Grechko v. Calistoga Spa, Inc.

Background

Mayya and Lyudmila Grechko sued Calistoga Spa, Inc. after an incident during their stay at the defendant’s resort hotel in Calistoga, California. The plaintiffs alleged that their disabilities prevented them from sharing a bed and that Lyudmila requested a rollaway bed so they could sleep separately. According to the amended complaint, the hotel provided a rollaway bed during the first part of their stay but refused to provide one for a later reservation because the room could not accommodate it. The plaintiffs alleged that they ended their stay three days early and suffered discomfort, humiliation, and embarrassment.

The plaintiffs asserted three claims: a Title III claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a claim under California’s Disabled Persons Act, and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. They sought injunctive relief requiring changes to the hotel’s policies and procedures, as well as declaratory relief, damages, costs, and fees.

Motion and jurisdictional standard

Calistoga Spa moved to dismiss 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 plaintiffs had standing to seek an injunction 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 would remedy the injury. Because Title III provides only injunctive relief, a plaintiff also must show a real and immediate threat of being harmed again in a similar way.

Analysis

The court assumed, without deciding, that the plaintiffs had shown an injury, a connection to Calistoga Spa’s conduct, and potential redressability. It held, however, that they had not plausibly shown a sufficient likelihood of repeated injury.

The plaintiffs conceded that they had regularly stayed at the hotel and had not previously encountered an accessibility problem. The court found that the alleged denial was caused by a single employee’s refusal to provide the rollaway bed, rather than by an architectural or structural barrier. The plaintiffs did not allege that the hotel had a written policy or procedure causing the denial, or that the employee had managerial or leadership authority making a repeated denial likely.

The supplemental evidence also showed that the plaintiffs had stayed at the hotel for 24 years without having a rollaway-bed request denied. In addition, a later reservation for the same suite resulted in verbal confirmation that a rollaway bed would be provided. The court concluded that the June 30, 2021 incident was an unfortunate one-time event involving a lost reservation, the hotel being full, and a staff member’s refusal to provide the bed. The court also noted evidence that the plaintiffs could reserve other rooms accommodating the same number of people.

Disposition

The court dismissed Count 1, the ADA claim, without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It dismissed the claim without leave to amend, finding that further amendment would be futile because the plaintiffs had already received notice of the standing issue and had been given an opportunity to submit additional evidence.

Because the court had no subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the California Disabled Persons Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act claims. The court expressly stated that it did not address or adjudicate the merits of those state-law claims.

Judge Edward M. Chen 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 Docket No. 20.