Whitaker v. Independence Menlo Hotel Owner, LLC

Background

Brian Whitaker, who uses a wheelchair for mobility, alleged that he visited Hotel Nia in April 2021 intending to use its goods or services. He alleged that Independence Menlo Hotel Owner, LLC owned the hotel. According to the First Amended Complaint, the hotel had a lowered portion of a transaction counter, but point-of-sale machines were fixed at the higher counter. Whitaker alleged that he had to use the higher counter and that the lack of an accessible point-of-sale device made it difficult to reach the device and read its screen.

Whitaker asserted one claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and one claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought monetary and injunctive relief.

Standing

Independence moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Independence argued that Whitaker had not suffered a legally sufficient injury because an accessible lowered counter was available but he did not use it. It submitted an employee declaration stating that the hotel kept a credit-card point-of-sale machine available to assist disabled guests who chose to complete transactions at the lowered area.

The court declined to resolve that factual dispute through the standing motion because the dispute was intertwined with the merits of whether the hotel violated the ADA. Considering the allegations in the complaint, the court held that Whitaker adequately alleged an injury in fact by alleging that he uses a wheelchair, visited the hotel, and personally encountered an accessibility barrier. The court also found sufficient, at the pleading stage, Whitaker’s allegation that the barrier deterred him from returning. Whitaker had stated in a declaration that he rented a room during the visit and would like to stay at the hotel again because he frequently travels to the Bay Area and the hotel is conveniently located for him.

The court therefore found that Independence had not shown that the case should be dismissed for lack of standing. The court also granted Independence’s unopposed request for judicial notice of a compilation of cases filed by Whitaker.

ADA Claim

The court dismissed the first cause of action under Rule 12(b)(6). Whitaker alleged that the hotel failed to provide an accessible point-of-sale device at the lowered counter and therefore failed to maintain its accessibility features in usable condition and failed to have a policy offering an accessible point-of-sale machine to disabled customers.

The court held that the complaint’s allegation that transactions necessarily took place above the higher counter was conclusory and unsupported by sufficient facts. It also held that Whitaker had not cited legal authority establishing that the hotel had to offer a point-of-sale machine automatically based only on a customer’s visible disability. The court noted that the ADA Accessibility Guidelines did not address the offering or placement of such machines. The court further stated that equivalent service might be provided by offering a portable point-of-sale machine at the accessible counter upon request or by completing the transaction for the customer.

The court also treated Whitaker’s failure to address Independence’s argument about an unrequested modification to a hotel policy as a concession that he had not adequately alleged an ADA claim based on a discriminatory policy or practice. The court did not consider evidence outside the complaint in deciding the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Unruh Act Claim and Disposition

The court dismissed the second cause of action under the Unruh Civil Rights Act because its jurisdiction over that state-law claim was supplemental and the court had dismissed the federal ADA claim over which it had original jurisdiction. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim at this early stage of the case.

Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted Independence’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the First Amended Complaint, granting Whitaker leave to amend the deficiencies identified by the court. The court stated that Whitaker could file a Second Amended Complaint no later than September 17, 2021. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.