Grechko v. Calistoga Spa, Inc.

Background

Mayya and Lyudmila Grechko sued Calistoga Spa, Inc. over events during a June 2021 stay at the defendant’s resort hotel. They alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, California’s Disabled Persons Act, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The Grechkos alleged that each of them had disabilities affecting movement and causing pain that made it impossible to share a bed with another person. Lyudmila made three reservations covering a continuous six-day stay and requested a rollaway bed for each reservation so that she and Mayya could sleep separately.

The hotel provided a rollaway bed during the first reservation. When the Grechkos moved to their third reservation, however, they alleged that the room did not contain a rollaway bed and that a hotel employee refused to provide one after Lyudmila explained their disabilities and requested an accommodation. The Grechkos alleged that they ended their stay three days early and suffered discomfort, humiliation, and embarrassment.

Motion and Jurisdictional Standard

Calistoga Spa moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court focused its decision on subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), specifically whether the Grechkos had standing to seek injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA.

Standing requires an injury in fact, a connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision will remedy the injury. Because Title III provides injunctive relief rather than damages, a plaintiff seeking that relief must also show a real and immediate threat of being injured again in a similar way.

Analysis

The court assumed without deciding that the Grechkos had shown an injury, a connection to the hotel’s conduct, and the possibility that an injunction could address the problem. The court held, however, that they had not plausibly shown a sufficient likelihood of repeated injury.

The court noted that the Grechkos had regularly stayed at the hotel and had not previously encountered an accessibility problem. Their allegations attributed the denial of the rollaway bed to one employee, and they did not allege that the employee was a manager or had leadership authority. They also did not identify a written policy or procedure that caused the alleged harm.

The additional evidence supported the court’s conclusion. Lyudmila stated that her requests for a rollaway bed had never previously been denied during the years she stayed at the hotel, including in the same room involved in this case. Another declaration stated that a future reservation in that suite had been made and that a hotel clerk verbally confirmed that a rollaway bed would be provided. The court characterized the June 30, 2021 incident as an unfortunate one-time event involving a lost reservation, the hotel’s lack of available rooms, and a staff member’s refusal to provide the bed.

The court also stated that, even assuming the hotel had a firm policy against placing a rollaway bed in that particular suite, undisputed evidence showed that the Grechkos could reserve other rooms that would accommodate the same number of people. The court concluded that the alleged harm was not caused by a physical access barrier or a systematic policy likely to interfere with a future stay.

Disposition

The court dismissed Count 1, the ADA claim, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It denied leave to amend because the court had already given the Grechkos an opportunity to provide additional jurisdictional evidence, and that evidence reinforced the court’s conclusion that they could not show a likelihood of repeated injury. The ADA claim was therefore dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

Because the court dismissed the only claim over which it had original federal jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Grechkos’ state-law claims under the Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court expressly stated that it did not address or adjudicate the merits of those claims.

The court granted Calistoga Spa’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case, and stated that the order disposed of the motion.