Whitaker v. Brender Commercial Land Holding LLC

Background

Brian Whitaker alleged that he is a quadriplegic with a C-4 spinal cord injury that limits his ability to stand, reach objects, and move around fixed objects. He planned a trip to Palo Alto and tried to reserve an accessible room at the Coronet Motel, which the defendants owned and operated.

Whitaker alleged two problems with the motel’s website: the only room identified as accessible was booked through the end of the booking window, and the website did not provide enough information about accessibility features involving the entrance doors, bed, desk, or sink. He alleged that the available information did not let him determine whether the room met his needs. His amended complaint asserted a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Judicial notice

The defendants asked the court to consider nine exhibits containing motel website information. The court granted judicial notice of Exhibits 1 and 2, which showed pages from the current website that the complaint referenced. The court denied Whitaker’s request to consider older website screenshots attached to an attorney declaration because they did not show information currently available on the website. The court denied as moot the request concerning Exhibits 3 through 9 because it did not consider those exhibits in deciding the motion.

ADA claim

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Whitaker relied on the ADA’s reservation rule, which requires hotels to let people with disabilities make reservations for accessible rooms in the same way and during the same hours as other customers. It also requires hotels to identify and describe accessible features so potential guests can determine whether a room meets their needs.

The court rejected Whitaker’s argument that the reservation rule required the motel to keep an accessible room available at all times. The court held that the rule required equal reservation procedures, not a continuously available accessible room. Because Whitaker did not allege that the motel required customers seeking accessible rooms to take additional steps or spend additional time compared with other customers, he did not state a claim under that part of the rule.

The court also rejected Whitaker’s challenge to the amount of accessibility information on the website. The website identified the motel as accessible; described the room type, bed size and number, bathing facility, and communication features; listed additional accessibility features; provided information about accessible parking and the pool; and allowed users to filter for availability of an accessible room. Applying Department of Justice guidance concerning the reservation rule, the court held that these disclosures were sufficient as a matter of law. The court therefore dismissed the ADA claim.

Unruh Act claim and leave to amend

Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim was based on the alleged ADA violation. Because the court dismissed the ADA claim, it dismissed the Unruh Act claim as well.

The court granted leave to amend because a dispute existed about whether the motel’s website had changed after Whitaker visited it. The court stated that this dispute meant it was possible he could amend the complaint to state a claim. It also noted that the ADA permits private plaintiffs to obtain only injunctive relief and that the defendants might argue the ADA claim was moot, but the court did not decide that issue.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. Whitaker was required to file an amended complaint within 14 days if he believed he could correct the defects. The order stated that failure to meet the deadline or cure the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of his claims with prejudice.