Love v. CCMH Fisherman's Wharf LLC

Background

Samuel Love alleged that CCMH Fisherman’s Wharf LLC operates the San Francisco Marriott Fisherman’s Wharf Hotel and that its reservation website did not adequately identify and describe accessible features. Love alleged that he has cerebral palsy, uses mobility devices, and needs detailed information about hotel rooms to travel independently and safely. He claimed that the website often used only the label “accessible,” while omitting information about features such as shower and toilet grab bars, bed and desk measurements, and restroom dimensions. He alleged that the missing information prevented him from booking a room and that he planned to use the website in the future.

Love asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought injunctive relief and attorney’s fees under both laws and damages under the Unruh Act. CCMH moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Love lacked standing and that he failed to state a claim.

Standing

The court rejected CCMH’s standing argument. It concluded that Love alleged a concrete injury because he claimed he was prevented from making a hotel booking in the same manner as people without disabilities. The court also found a sufficient connection between that injury and the website’s alleged lack of information, and determined that a favorable decision could remedy the injury.

ADA Claim

The ADA’s hotel-reservation rule requires lodging businesses to identify and 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 noted that the rule does not provide a specific list of information required in every case. It therefore considered guidance from the Department of Justice stating that, for hotels built in compliance with the applicable accessibility standards, it may be sufficient to identify the hotel and room as accessible and provide the general room type, bed size and number, bathing-facility type, and available communications features. The guidance also recognizes that reservation systems are not intended to be complete accessibility surveys and that guests may contact hotel staff for more detailed information.

The court held that CCMH’s website provided information of the type described in the guidance. It identified accessible rooms and common spaces, gave room types and bed information, identified roll-in showers or bathtubs, listed communications features, and provided a telephone number for questions about more specific needs. The court acknowledged some tension in the Department of Justice guidance but followed what it described as the majority view of recent district court decisions in the circuit. It held that requiring the additional technical information Love sought would turn the reservation system into an accessibility survey.

The court therefore held as a matter of law that CCMH’s disclosures, together with the telephone number, satisfied the reservation rule. It concluded that Love had not stated an ADA claim and that allowing amendment would be futile. CCMH’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim was granted.

Unruh Act Claim and Disposition

The court stated that the only asserted basis for federal jurisdiction over Love’s Unruh Act claim was supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over a related state-law claim after a federal claim provides the original basis for the case. After dismissing the ADA claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

The court’s conclusion states that CCMH’s motion was granted, Love’s ADA claim was dismissed with prejudice, and Love’s Unruh Act claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of CCMH and close the case.