Harty v. West Point Realty, Inc.

Background

Owen Harty sued West Point Realty, Inc., alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York Human Rights Law. Harty alleged that West Point Realty owned, operated, or leased the Holiday Inn Express West Point in Fort Montgomery, New York, and that the hotel’s online reservation systems did not provide the accessibility information required by 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1).

Harty alleged that he uses a wheelchair and visited several hotel-booking websites to test whether the hotel complied with the disability-access rules. He said he intended to revisit the websites to test compliance and possibly reserve a room and use the hotel’s services. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

West Point Realty moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court treated the jurisdictional challenge under Rule 12(b)(1) first. Harty had counsel, and he had previously declined the court’s invitation to amend his complaint.

Standing Analysis

Federal standing requires an injury that is concrete and particularized, fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be remedied by a favorable decision. A person seeking an injunction based on an alleged past violation must also show a real and immediate likelihood of future harm.

The court held that Harty’s complaint did not meet that standard. His statement that he intended to return to the websites “in the near future” was conclusory. The allegations suggested that his primary purpose was to test the websites for violations, rather than to make a reservation or use the hotel. The complaint did not provide facts allowing the court to reasonably infer that Harty intended to return to book a room or use West Point Realty’s services.

The court also explained that Harty’s allegations did not show a plausible desire to return but for barriers created by the alleged violations. Harty said he planned to revisit the websites to test compliance, but he did not allege that West Point Realty’s conduct prevented him from doing so. The court therefore found no concrete injury or real threat of future harm. Harty’s status as an alleged disability-rights “tester” did not by itself establish standing.

The court declined to consider additional facts Harty presented in a declaration and in opposition to the motion, including assertions about family near the hotel, planned visits, and the accessibility features he typically looks for. Because the motion presented a facial challenge based on the complaint, and because Harty had counsel and had declined an opportunity to amend, the court would not consider those new allegations.

Other Claims and Amendment

After finding that Harty lacked standing to bring the federal disability claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his New York Human Rights Law claim. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims, but the court may decline that jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original federal jurisdiction.

The court also denied an additional opportunity to amend. Harty had already declined to amend after receiving notice of the alleged pleading deficiencies, and he had not requested another opportunity to do so. Because the court found no subject-matter jurisdiction over the federal claim, it did not consider West Point Realty’s Rule 12(b)(6) arguments about whether the complaint stated a legally sufficient claim.

Disposition

The court granted West Point Realty’s motion to dismiss, instructed the Clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.