Shelley v. Leisure Hotel Group, LLC

Background

Marvin Ray Shelley alleged that he has physical and mental impairments, including neuropathy, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and kidney-related conditions. He alleged that these conditions substantially limit major life activities such as walking, sleeping, concentrating, communicating, breathing, caring for himself, and working. Shelley also alleged that he uses a professionally trained service dog that performs covering in public, deep-tissue therapy, and counterbalance assistance.

Shelley alleged that he stayed at the Clarion Hotel, which he said is owned by Leisure Hotel Group, LLC, on April 8, 2023. He alleged that after asking to extend his one-night stay, a manager refused the extension because of the service dog, told him to leave immediately, and required him to find different lodging. He alleged that he would like to return if the hotel adopts an anti-discrimination policy.

The first amended complaint asserted two claims: one under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), based on an alleged policy denying access to people like Shelley, and one under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

ADA Disability and Service-Animal Allegations

Leisure Hotel Group moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. It argued that Shelley had not sufficiently alleged that he was disabled under the ADA or that his dog qualified as a service animal.

The court rejected those arguments. It held that Shelley’s allegations about his impairments and their effects on major life activities were sufficient to plausibly allege an ADA disability. The court also held that his allegations that the dog was trained to provide balance and stability assistance, covering, and deep-tissue therapy were sufficient to plausibly allege that the dog performed tasks directly related to his disabilities rather than merely providing emotional support. The court declined to require allegations identifying who trained the dog or showing that the dog had received certification.

The court denied Leisure Hotel Group’s motion to dismiss on these grounds.

Standing

Leisure Hotel Group also moved under Rule 12(b)(1), which challenges subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that Shelley lacked standing to seek an injunction because he had not alleged a real and immediate threat of future injury. The court explained that standing requires an actual or imminent injury connected to the challenged conduct and likely to be remedied by a favorable decision. For a private ADA plaintiff seeking injunctive relief, the plaintiff must also show a sufficient likelihood of being wronged again in a similar way.

The court declined to reconsider its earlier ruling that Shelley had adequately alleged an intent to return. It found that his allegations that he lives near the hotel, needed a hotel while work was being done at his residence, viewed the hotel as a convenient short-term lodging option, and wanted to return if the hotel changed its service-animal policies were sufficient. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on standing.

Unruh Act Claim

Leisure Hotel Group argued that the Unruh Act claim should be dismissed because the court had previously declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim.

The court agreed. It explained that Shelley had not opposed the earlier request to deny supplemental jurisdiction and had been given permission to amend only his ADA claim, not to replead the Unruh Act claim. To the extent Shelley sought reconsideration of the earlier ruling, the court denied that request because he had not shown the grounds required by the court’s local rule.

The court stated that Shelley’s Unruh Act claim remained dismissed without prejudice to his ability to raise it in a different court.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Leisure Hotel Group’s motion to dismiss. The Unruh Act claim was dismissed without prejudice to bringing it in a different forum. The court also ordered the parties to conduct a joint site inspection within 45 days and to follow the deadlines in the scheduling order for ADA Title II and Title III access cases.