Garcia v. KHP III SF Sutter LLC

Background

Orlando Garcia alleged that he has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, walker, or cane for mobility. He sued KHP III SF Sutter LLC and Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group LLC, which the opinion collectively calls “Kimpton” and says own and operate the Kimpton Buchanan Hotel in San Francisco, California.

Garcia’s first amended complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that the hotel’s website did not comply with the federal “Reservations Rule,” which requires lodging businesses to describe accessible features in enough detail for people with disabilities to independently assess whether a hotel or room meets their needs.

Garcia alleged that the website did not adequately disclose details about the hotel’s accessible room, including the mirror height, toilet grab bars, wheelchair clearance and hot-water-pipe insulation beneath the sink, doorway width, desk or table clearance, and shower seat and grab bars. He alleged that the lack of information deterred him from staying at the hotel.

Motion and analysis

Kimpton argued that its website complied with the Reservations Rule and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court concluded that the Reservations Rule did not require the level of detail Garcia demanded. It therefore held that Garcia had not alleged a plausible Americans with Disabilities Act claim or an Unruh Act claim, which was based on the Americans with Disabilities Act allegations.

The court stated that dismissal was warranted for the same reasons it had explained in a prior related proceeding, but that proceeding’s substantive discussion is not included in the provided opinion text.

Ruling

The court dismissed Garcia’s Americans with Disabilities Act and Unruh Act claims without prejudice. It allowed Garcia to file an amended complaint consistent with the order and the prior related proceeding by November 12, 2021. The court stated that failure to meet that deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court denied the parties’ requests for judicial notice as moot because it did not consider them in reaching its decision. Judge James Donato signed the order.