Whitaker v. GRM Bayshore Property Owner, LLC
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-06879
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Whitaker v. GRM Bayshore Property Owner, Judge Corley ordered both sides to explain why the case should not be paused pending Ninth Circuit guidance.
Brian Whitaker and GRM Bayshore Property Owner, LLC; the order paused consideration of the pending motion while requiring both sides to address a possible stay.
What happened
Brian Whitaker sued GRM Bayshore Property Owner, LLC over whether the hotel’s reservation system adequately described accessible features in a guest room he considered booking. The case concerns the Americans with Disabilities Act’s rules for accessible-room reservations.
The defendant asked for judgment based on the pleadings and asked the court to take judicial notice of certain materials. It argued that its reservation system complied with the applicable federal regulation and that it should therefore prevail as a matter of law.
Instead of deciding that motion, Judge Jacquelyn Corley ordered both sides to explain by August 10, 2021, why the case should not be paused while the Ninth Circuit considers the same legal issue in two other cases. The court canceled the July 29, 2021 hearing.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. GRM Bayshore Property Owner, LLC · No. 3:20-cv-06879
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 27, 2021
Background
Brian Whitaker’s complaint alleged that GRM Bayshore Property Owner, LLC’s hotel reservation system did not adequately identify and describe the accessible features of the guest room he considered booking. The dispute involves the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulation, which requires covered hotels to allow people with disabilities to make reservations for accessible rooms in the same manner and during the same hours as other guests. The regulation also requires hotels to describe accessible features in enough detail for people to independently assess whether a room meets their needs.
Pending Motion
The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, a request for judgment based on the parties’ filed allegations rather than evidence developed through a trial. It also made related requests for judicial notice, which ask the court to recognize certain materials without requiring ordinary proof of them. The defendant argued that its reservation system complied with the regulation as interpreted by the Department of Justice and that it should prevail as a matter of law.
Order
The court noted that the Ninth Circuit had not yet interpreted the regulation at issue and that appeals were pending in two other cases involving the same legal question. The court ordered Whitaker and the defendant to show cause—that is, to explain—why this action should not be stayed, or paused, pending a Ninth Circuit ruling in one or both of those cases. Each party had to submit a written response by August 10, 2021. The court did not decide the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or the related judicial-notice requests. Judge Jacquelyn Corley also vacated the hearing set for July 29, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.