Love v. International Hotel Associates No. 2 LLC

Background

Samuel Love sued International Hotel Associates No. 2 LLC, which the opinion says owns and operates the King George Hotel in San Francisco, California. Love, who is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility, alleged that he planned a February 2021 trip to the San Francisco area and chose the hotel because of its price and location.

Love alleged that he visited the hotel’s website to reserve an accessible room but could not independently determine whether a particular room met his needs. According to the complaint, the reservation system did not sufficiently describe whether the room’s desk or table, sink, and toilet were accessible or whether the room had enough clear floor space. Love alleged that he was deterred from booking a room.

He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He specifically alleged that the hotel’s reservation system violated a federal regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e), requiring hotels to identify and describe accessible features in enough detail to allow people with disabilities to independently assess whether a room meets their accessibility needs.

Requests for Judicial Notice

The hotel asked the court to take judicial notice—meaning to accept certain materials as publicly established or otherwise appropriate for consideration—of its website, specific webpages showing accessibility information, a consent decree in an earlier federal case, and a list of 49 cases filed by Love or by other people represented by the same counsel.

The court granted in part the request concerning the website and specific webpages because Love cited those materials in his complaint and opposition brief. The court denied the request concerning the consent decree because it did not rely on that document. It also denied the request concerning the list of cases, finding that request to be an improper evasion of the court’s page limits.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), judgment on the pleadings is proper when, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court applies the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and views the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

The hotel argued that its website provided substantially more accessibility information than required and that no case supported Love’s legal interpretation. Love acknowledged that the website provided some information, including that accessible rooms had roll-in showers with built-in shower chairs and handrails, but argued that the website needed to provide more specific information about room clearance and other accessibility features.

The court found that Love had alleged enough facts to state a plausible claim. It observed that the website’s general accessibility information appeared generalized and conclusory and was not always easy to locate. More specific room information appeared to become available only after a prospective guest began the booking process and found an available accessible room. The court contrasted this with a website that provided detailed measurements and descriptions of accessible-room features.

Disposition

The court DENIED the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. This ruling allowed Love’s ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act claims to remain based on the allegations at this stage; the opinion did not enter final judgment on those claims. The court also granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s requests for judicial notice as described above.