Whitaker v. Montes

Background

Brian Whitaker, a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility, sued Jose A. Montes, Maria G. Montes, and Villa Montes Hotel, L.P. The opinion collectively calls these defendants the “Hotel.” Whitaker alleged that, on January 6, 2021, he visited the Hotel’s website to book a room but found insufficient information about the accessible features of the Hotel’s accessible rooms. He specifically identified missing information about grab bars near toilets, sink knee clearance, and doorway width.

Whitaker asserted a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of places of public accommodation. He also asserted a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Unruh claim relied in part on the state statute’s provision that a violation of the ADA also violates the Unruh Act.

Procedural History and Arguments

The court had previously granted the Hotel’s motion to dismiss the original complaint because the website pages then before the court contained sufficient accessibility information. The court allowed Whitaker to amend based on his allegation that the website had previously contained more limited information and had later been changed.

In the first amended complaint, Whitaker alleged that the website had been updated since his original filing. The Hotel submitted website materials showing accessibility information on pages describing guest rooms and on an “Accessibility Amenities” page. The court stated that those pages provided sufficient information about accessibility, as it had previously held.

The Hotel’s principal arguments were that its website provided legally sufficient information and that any dispute was moot. Mootness means that later events have ended the live dispute so that the court can no longer grant effective relief. Whitaker argued that the website could be changed again and that, without an injunction, it could become noncompliant.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Article III of the Constitution requires an actual, ongoing case or controversy. Because a private plaintiff seeking relief under Title III of the ADA may obtain injunctive relief but not monetary damages, the Hotel argued that its website update eliminated any need for an injunction.

A defendant’s voluntary change does not automatically make a case moot. The defendant bears a heavy burden to show that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur. The court recognized that website changes are nonphysical and can be changed again, but it concluded that a nonphysical change does not necessarily prevent a finding of mootness.

The court found that the Hotel met its burden. It relied on the Hotel’s prompt website update, the time, effort, and money invested in providing more detailed accessibility information, the Hotel’s stated intent not to remove that information, and the Hotel’s incentive to advertise its accessible features and remain compliant with the ADA. The court therefore found the ADA claim moot.

The court separately considered the Unruh claim. It noted that the Unruh Act permits monetary damages, including statutory damages and attorney’s fees, so the ADA claim’s mootness did not automatically make the Unruh claim moot. However, after dismissing the only claim over which the federal court had original jurisdiction, the court declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The opinion states that the case was at an early stage of litigation.

Disposition

The court granted the Hotel’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim and dismissed that claim as moot. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim. The order disposed of Docket No. 29, directed the Clerk to enter final judgment, and ordered the case file closed. The opinion does not expressly state whether the Unruh claim was dismissed or otherwise specify a prejudice designation.