Arroyo v. Let It Flho, LP

Background

Rafael Arroyo alleged that Let It Flho, LP and Let It Flho Lessee, Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The complaint concerns the ADA regulations governing reservation systems for lodging facilities, including 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(i) and (ii), which the court called the “Reservations Rule.” The defendants had filed a motion to dismiss, which remained pending.

The court noted that the Ninth Circuit had not yet interpreted the Reservations Rule. Appeals were pending in two related cases that squarely addressed the issues raised in Arroyo’s complaint. The court had ordered the parties to explain why the action should not be paused while the Ninth Circuit considered those appeals.

Positions of the Parties

Arroyo did not oppose pausing the case. The defendants opposed a stay, arguing that an adverse result could deter Arroyo and his firm from filing similar cases. They also argued that keeping the case open would create a cloud over their business and require them to report the case as a contingent liability.

Ruling

The court concluded that pausing the litigation was warranted because the pending appeals addressed the exact issue presented in this case and would likely provide substantial guidance or new law affecting the court’s decision. The court also found that pausing the case would conserve the parties’ and the court’s resources and would not meaningfully prejudice the defendants.

The court administratively closed the case for docketing reasons instead of imposing a formal stay. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of Arroyo’s claims. Any party may reopen the case by filing a notice within 14 days after the Ninth Circuit issues its first mandate in the identified appeals, or in another currently pending Ninth Circuit appeal interpreting the Reservations Rule.