Gastelum v. Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC

Background

Fernando Gastelum, appearing without a lawyer, alleged that he visited the Hampton Inn & Suites Gilroy, which Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC owned, on June 30, 2021. Gastelum alleged that he is missing a leg, uses a wheelchair for mobility, and has a specially equipped sport utility vehicle. He claimed that the hotel’s passenger loading zone lacked a marked access aisle required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. According to Gastelum, the lack of a marked aisle allowed nondisabled guests to use the loading zone, making it more difficult for him to enter and leave the lobby.

Gastelum asserted claims under the ADA and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought injunctive relief, nominal and statutory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs if he later hired a lawyer. He alleged that he was often in the area, would return to the hotel after the barriers were remedied, and was deterred from returning because of the alleged barrier.

Blue Diamond moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that Gastelum lacked Article III standing, meaning a sufficient connection to an actual or imminent injury for a federal court to hear the claim. Blue Diamond raised facial challenges to the allegations and factual challenges concerning the loading zone and Gastelum’s visit. Gastelum opposed the motion.

ADA Standing

The court explained that private plaintiffs may seek only injunctive relief under the ADA. To establish standing for that relief, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact, a connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a court order would remedy the injury. An ADA plaintiff may establish standing by showing either that an access barrier deterred the plaintiff from returning or that the plaintiff was injured and intends to return to the noncompliant facility. The plaintiff must also show a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.

The court held that Gastelum’s allegations adequately established an injury in fact. His allegations that he uses a wheelchair, visited the hotel, personally encountered the unmarked access aisle, and had difficulty entering and leaving the lobby were enough to connect the alleged barrier to his disability. The court also held that Gastelum did not need to allege precisely how he arrived at the hotel or specifically state that he was a passenger rather than the driver of a vehicle.

The court denied Blue Diamond’s request for judicial notice of two hotel surveillance videos. The videos were recorded at a different hotel on a different date and did not meet the standards for judicial notice. The court added that, even if it considered the videos, Gastelum’s ability to walk short distances with a prosthetic leg and cane would not necessarily conflict with his allegation that he generally uses a wheelchair.

The court nevertheless concluded that Gastelum had not adequately alleged an intent to return or an imminent threat of repeated injury. His statements that he would return once the hotel was represented to him as accessible and that he was often in the area were too general. The court noted that he had not alleged specific ties to the Gilroy area or the hotel, concrete travel plans, or a reason and time for returning. The court therefore ruled that Gastelum lacked standing under the ADA.

Unruh Act Claim and Disposition

Gastelum’s remaining claim arose under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and sought statutory damages. Blue Diamond asked the court to dismiss that claim with prejudice for lack of standing. In the alternative, it asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction, which is the court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim.

The court did not decide at this stage whether to dismiss the Unruh Act claim. Instead, it ordered Gastelum to show cause in a written response why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. His response was due September 29, 2022.

Judge Davila granted in part Blue Diamond’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing as to the ADA claim. The court dismissed the ADA claim with leave to amend because it found that amendment would not be futile, and permitted Gastelum to file an amended complaint by October 7, 2022. The court stated that he could not add new claims or parties without permission from the court or an agreement by the parties. The order did not finally dispose of the Unruh Act claim; it required a written response before the court decided whether to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over it.