Harty v. Nyack Motor Hotel Inc.

Background

Owen Harty alleged that Nyack Motor Hotel Inc. operated a website for the Nyack Motor Lodge and that he could not access it because of his disability. He alleged that he uses a wheelchair and that he visits websites of places of public accommodation to test compliance with disability-access requirements. He sought injunctive and declaratory relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and damages under the New York State Human Rights Law.

The complaint identified the website at “nyackmotorlodge.com” and generally stated that the term also included websites operated by the defendant or third parties for booking rooms. Harty did not identify those other websites in the complaint or name their operators as parties. He later referred in his opposition papers to Priceline, Booking.com, and Hotels.com.

Defendant’s motion

Nyack Motor Hotel moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). It argued that the case was moot because the identified website no longer existed. It also argued that the complaint did not provide enough detail about how the website was inaccessible, that the defendant was not responsible for third-party booking websites, and that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim if the federal claims were dismissed.

Court’s analysis

The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion. It nevertheless determined that the identified website was defunct, a fact Harty acknowledged. Because the website no longer existed, the court concluded that the federal claims concerning that website were moot and that the court no longer had subject-matter jurisdiction over them.

The court refused to treat Harty’s opposition papers as adding claims concerning third-party booking platforms. Because those websites were not named in the complaint, the defendant did not have fair notice of claims based on them. The court also noted questions about whether the defendant, which Harty acknowledged was the lessor rather than the hotel’s operator, could be liable for alleged violations involving the current hotel or third-party websites.

Alternatively, the court stated that the complaint failed under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The complaint did not identify particular inaccessible features, explain how those features prevented Harty from navigating the website, describe what he observed when he tried to access it, or explain how his disability affected his internet or website navigation. The court said that technical detail was not required at the pleading stage, but the complaint’s general conclusions and legal language were insufficient.

The court did not decide whether the Americans with Disabilities Act’s public-accommodation protections extend to websites or online services. It also noted, without deciding, that a regulation concerning online reservations may not apply to guest rooms that are not owned or substantially controlled by the entity operating the overall facility.

State-law claim

After dismissing the federal causes of action, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harty’s New York State Human Rights Law claim.

Disposition

The court granted Nyack Motor Hotel’s motion to dismiss. Because this was the first adjudication of Harty’s claims and circumstances may have changed, the court gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies. The court warned that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaint, and that failing to amend on time might result in dismissal of the claims with prejudice.