Grechko v. Calistoga Spa, Inc.

Background

Mayya and Lyudmila Grechko brought claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related California law after Calistoga Spa allegedly refused to provide a rollaway bed during their hotel stay. The plaintiffs alleged that their physical conditions made it difficult or impossible for them to share a bed. The hotel employee allegedly said that the room could not accommodate a rollaway bed, and the plaintiffs left before completing their stay.

The court previously granted Calistoga Spa’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had not shown a real and immediate threat of repeated injury, which is required for the requested injunctive relief. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims and entered judgment for Calistoga Spa. Calistoga Spa then moved for $20,625 in attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

Legal standard

The court explained that although a prevailing defendant may receive fees under Title III of the ADA, such awards should be limited to exceptional circumstances because they can discourage private enforcement of the law. The relevant circumstances include a lawsuit that was frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious, or brought in bad faith. A claim is frivolous when it lacks a reasonable foundation or its arguments are wholly without merit.

Discussion

The parties did not dispute that Calistoga Spa was the prevailing party. The court nevertheless found that Calistoga Spa had not shown the circumstances required for a fee award.

First, the court rejected the argument that the plaintiffs’ suit was frivolous or unreasonable from the outset. The plaintiffs submitted evidence that they preferred the hotel’s queen suites, had previously received a rollaway bed in those suites, and feared that a future request for the same accommodation would be denied. The court held that this gave them at least an arguable basis to claim a risk of repeated injury. The court also noted that whether offering a different room would satisfy the ADA presented an arguable issue. The plaintiffs’ weak factual support and failure to prevail did not, by themselves, make the lawsuit frivolous.

Second, the court rejected Calistoga Spa’s argument that the plaintiffs acted unreasonably by continuing to litigate after the defendant’s motions to dismiss raised the standing issue. The plaintiffs were not required to voluntarily dismiss their case simply because the defendant argued that the complaint lacked a sufficient basis for jurisdiction. The court found no evidence that the plaintiffs knew or believed their complaint was factually insufficient.

Third, the court declined to decide whether the plaintiffs had adequately alleged disabilities covered by the ADA. The court’s earlier dismissal had not addressed that question, and deciding it on the fee motion would have required revisiting the merits of the case.

Fourth, the court rejected the arguments that the lawsuit was vexatious or brought in bad faith. The plaintiffs’ alleged statement that they would sue did not show that they were trying to harass the hotel or take part in a scheme to obtain a cash settlement. The plaintiffs’ decision to file an amended complaint instead of responding to the first motion to dismiss also did not establish bad faith; the court noted that filing an amended complaint in that situation was permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) and was not uncommon.

Disposition

The court DENIES Calistoga Spa’s motion for attorney’s fees. The order disposes of Docket No. 30.