Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 1 of 20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 ----oo0oo----

11

12 DWAIN LAMMEY, No. 2:21-cv-00857 WBS DMC 13 Plaintiff,

14 v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS 15 JNZ HOSPITALITY, LLC, a California Limited Liability 16 Company,

17 Defendant.

18

19 ----oo0oo----

20 Plaintiff Dwain Lammey (“plaintiff”) has brought this

21 action against JNZ Hospitality, LLC (“defendant”) seeking

22 injunctive relief and damages for violation of the Americans with

23 Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. Seq., and

24 violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51-53.

25 Defendant now moves to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in its

26 entirety, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),

27 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

28 (See Mot. to Dismiss (Docket No. 8).) 1 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 2 of 20

1 I. Factual Background

2 Plaintiff is a California resident with physical

3 disabilities who is substantially limited in his ability to walk.

4 (Compl. at ¶ 1 (Docket No. 1).) He is quadriplegic and uses a

5 wheelchair for mobility. (Id.) Defendant JNZ Hospitality, LLC

6 owns and operates the Motel 6 Chico located at 665 Manzanita

7 Court in Chico, California. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges

8 that he planned on making a trip to the Chico area in February

9 2021. (Id. at ¶ 12.) He chose the Motel 6 Chico because it had

10 a desirable price and location. (Id. at ¶ 13.)

11 Due to plaintiff’s condition, he is unable to or is

12 seriously challenged in his ability to stand, ambulate, reach

13 objects, transfer from his chair to other equipment, and maneuver

14 around fixed objects. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff requires an

15 accessible guestroom and information about accessible features in

16 hotel rooms so that he can confidently book those rooms and

17 travel independently and safely. (Id. at ¶ 15.)

18 On January 22, 2021, plaintiff visited the Motel 6

19 Chico reservation website at

20 https://www.motel6.com/content/g6/en/home.html seeking to book an 21 accessible room. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Plaintiff alleges there was

22 insufficient information about the accessible features in the

23 “accessible rooms” at the hotel to permit him to assess

24 independently whether a given hotel room would work for him.

25 (Id. at ¶ 18.)

26 Specifically, he contends he needs to know whether (1) 27 the doorways provide at least 32 inches of clearance; (2) there

28 is at least 30 inches width on the side of the bed for plaintiff 2 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 3 of 20

1 to pull his wheelchair alongside the bed; (3) the desk has

2 sufficient knee and toe clearance; (4) the height of the toilet

3 is between 17-19 inches and has the two required grab bars to

4 facilitate transfer; (5) the sink provides knee clearance, any

5 plumbing is wrapped with insulation, and the mirror is mounted at

6 a lower height; and (6) the type of shower, whether the shower

7 has a seat, grab bars on the wall, and a detachable hand-held

8 shower wand, and that the shower accessories are all within 48

9 inches height. (Id. at ¶ 24.)

10 Plaintiff states he will continue to travel to the

11 Chico area on a regular and ongoing basis and will patronize the

12 Motel 6 Chico once the defendant has changed its policies to

13 comply with the ADA such that he can determine whether the hotel

14 is physically accessible during the reservation process. (Id. at

15 ¶ 28.)

16 II. Request for Judicial Notice

17 Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits a court to notice

18 a fact if it is “not subject to reasonable dispute.” Fed. R.

19 Evid. 201(b). A fact is “not subject to reasonable dispute” if

20 it is “generally known,” or “can be accurately and readily 21 determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

22 questioned.” See id.

23 In its request for judicial notice in support of its

24 motion to dismiss (Docket No. 8-2), defendant requests that the

25 court take judicial notice of: (1) the Consent Decree in United

26 States v. Hilton Worldwide Inc., No. 10-1924, filed in the 27 District Court for the District of Columbia on November 29, 2010;

28 (2) a list of lawsuits filed by plaintiff and plaintiff’s law 3 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 4 of 20

1 firm from 2020 to 2021 regarding same or similar claims as in

2 this lawsuit; (3) an image of the “Motel Accessibility” page of

3 the Motel 6 Chico website; and (4) images of the accessible

4 guestroom description on the Motel 6 Chico website.

5 The Hilton Consent Decree is a court document in the

6 public record. Courts may take judicial notice of “court filings

7 and other matters of public record.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v.

8 Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). Although,

9 plaintiff does not object to the request, the court finds nothing

10 in the fact that the consent decree was entered, nor in its

11 contents, which is relevant to the issues to be determined in

12 this motion. Accordingly, the court does not take judicial

13 notice of the Hilton Consent Decree.

14 Plaintiff opposes defendant’s request for judicial

15 notice of plaintiff’s litigation history on the ground that it is

16 not relevant to the issues before the court. (Opp’n to Mot. to

17 Dismiss at 1-2 (Docket No. 11).) The court agrees. Plaintiff

18 has already informed the court that he is an “ADA tester”, or

19 someone who evaluates and documents the accessibility of

20 businesses and websites to ensure that they comply with the ADA. 21 (See Compl. at ¶ 29.) More importantly, plaintiff’s litigation

22 history is not helpful in deciding any of the issues before the

23 court on this motion. (Compl. at ¶ 29.)

24 Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the website

25 images is unopposed by plaintiff. (See Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss

26 at 8.) On a motion to dismiss, a court may consider evidence 27 outside of the complaint if: “(1) the complaint refers to the

28 document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff’s claim; 4 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 5 of 20

1 and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the copy attached

2 to the 12(b)(6) motion.” Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n,

3 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Marder v. Lopez, 450

4 F.3d 445, 448 (9th cir. 2006)). Plaintiff does not object to the

5 authenticity of the website pages themselves, but rather takes

6 issue with the accessibility of those pages in his complaint, as

7 discussed below. (See Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 8.)

8 Therefore, defendant’s request for judicial notice as to the

9 website images is granted. (See Req. for Judicial Notice, Ex. 3-

10 4 (Docket No. 8-2).)1

11 III. Discussion

12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows for

13 dismissal when the plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim

14 upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

15 The inquiry before the court is thus whether, accepting the

16 allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable

17 inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, the complaint has stated “a

18 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.

19 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

20 “The plausibility standard is not akin to a 21 ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer

22 possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v.

23 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the

24 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

25 statements, do not suffice.” Id. Although legal conclusions

26 1 Screenshots of the website, which were Exhibits 3 and 4 27 to the Request for Judicial Notice, are attached to this Order as Exhibit A. 28 5 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 6 of 20

1 “can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported

2 by factual allegations.” Id. at 679.

3 A. ADA Claim

4 To succeed on a discrimination claim under Title III of

5 the ADA, a plaintiff must show that “(1) he is disabled within

6 the meaning of the ADA; (2) the defendant is a private entity

7 that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation;

8 and (3) the plaintiff was denied public accommodation by the

9 defendant because of [his] disability.” See Ariz. ex rel.

10 Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enters., 630 F.3d 666, 670 (9th Cir.

11 2011).

12 The only element in dispute is whether the plaintiff

13 was denied public accommodation because of his disability. That

14 element is satisfied when the plaintiff can show a violation of

15 accessibility standards. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.)

16 Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, plaintiff

17 contends that the Motel 6 Chico’s reservation system in effect

18 denied him public accommodation by failing to describe the

19 hotel’s accessibility features in sufficient detail. (See Compl.

20 at ¶ 35.) 21 Under the “Reservations Rule” promulgated by the

22 Department of Justice (DOJ) pursuant to the ADA, a hotel’s

23 reservation website must “[i]dentify and describe accessible

24 features in the hotels and guest rooms offered through its

25 reservations service in enough detail to reasonably permit

26 individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a 27 given hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs. .

28 . .” 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(ii). 6 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 7 of 20

1 The DOJ has issued “guidance” on the Reservations Rule

2 stating:

3 The Department recognizes that a reservations system is not intended to be an accessibility 4 survey. However, specific information concerning accessibility features is essential to travelers 5 with disabilities. Because of the wide variations in the level of accessibility that 6 travelers will encounter, the Department cannot specify what information must be included in 7 every instance. For hotels that were built in compliance with the 1991 Standards, it may be 8 sufficient to specify that the hotel is accessible and, for each accessible room, to 9 describe the general type of room (e.g., deluxe executive suite), the size and number of beds 10 (e.g., two queen beds), the type of accessible bathing facility (e.g., roll-in shower), and 11 communications features available in the room (e.g., alarms and visual notification devices) . 12 . . . 13 [O]nce reservations are made . . . many individuals with disabilities may wish to contact 14 the hotel or reservations service for more detailed information. At that point, trained 15 staff (including staff located on-site at the hotel and staff located off-site at a 16 reservations center) should be available to provide additional information such as the 17 specific layout of the room and bathroom, shower design, grab-bar locations, and other amenities 18 available (e.g., bathtub bench) . . . . 19 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, App. A (2010), Title III Regulations 2010 20 Guidance and Section-by-Section Analysis, (“DOJ Guidance”). 21 The DOJ’s administrative guidance in interpreting the 22 requirements of the ADA is entitled to deference. See Bragdon v. 23 Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 646 (1998) (“As the agency directed by 24 Congress to issue implementing regulations . . . to render 25 technical assistance explaining the responsibilities of covered 26 individuals and institutions and to enforce Title III in court, 27 the [DOJ’s] views are entitled to deference.”); Fortyune v. City 28 7 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 8 of 20

1 of Lomita, 766 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The DOJ’s

2 interpretation of its ADA implementing regulations is entitled to

3 ‘controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or

4 inconsistent with the regulation.’”).

5 Plaintiff argues that the DOJ Guidance is simply “some

6 musings” by the DOJ and is not a rule or statement. (See Opp’n

7 to Mot. to Dismiss at 6.) However, numerous district courts in

8 this circuit have found compliance with the DOJ guidance to be

9 sufficient to satisfy the ADA and Reservations Rule. In at least

10 70 substantially similar cases, courts in this circuit have

11 granted motions to dismiss based on the DOJ guidance, rejecting

12 plaintiff’s position.2 Like those other courts, this court gives

13 2 See Garcia v. CWI Santa Barbara Hotel, Ltd. P’ship, No. 14 2:21-cv-02477-ODW, 2021 WL 3741547 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2021); Whitaker v. Infinite Loop Cupertino Hotel, LLC, No. 21-cv-00483- 15 BLF, 2021 WL 3727076 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2021); Whitaker v. Brender Com. Land Holding LLC, No. 21-cv-01125-BLF, 2021 WL 16 3727077 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2021); Garcia v. Apple Seven Services San Diego, Inc., No. 20-cv-02385-BAS, 2021 WL 3725921 (S.D. Cal. 17 Aug. 20, 2021); Love v. Lanai Garden Corp., No. 20-cv-08918-EJD, 18 2021 WL 3633834 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2021); Lammey v. Omni L.A., LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00362-ODW, 2021 WL 3603166 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 19 2021); Garcia v. Apple Seven Services SPE San Diego, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00841-ODW, 2021 WL 3568063 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2021); 20 Lammey v. Wilshire Suite Hotel, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-11779-ODW, 2021 WL 4260405 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021); Arroyo v. PHI Associates, 21 Ltd. P’ship, No. 21-cv-00784-KAW, 2021 WL 3270764 (N.D. Cal. July 22 30, 2021); Whitaker v. San Francisco Airport S. TL, Ltd. P’ship, No. 21-cv-00634-KAW, 2021 WL 3271384 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2021); 23 Marquez v. Diamondrock Hb Owner, LLC, No. 8:21-cv-00610-DOC, 2021 WL 3208033 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2021); Scherer v. SMI Hotel, LLC, 24 No. 8:21-cv-00619-DOC, 2021 WL 3355279 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2021); Arroyo v. HH Corner, LLC, No. 8:21-cv-00564-DOC, 2021 WL 4260402 25 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2021); Garcia v. Bell Gardens Hospitality, 26 LLC, No. CV 21-2758-GW, 2021 WL 4260404 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2021); Love v. CHSP TRS San Francisco LLC, No. 20-cv-07259, 2021 27 WL 3141198 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2021); Garcia v. Silver Creek Props., LLC, No. 2:21-cv-01530-GW, 2021 WL 4260407 (C.D. Cal. 28 8 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 9 of 20

1

2 July 19, 2021); Love v. Concord Hotel LLC, No. 21-cv-00933-VC, 2021 WL 2966164 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2021); Arroyo v. Omni RLP 3 Holdings, et al., No. EDCV 20-2510 JGB, 2021 WL 4260403 (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2021); Love v. FYI MC, LLC, No. 21-cv-02845, 2021 4 WL 2913654 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2021); Arroyo v. IA Lodging Santa 5 Clara, LLC, No. 20-cv-08219-LHK, 2021 WL 2826707 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2021); Arroyo v. Huskies Owner LLC, 21-cv-01016, 2021 WL 6 2711736 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2021); Arroyo v. Ashford Newark Ltd. P’ship, No. 21-cv-00215, 2021 WL 2711732 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 7 2021); Love v. Royal Pacific Motel, No. 20-cv-07308, 2021 WL 2711731 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2021); Garcia v. Hanjin International 8 Corp., No. CV 20-11582 PSG, 2021 WL 4260408 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 9 2021); Love v. Leisure Hotel Group, LLC, 21-cv-00954, 2021 WL 4145964 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2021); Garcia v. Best Western Norwalk 10 Inn, LLC, CV 2025 DSF, 2021 WL 4260406 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2021); Garcia v. Sweet 2017, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-02181-JAM, 2021 WL 2417139 11 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2021); Whitaker v. LL South San Francisco, Ltd. P’ship, No. 21-cv-00632-HSG, 2021 WL 2291848 (N.D. Cal. June 12 4, 2021); Arroyo v. CPLG Props. LLC, No. 8:20-cv-02450-DOC, 2021 13 WL 4260604 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2021); Rios v. Leadwell Global Prop. LLC, No. 21-cv-00267, 2021 WL 2207408 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 14 2021); Arroyo v. OLS Hotels & Resorts LLC, No. 21-cv-01354-LB, 2021 WL 4145966 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2021); Garcia v. Palmetto 15 Santa Monica II, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-11294-SB, 2021 WL 4260605 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2021); Garcia v. TCRF Redondo TOD, LLC, No. CV 21- 16 1516-GW, 2021 WL 4260664 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2021); Garcia v. Pinnacle 1617, LLC, No. 21-cv-00126-CAB, 2021 WL 1963823 (S.D. 17 Cal. May 17, 2021); Salinas v. Starwood Hospitality, No. EDCV 21- 18 434 JGB, 2021 WL 3930606 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2021); Garcia v. Tonho Int’l Inc., No. SACV 21-00307-CJC, 2021 WL 4260603 (C.D. 19 Cal. May 14, 2021); Whitaker v. Cesano, Inc., No. 21-cv-01018- MMC, 2021 WL 1947539 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021); Whitaker v. 20 Fortuna Enters., Ltd. P’ship, No. 2:20-cv-10314-SB, 2021 WL 4260606 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2021); Lammey v. Sunworld Dynasty U.S. 21 Holding LLC, No. 2:21-cv-01302, 2021 WL 2642490 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 22 2021); Arroyo v. BBC Esmeralda, LLC, No. EDCV 21-342 JGB, 2021 WL 4260662 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2021); Love v. CCMH Fisherman’s Wharf 23 LLC, No. 20-cv-07131-JCS, 2021 WL 1734924 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2021); Garcia v. RPC Old Town Avenue Owner, LLC, No. 21-cv-0170- 24 GPC, 2021 WL 1733388 (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2021); Love v. Lafayette Park Hotel Associates Ltd. P’ship, No. 21-cv-00119-KAW, 2021 WL 25 4145088 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2021); Whitaker v. KK LLC, No. 20-cv- 26 06877-MMC, 2021 WL 1700228 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2021); Garcia v. WH Manhattan Beach, Ltd. P’ship, No. CV 20-11698-GW, 2021 WL 27 4260661 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2021); Arroyo v. Newage Desert Springs, LLC, No. EDCV 21-0092-GW, 2021 WL 4260663 (C.D. Cal. 28 9 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 10 of 20

1 deference to the DOJ Guidance and looks to it to evaluate

2

3 Apr. 29, 2021); Garcia v. LHO Mission Bay Rosie Resort, Ltd. P’ship, No. 20-cv-2370-DMS, 2021 WL 4145980 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 4 2021); Arroyo v. PA Hotel Holdings, LLC, No. 21-cv-00343-SVK, 5 2021 WL 3135970 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2021); Arroyo v. SC Landmark Hotels, LLC, No. 21-cv-00119-KAW, 2021 WL 4145969 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6 21, 2021); Rios v. RLJ C San Francisco, Ltd. P’ship, No. 21-cv- 00338-KAW, 2021 WL 4145969 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021); Arroyo v. 7 Independence Menlo Hotel Owner, LLC, No. 21-cv-00431-KAW, 2021 WL 4145969 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021); Garcia v. Torrance Inn JV, 8 LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00988-RGK, 2021 WL 3557829 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 9 2021); Garcia v. Omee Corp., No. SACV 21-00256-CJC, 2021 WL 4260650 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2021); Garcia v. LHM, Ltd. P’ship, 10 LHMLP, Inc., No. SACV 21-00355, 2021 WL 4260647 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2021); Love v. Ashford San Francisco II, Ltd. P’ship, No. 20- 11 cv-08458, 2021 WL 1428372 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2021); Lammey v. Apple Eight Cal., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01260-PA (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 12 2021) (Docket No. 24); Garcia v. PHG Irvine Park Place, LLC, No. 13 SACV 21-00374-CJC, 2021 WL 4260648 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2021); Arroyo v. Dorcich Farms, LLC, No. 20-CV-08216-LHK, 2021 WL 14 1375774 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2021); Love v. W by W Almaden Expy I, LLC, No. 20-cv-07807-SVK, 2021 WL 4260645 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 15 2021); Garcia v. E.L. Heritage Inn of Sacramento, LLC, No. 2:20- cv-02191-JAM, 2021 WL 1253346 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2021); Love v. 16 Wildcats Owner LLC, No. 20-cv-08913-DMR, 2021 WL 1253739 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2021); Garcia v. PCH Beach Resort, LLC, No. 8:21-cv- 17 00081 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2021) (Docket No. 31); Love v. Marriott 18 Ownership Resorts, Inc., No. 20-cv-07523-CRB, 2021 WL 1176674 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021); Garcia v. SL&C Ontario, LLC, No. EDCV 19 21-61 JGB, 2021 WL 3557818 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2021); Lammey v. Spectrum Gateway Hotels, LLC, No. 8:21-cv-00104-DOC, 2021 WL 20 4190863 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021); Love v. KSSF Enterprises Ltd., No. 20-cv-08535-LB, 2021 WL 1056604 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2021); 21 Arroyo v. AJU Hotel Silicon Valley LLC, No. 20-cv-08218-JSW, 2021 22 WL 2350813 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2021); Garcia v. Chamber Maid Ltd. P’ship, No. CV 20-11699 PA, 2021 WL 3557832 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 23 2021); Love v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., No. 20-cv-07137- TSH, 2021 WL 810252 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021); Love v. Gates 24 Hotel, Inc., No. 20-cv-07191-SI, 2021 WL 4145977 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2021); Garcia v. Gateway Hotel Ltd. P’ship, No. CV 20-10752 25 PA, 2021 WL 936176 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2021); Salinas v. Apple 26 Ten SPE Capistrano, Inc., No. SACV 20-02379-CJC, 2021 WL 3930605 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2021); Arroyo v. JWMFE Anaheim, LLC, No. SACV 27 21-00014-CJC, 2021 WL 936018 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2021).

28 10 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 11 of 20

1 plaintiff’s claim.3

2 The court finds that the Motel 6 Chico’s website

3 satisfies the articulated standard under the DOJ Guidance for

4 hotels built to 1991 standards.4 The website contains a “Motel

5 Accessibility” page (see Req. for Judicial Notice, Ex. 3 (Docket

6 No. 8-5)) which contains the needed information to demonstrate

7 that the “hotel is accessible.” (See DOJ Guidance.)

8 The “Motel Accessibility” page lists the common areas

9 of the hotel that are accessible and provides further details

10 about them, including, among other things, the fixed pool lift,

11 the routes of travel, and the accessible lobby registration desk.

12 (See Req. for Judicial Notice, Ex. 3.) Notably, the website also

13 lists that the doorways to the guestrooms have 32” of clear width

14 (id.), which is a feature plaintiff included in his list of

15 desired information. (Compl. at ¶ 24.) With respect to the

16 accessible guest rooms, the descriptions of the rooms track the

17 guidelines and indicate the type of room, the size and number of

18

19 3 This court’s recent decision in Lindsay v. Shree Enterprise, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00299-WBS, 2021 WL 2711225 (E.D. 20 Cal. July 1, 2021), is distinguishable. There, plaintiff’s version of the accessibility information set forth on the website 21 differed materially from defendant’s version, and if plaintiff’s 22 version were accepted the trier of fact could have found that the information was not just insufficient but false and misleading. 23 In contrast, the parties in the present case agree on the contents of the website as explained above in the grant of the 24 request for judicial notice. 25 4 Plaintiff does not allege in his complaint that the 26 Motel 6 Chico was not built to 1991 standards, but because the plaintiff’s complaint and opposition to the defendant’s motion to 27 dismiss are based upon the assumption that the 1991 standards are applicable, the court analyzes this case upon that assumption. 28 11 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 12 of 20

1 beds, the type of accessible bathing facility, and that the rooms

2 are mobility accessible. (See Req. for Judicial Notice, Ex. 3-

3 4.) Overall, the information provided by the defendant on its

4 website goes beyond what “may be sufficient” under the

5 Reservation Rule.

6 Plaintiff argues that by stating that certain specified

7 information “may be sufficient” the DOJ Guidance does not purport

8 to provide an exhaustive list of the information concerning

9 accessibility features that must be contained on the website.

10 (Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 6.) That is true. The DOJ Guidance

11 itself informs readers when more information may be required on a

12 hotel website, namely, information about features that either

13 “(1) do not comply with the current Standards or (2) can be

14 provided as one of the several acceptable alternatives.” See

15 Love v. Wildcats Owner LLC, No. 20-cv-08913-DMR, 2021 WL 1253739

16 at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2021); see also Love v. CHSP TRS San

17 Francisco LLC, No. 20-cv-07259, 2021 WL 3141198 at *4-5 (N.D Cal.

18 July 26, 2021); Love v. Concord Hotel LLC, No. 21-cv-00933-VC,

19 2021 WL 2966164 at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2021) (“[t]here could

20 be situations where a room is ‘accessible’ as defined by the ADA 21 but there is something quirky about the room that many disabled

22 people would need to know.”)

23 Requiring defendant to provide more information would

24 turn the website into an “accessibility survey,” which the DOJ

25 Guidance seeks to avoid. The specific information needed by each

26 person with a disability may differ pursuant to that individual’s 27 disability, forcing the hotel’s website to list pages and pages

28 of accessibility information for the hotel, contrary to the DOJ 12 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 13 of 20

1 Guidance. If plaintiff needs more information, on the same page

2 as the listed accessible rooms, the website includes the number

3 of Motel 6 Chico’s phone number which the plaintiff may call to

4 request further information (see Req. for Judicial Notice, Ex.

5 4), as indicated by the DOJ Guidance.

6 While plaintiff claims that other hotels provide more

7 information and therefore defendant should provide it as well

8 (Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 13), the DOJ Guidance does not

9 require a comparative analysis. Rather, the DOJ Guidance simply

10 sets forth the minimum information hotel websites should provide.

11 There is no dispute that the Motel 6 Chico provides this

12 necessary minimum information.

13 Plaintiff argues that the use of the word “accessible”

14 is “a conclusion or opinion” and does not provide enough

15 information for a person with a disability to “make an

16 independent assessment.” (See Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 9.)

17 However, the term “accessible” is “defined in the [ADA

18 Accessibility Guidelines] to describe a site, building, facility,

19 or portion thereof that complies with these guidelines.” See

20 Garcia v. Sweet 2017, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-02181, 2021 WL 2417139, at 21 *3 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2021) (quoting Garcia v. Gateway Hotel

22 L.P., No. CV 20-10752, 2021 WL 936176 (C.D. Cal Feb. 25, 2021).

23 The DOJ Guidance itself states “it may be sufficient to specify

24 that the hotel is accessible.” Therefore, defendant’s use of the

25 term “accessible” to describe features within the hotel indicates

26 compliance with the ADA. 27 The court will accordingly grant defendant’s motion to

28 dismiss plaintiff’s ADA claim. 13 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 14 of 20

1 B. California Unruh Civil Rights Act

2 Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second claim

3 under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act is predicated on the

4 alleged underlying ADA violation. Because the court will dismiss

5 the underlying ADA claim, it will also dismiss the Unruh claim.

6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to

7 dismiss (Docket No. 8), be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

8

9

10 Dated: September 23, 2021

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21

22

23

24

25

26 27

28 14 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 15 of 20

EXHIBIT A

7/25/2021 Motel 6 Chico, CA Hotel in Chico CA I Motel6.com Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 16 of 20

Motel Accessibility • Accessible swimming pool (entrance into pool and fixed pool lift)

• Accessible route from accessible public entrance to registration area

• Accessible public entrance (into Lobby)

• Accessible parking spaces for vans in self-parking facility

• Accessible route from accessible public entrance to accessible guestrooms

• Accessible guest rooms with mobility features have doorways that provide 32" of clear width

• Accessible route from motel's accessible public entrance to the swimming pool

• Accessible lobby registration desk

• Accessible parking spaces for cars in self-parking facility

https://www.motel6.com/en/home/motels.ca.chico.9346.html?pid = google&_vsrefdom = mca&mchxkw = c:11537677 4, k:motel%25206%2520chico, m:e,p:,. . . 1 /8 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 17 of 20 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 18 of 20

2 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 19 of 20

3 Case 2:21-cv-00857-WBS-DMC Document 14 Filed 09/24/21 Page 20 of 20

4