Love v. Ashford San Francisco II LP

Background

Samuel Love’s first amended complaint alleged that he is a paraplegic California resident who uses a wheelchair. He claimed that Ashford San Francisco II LP’s Clancy hotel website did not describe accessible features in enough detail to let people with disabilities independently determine whether a hotel room met their needs.

Love alleged that the website should have provided additional details about routes, bed access, bathroom clearances, mirror height, toilet height, grab bars, shower equipment, and other features. He asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He also described himself as an ADA tester and alleged plans to use the hotel’s website and visit the hotel.

Judicial Notice

Ashford asked the court to recognize additional portions of the hotel’s website, including the room-search system, descriptions of accessible room features, and instructions to call or email the hotel for more information. The court granted the request because the website was referenced in the amended complaint, and Love did not oppose the request.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

Ashford moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly show that the defendant is liable.

ADA Claim

The ADA claim was based entirely on the federal reservations rule, 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(ii). That rule requires hotels to identify and describe accessible features in enough detail to reasonably allow people with disabilities to assess whether a hotel or room meets their accessibility needs.

The court explained that the rule does not specify every detail a hotel must disclose. It relied on the Department of Justice’s 2010 guidance, which states that a reservations system is not intended to be a full accessibility survey. For hotels built in compliance with the 1991 accessibility standards, the guidance says that it may be enough to identify the hotel as accessible and describe the room type, bed size and number, bathing facility, and available communication features.

The court found that Ashford’s website provided that information and more. The website identified the hotel as accessible, described room types and beds, identified roll-in showers, and described visual alarms and notification devices. It also listed other features, including wide doorways, accessible routes, grab bars, a bathtub seat, lowered controls, adjustable shower wands, wheelchair-height toilet seats, and accessible vanities. The website also provided links to the hotel’s phone number and email address for further accessibility questions.

The court concluded that the website exceeded the requirements described in the 2010 guidance. It rejected Love’s argument that all required disclosures had to appear on the specific screen where a customer selected and paid for a room, finding that the reservations service covered the hotel’s website as a whole and that the accessibility information was conspicuously linked from the booking screen. The court therefore granted Ashford’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim.

Unruh Act Claim

Love’s Unruh Act claim was based on his ADA claim. The court stated that because Love had not adequately alleged an ADA violation, he also had not adequately alleged an Unruh Act violation. The court granted Ashford’s motion to dismiss that claim as well.

Disposition

The court granted Ashford’s motion to dismiss in its entirety with prejudice. It found that further amendment would be futile because the undisputed website information satisfied the reservations rule. The court denied Love’s request for leave to amend, directed the clerk to issue judgment, and ordered the case closed.