of the Reservations Rule. - Elevators: Love argued that the website should disclose elevator dimensions, but the amended complaint did not allege anything about the hotel’s elevators or its website’s treatment of them. The court declined to consider those allegations. - Bed clearance: The accessibility standards require the specified clear floor space in an accessible sleeping area. Because the court treated that requirement as mandatory rather than an alternative feature, it held that the hotel did not have to separately identify its compliance on the reservation website. Love had not alleged that the hotel failed to comply with the current standards. - Toilets: The court stated that the standards require the toilet seat height and grab bars Love identified. An older facility would have to disclose if it lacked those features, but a facility complying with current standards did not have to affirmatively confirm compliance. - Sinks: Love sought information about knee clearance, plumbing protection, and mirror height. The court stated that these features are required by the current standards and that Love did not allege that the hotel failed to comply. The court found it redundant to require the hotel to disclose compliant features. - Showers: Grab bars and detachable shower wands are required features, so the court held that a newer facility need not separately confirm that it has them; an older noncompliant facility would have to disclose their absence. In any event, the website stated that the hotel’s roll-in showers had hand-held shower sprayers with extensions. Shower seats are not required in all accessible showers, and the court held that the Reservations Rule did not require hotels to list optional amenities. The website also stated that the hotel’s roll-in showers had shower benches.

Disposition

The court concluded that Love had not adequately alleged that the defendants failed to describe the hotel’s accessibility features in enough detail. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because the court determined that additional factual detail about the identified features would not cure the deficiencies, it dismissed the amended complaint without leave to amend.

Judge

The order was issued by Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu on April 5, 2021.