Whitaker v. LL South San Francisco, L.P.

Background

Brian Whitaker, who is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair, alleged that he planned a January 2021 trip to the San Francisco area and chose defendants’ Larkspur Landing South San Francisco hotel because of its price and location. He alleged that the hotel’s online reservation system identified a room as wheelchair accessible and said it had a roll-in shower, but did not provide enough information about other mobility-accessible features. He specifically identified questions about bathroom sink clearance and insulation around plumbing, and whether doorways were at least 32 inches wide.

Whitaker asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Judicial notice

The defendants asked the court to take judicial notice—accept certain facts or documents without requiring ordinary proof—of website pages, court records, a list of Whitaker’s federal cases in California, and other materials. The court granted the request in part as to Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7. It did not rely on Exhibits 3 or 6 and denied the request as to those exhibits as moot. The court also considered the website pages under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine because Whitaker’s complaint expressly cited and relied on them.

ADA claim

Whitaker argued that the reservation system violated 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e), which requires places of lodging to identify and describe accessible features well enough to allow people with disabilities to independently assess whether a room meets their needs.

The court found that the defendants’ website met that requirement as a matter of law. The website stated that the hotel was accessible through the main entrance, had elevator access to all floors, and had doorways wide enough for maneuvering. It also stated that guest rooms and washrooms had space for wheelchair movement, and described features including roll-in showers, attached shower seats, reachable handheld showerheads, toilets meeting ADA height requirements, toilet-related grab bars, insulated bathroom sink pipes, and reachable sink taps. The room descriptions identified wheelchair-accessible rooms with an “ADA” label.

The court relied on federal regulatory guidance stating that a reservation system is not intended to be an accessibility survey and that hotels may provide additional details by phone or email. Because the defendants’ website offered contact information for additional accessibility information, the court rejected Whitaker’s argument that all potentially relevant details had to appear on the website itself. The court therefore dismissed the ADA claim.

State-law claim and amendment

After dismissing the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim—over the remaining Unruh Civil Rights Act claim.

The court also denied leave to amend. It explained that Whitaker had already amended his complaint and that the allegations and judicially noticed materials showed that further amendment would be futile. The court granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend and directed the clerk to close the case.