Gastelum v. Tri-County Hospitality

Background

Fernando Gastelum alleged that he encountered accessibility barriers during a June 29, 2021 visit to the Quality Inn & Suites in Gilroy, California, allegedly owned or operated by Tri-County Hospitality. He alleged that he is missing one leg, uses a wheelchair for mobility, and has a specially equipped sport utility vehicle. The alleged barriers included the absence of a pool lift, doors requiring wrist twisting or more than five pounds of force to open, open stair risers, missing handrail extensions, and insufficient clear floor space for a washing machine.

Gastelum brought claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought injunctive relief under both laws and damages under the Unruh Act. He alleged that he intended to return to the hotel to use its goods and services and to determine whether it complied with disability-access laws, but that he was deterred by the barriers and uncertainty about other barriers.

Tri-County’s Motion

Tri-County moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that Gastelum had not shown standing to seek injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA. Tri-County also argued that the Unruh Act claim should be dismissed or that the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Tri-County presented evidence, including a surveillance video from another accessibility lawsuit, that it said showed Gastelum using a prosthesis and cane at another hotel. It also argued that Gastelum had not adequately alleged that he used a wheelchair during the visit at issue, that the alleged conditions were barriers related to his disability, or that he faced a real and immediate threat of future injury.

ADA Standing

The court denied the motion to dismiss the ADA claim. It explained that standing requires an injury that is personal and real, caused by the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be remedied by a favorable decision. Because Gastelum sought injunctive relief, he also had to show a real and immediate threat of being injured again.

The court found that the allegations, reasonably understood, indicated that Gastelum used a wheelchair for mobility and encountered barriers as a wheelchair user during the visit at issue. The court declined to consider the surveillance video because it concerned a different facility and did not contradict his allegations about the visit to Tri-County’s hotel.

The court also concluded that resolving Tri-County’s factual challenges would require findings about the nature of Gastelum’s disability and whether particular hotel features actually interfered with his access. The court held that those disputed issues were not appropriately resolved through this jurisdictional motion. It further concluded that Gastelum was not required to remain at the hotel despite the alleged barriers in order to establish an injury under the ADA.

Regarding future injury, the court found that Gastelum’s general statement that he traveled to the area “often” and his unspecified intent to return as a customer would likely be insufficient, by themselves, to show a genuine intent to return as a regular customer. But the court held that his stated intent to return to assess compliance with disability-access laws could support standing as an ADA tester. The court also found that the evidence about Gastelum’s other lawsuits did not establish that his allegations about visiting this hotel were implausible. The court therefore denied Tri-County’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim.

Unruh Act Claim

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court hearing a federal claim to also hear a related state-law claim, but the court may decline that jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances or for other compelling reasons.

Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent concerning the interaction between ADA-based Unruh Act cases and California’s procedural requirements, the court found that strong concerns about federal-state relations supported declining jurisdiction. The court also concluded that fairness favored allowing Gastelum, if he chose, to refile the Unruh Act claim in state court rather than allowing the federal case to avoid California’s restrictions on damages claims. The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Motion to Strike and Disposition

After Tri-County filed its reply, Gastelum filed a supplemental memorandum. The court stated that such a filing was not permitted under the applicable local rule and did not consider it when deciding the motion. Tri-County’s motion to strike that filing was denied as moot.

The court denied Tri-County’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the ADA claim, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and dismissed that claim without prejudice to refiling in state court. Tri-County was ordered to answer the ADA claim within 21 days of the order.