Arroyo v. Club Donatello Owners Association

Background

Rafael Arroyo alleged that he is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair. He planned to travel to San Francisco and attempted to book an accessible room at The Donatello through a reservation website. He alleged that the website provided confusing or inadequate information about accessibility, including information about entrances, the registration desk, paths of travel, the restaurant, elevator, pool, and guestroom features. He also alleged that the property contained physical barriers, including an inaccessible pool, inaccessible tables and dining surfaces in common areas, and barriers in an accessible guestroom. He said he wanted to patronize the hotel but was deterred by its inaccessibility and the lack of information on the website.

The amended complaint asserted two claims: an Americans with Disabilities Act claim based on the reservation policies and procedures and the allegedly inaccessible facilities, and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act based on the alleged ADA violations.

Motion to Dismiss and Requests for Judicial Notice

Club Donatello moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that Arroyo lacked standing—the legal basis required to bring a case in federal court—because he had sued the wrong defendant. According to Club Donatello, Shell Hospitality operated the website and the website referred to a different hotel property, while Club Donatello was a managed time-share property with no relationship to that property.

The court declined to take judicial notice of three documents submitted by Club Donatello, including website-registration information and state business-record webpages. The documents were undated, defense counsel’s declaration did not properly authenticate them, and Club Donatello did not show that the documents met the requirements for judicial notice. The court denied Arroyo’s request for judicial notice as moot because it did not rely on those materials in deciding the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated Club Donatello’s motion as a factual challenge to jurisdiction. It held that Club Donatello had not supported its factual assertions with evidence that the court could consider. Although Club Donatello referred to a declaration, it had not filed that declaration with the motion, so the court could not rely on the defense’s description of the declaration’s contents.

The court also held that the dispute over Club Donatello’s connection to the reservation website was intertwined with the merits of Arroyo’s ADA reservation claim. Arroyo alleged that Club Donatello owned and operated the website, or that a third party operated it on Club Donatello’s behalf using information supplied by Club Donatello. The court found that whether Club Donatello could be responsible under the ADA for the website’s information affected both jurisdiction and the underlying claim. Because those issues were intertwined, the court concluded that resolving the factual dispute through a Rule 12(b)(1) motion was inappropriate.

Disposition

The court denied Club Donatello’s motion to dismiss. The order did not determine whether Club Donatello violated the ADA or the Unruh Civil Rights Act. It ordered the parties to conduct a joint site inspection within 30 days of the order and to comply with the deadlines in the scheduling order.