Orlando Garcia v. E.L. Heritage Inn ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ORLANDO GARCIA, No. 21-15674
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:20-cv-02162-JAM-DB
v.
E.L. HERITAGE INN OF SACRAMENTO, MEMORANDUM*
LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 14, 2022
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL,** District
Judge.
Orlando Garcia appeals from the district court order dismissing his suit
against E.L. Heritage Inn of Sacramento, LLC (“Heritage Inn”) for failure to state
a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the
District of Kansas, sitting by designation.
§ 1291, and reverse and remand.
This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2019). This
Court accepts “all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the
pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. (quoting Rowe
v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 559 F.3d 1028, 1029–30 (9th Cir. 2009)).
Garcia argues that Heritage Inn displayed inconsistent information and
images on its website in violation of the “Reservations Rule,” a regulation
promulgated under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101–12213, which requires that hotels “identify and describe accessible
features . . . in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to
assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her
accessibility needs.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(ii). The district court dismissed his
complaint, holding as a matter of law that Heritage Inn’s web site fulfilled
Department of Justice (“DOJ”) standards for compliance with the Reservations
Rule. See 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A.
In Love v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., No. 21-15458, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL
2899267 (9th Cir. July 22, 2022), this Court addressed similar claims. Here, as in
Love, the defendant hotel’s web site provided the accessibility information that the
DOJ requires: “the general type of room (e.g., deluxe executive suite), the size and
2
number of beds (e.g., two queen beds), the type of accessible bathing facility (e.g.,
roll-in shower), and communications features available in the room (e.g., alarms
and visual notification devices).” 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A. Here, however, in
providing accessibility information about bathing facilities, the Heritage Inn web
site allegedly contradicted itself by stating both that the standard king guest room
“does not offer mobility accessible rooms” and that the hotel “offers accessible
rooms with roll in showers.” Further, the accessibility section of the Heritage Inn
web site had a photograph of a roll-in shower that revealed potential ADA
violations such as a grab bar behind the shower seat and a shower head that was
out of reach of the shower seat. 36 C.F.R., pt. 1191, app. D, §§ 608.3.2, 608.5.2.
Based on the inconsistent and contradictory information on the hotel web
site, and the images which depicted potential ADA violations, Garcia plausibly
alleged that an individual with disabilities could not assess whether the guest room
met the guest’s accessibility needs. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing
Garcia’s case based on its conclusion that, as a matter of law, the Heritage Inn web
site complied with the Reservations Rule.
After oral argument, on February 23, 2022, Heritage Inn filed a motion
asking the Court to take judicial notice that the picture of the non-ADA compliant
bathroom and the description of the standard king guest room as non-ADA
compliant had been removed from the hotel web site. Garcia never responded to
3
the motion. We grant the motion for judicial notice because the contents of the
web site are undisputed and “can be accurately and readily determined.” Fed. R.
Evid. 201(b).
Heritage Inn argues that if the Court takes judicial notice of the current web
site, any claim based on inconsistent information or pictures on the website is moot
and therefore should be dismissed. From the motion, it is not clear whether
Heritage Inn argues that the entire case must be dismissed or only particular claims
that are based on the inconsistent information and pictures on the web site.
In his complaint, Garcia requests injunctive relief under the ADA and the
Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal Civ. Code §§ 51–53, plus damages, attorney fees,
litigation expenses and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and Cal Civ. Code
§ 52(a).1 Accordingly, even if Garcia’s claim for injunctive relief is moot as to
certain claims, other relief may be available. Bernhardt v. Cnty. of Los Angeles,
279 F.3d 862, 872 (9th Cir. 2002). On remand, the district court shall determine
whether any of Garcia’s claims are moot and conduct further proceedings not
inconsistent with this disposition.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
1
The Unruh Act is coextensive with the ADA but allows for monetary
damages, including actual damages and minimum statutory damages of $4,000 for
each offense. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 731 (9th Cir. 2007).
4