Rafael Arroyo v. Huskies Owner LLC
Published: Jul. 30, 2021 | Result Date: Jul. 1, 2021 | Filing Date: Feb. 10, 2021 |Case number: 3:21-cv-01016-JCS Bench Decision – Dismissal
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Russell C. Handy
(Center for Disability Access)
Zachary M. Best
(Center for Disability Access)
Defendant
Jan Nicholas Marfori
(Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC)
Matthew S. Disbrow
(Honigman LLP)
Philip H. Stillman
(Stillman & Associates)
Facts
Huskies Owner LLC owns and operates the Kimpton Sir Francis Drake hotel in San Francisco, California. Rafael Arroyo is a paraplegic and uses a wheel chair for mobility. As a result of his disability, he requires an accessible guestroom when he travels. He requires information about a guestroom's accessible features at the time of booking. In December 2020, Arroyo accessed defendant's website to make a reservation for a trip to San Francisco. To his finding, defendant's website provided no information about the accessibility of the toilet and sinks or the accessibility of the clear space next to the bed. Without this information, Arroyo was barred from booking a guestroom and brought an action against defendant alleging violations of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Unruh Civil Rights Act. Arroyo sought injunctive relief and attorneys' fees under the ADA and Unruh Act, as well as damages under the Unruh Act.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended defendant violated the ADA when defendant's website did not list information about a guestroom's accessibility features, particularly the toilet, sinks, and clear space next to the bed. Plaintiff contended defendant's website does not comply with ADA requirements under the "Reservations Rule". Plaintiff contended defendant's violation of the ADA resulted in him unable to book a room for his trip. Plaintiff contended because defendant violated the ADA, defendant also violated the Unruh Act.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all of the contentions. Defendant contended that its website complies with the Reservations rule because the website provides more information than the required by the Department of Justice and the ADA guidance. Defendant contended the case should be dismissed because plaintiff's ADA claim fails as a matter of law and that plaintiff's Unruh Act fails because it is dependent on the ADA claim.
Result
Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted and plaintiff's ADA claim was dismissed with prejudice. The Unruh claim was dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390