Brooke v. D.P.R.L. Investments, LLC

Filing 5

ORDER to PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of Standing, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/26/2016. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR LACK OF STANDING

H&K PARTNERSHIP, a California
partnership dba Best Economy Inn & Suites,

15

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1406-AWI-JLT

Defendant.
____________________________________

16
17

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1407-LJO-JLT

v.
C & S CHONG INVESTMENT
CORPORATION, a California corporation
dba La Quinta Inn Bakersfield North,

22

Defendant.
____________________________________

23

THERESA BROOKE,

24
25
26

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1408-DAD-JLT

Plaintiff,
v.

27

JDS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, a
California limited liability company dba
Days Inn Bakersfield,

28

Defendant.
1

1

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

2
3
4
5

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1409-AWI-JLT

v.
JHP HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., a
California corporation dba Ramada Limited
Bakersfield North,
Defendant.

6
7

____________________________________

8

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13
14

v.
D.P.R.L. INVESTMENTS, LLC, a
California limited liability company dba
Hotel Rosedale,
Defendant.
____________________________________
THERESA BROOKE,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

24
25
26

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1411-DAD-JLT

Plaintiff,
v.
KOO JIN HYUN & CHU MYUNG HEE,
trustees of the KOO JIN HYUN & CHU
MYUNG HEE TRUST dba Hampton Inn &
Suites Bakersfield North-Airport,
Defendants.
____________________________________
THERESA BROOKE,

22
23

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1410-LJO-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1414- LJO-JLT

Plaintiff,
v.
PRIME HOSPITALITY SERVICES, LLC, a
California limited liability company dba
Hampton Inn & Suites Bakersfield/Hwy 58,
Defendant.

27
28
2

1

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

2
3

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1415-LJO-JLT

v.

5

RP GOLDEN STATE MGT, LLC, a
California limited liability company dba
Garden Suites Inn,

6

Defendant.

4

7

____________________________________

8

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

v.
KPK, INC., a California corporation dba
Travelodge Turlock,

12
13
14

Defendant.
____________________________________
THERESA BROOKE,

15
16
17
18

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1449-LJO -JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1454-DAD-JLT

Plaintiff,
v.
LILJENQUIST MODESTO COMPANY,
LLC, a California limited liability company
dba Modesto Hotel,

19

Defendant.

20
21

____________________________________

22

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

23
24
25
26
27

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1455- DAD-JLT

v.
METRO HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC.,
a California corporation dba Hampton Inn
Fresno NW,
Defendant.

28
3

1

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

2
3
4
5

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1456-LJO-JLT

v.
JAYESHKUMAR PATEL, an individual;
PRAFULBHAI PATEL, an individual, both
individuals dba Budget Inn Modesto,
Defendants.

6
7

____________________________________

8

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1465-AWI-JLT

v.
KHATRI BROTHERS, L.P., a California
limited partnership dba Clarion Modesto,

12

Defendant.

13
14

____________________________________

15

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

16
17
18
19

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1499-AWI- JLT

v.
A&A TARZANA PLAZA, LP, a California
limited partnership dba Hilton Garden Inn
Clovis,
Defendant.

20
21

____________________________________

22

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

23
24
25
26

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1502-DAD- JLT

v.
AKSHAR, INC., a California corporation
dba Parkside Inn Fresno,
Defendant.

27
28
4

1

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

2
3
4
5

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1503-DAD- JLT

v.
THANDI ENTERPRISES, LLC, a California
limited liability company dba Holiday Inn
Express Fresno,
Defendant.

6
7

____________________________________

8

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1505-DAD- JLT

v.
BHAGAT BHAVESH, an individual dba
Rodeway Inn Fresno,

12

Defendant.

13
14
15

____________________________________
THERESA BROOKE,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
v.
FRESNO AIRPORT HOTELS, LLC, a
California limited liability company dba
Ramada Fresno Airport,
Defendant.
____________________________________
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1508-LJO- JLT
THERESA BROOKE,

23
24
25
26
27

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1506-DAD- JLT

Plaintiff,
v.
KAINTH BROTHERS, INC., a California
corporation dba Country Inn Suites Fresno
North,
Defendant.

28
5

1

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

2
3
4

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1509-LJO- JLT

v.
SHIV HOTELS, LLC, a California limited
liability company dba Hampton Inn Fresno,

5
Defendant.

6
7

____________________________________

8

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

9
10

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1510-LJO- JLT

v.

12

SHIVKRUPA INVESTMENTS, INC., a
California corporation dba La Quinta Inn
Suites Fresno,

13

Defendant.

11

14

____________________________________

15

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

16
17
18

v.
SHRIGI, INC., a California corporation dba
Welcome Inn Fresno,

19
20
21

Defendant.
____________________________________
THERESA BROOKE,

22
23
24
25
26

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1511-LJO- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1520-LJO- JLT

Plaintiff,
v.
THE DAE SUNG & HEE JAE CHA TRUST
dba Quality Inn Tulare,
Defendant.

27
28
6

1

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

2
3

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1521-AWI- JLT

v.

5

HANFORD INVESTORS, INC., a
California corporation dba Comfort Inn
Hanford,

6

Defendant.

4

7

____________________________________

8

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1522-LJO- JLT

v.
INTERLINK PROPERTIES L.P., a
California limited partnership dba Hampton
Inn Visalia,
Defendant.

13
14

____________________________________

15

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

16
17

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1529-DAD- JLT

v.

19

NMA HOSPITALITY LLC, a California
limited liability company dba La Quinta
Tulare,

20

Defendant.

18

21

____________________________________

22

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

23
24

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1530-DAD- JLT

v.

26

TERRA INVESTMENTS I, LLC, a
California limited liability company dba
Charter Inn Suites,

27

Defendant.

25

28
7

1

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

2
3
4
5

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1594-AWI- JLT

v.
PICADILLY INN UNIVERSITY, dba
University Square Hotel,

6

Defendant.
____________________________________

7

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1595-DAD- JLT

v.
DAYS INN OF FRESNO PARTNERSHIP,
dba Days Inn Fresno Central,

12

Defendant.
____________________________________

13

THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1596-DAD- JLT

v.
PICADILLY INN EXPRESS,
Defendant.

18
19

Plaintiff Theresa Brooke seeks to proceed with claims in each of the foregoing actions for

20

violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and

21

the California Disabled Persons Act.1

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
See Case No. 1:16-cv-01406-AWI-JLT (Doc. 1), Case No. 16-cv-01407-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv01408-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01409-AWI-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01410-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case
No. 1:16-cv-01411-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01414-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01415-LJO-JLT
(Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01449-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01454-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv01455-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01456-LJO-JLT (Docs. 1, 4); Case No. 1:16-cv-01465-AWI-JLT (Doc. 1);
Case No. 1:16-cv-01499-AWI-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01502-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01503-DADJLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01505-AWI-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01506-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv01508-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01509-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01510-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case
No. 1:16-cv-01511-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01520-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01521-AWI-JLT
(Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01522-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:cv-01529-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-1530DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-1594-AWI-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-1595-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); and Case No.
1:16-cv-01596-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1) Because the allegations to which the Court refers in its analysis are identical in each of
the 28 cases, the citation to “Complaint” refers to the operative pleading in each case.

8

1

Plaintiff reports she resides in Pinal County, Arizona and is disabled and confined to a wheel

2

chair. (Complaint, ¶1) She alleges the defendants’ hotels—located throughout the Eastern District of

3

California in Bakersfield, Fresno, Tulare, Modesto, and Sacramento—have “barriers to use of the

4

swimming pool facilities” and “do not have acceptable means of entry for disabled persons.”

5

(Complaint, ¶ 4) However, Plaintiff fails to allege she visited the hotels and encountered the barriers,

6

or facts supporting a conclusion that she has personal knowledge of the alleged barriers. Rather, in

7

each complaint, Plaintiff alleges she “contacted Defendant’s hotel for purposes of booking a room for

8

personal and business affairs,” and “inquired whether Defendant’s hotel pool or Jacuzzi (“pool”) had a

9

pool lift or other means of access for disabled persons such as Plaintiff.” (Complaint, ¶ 24) According

10

to Plaintiff, hotel representatives at each of the defendants’ hotels informed her there were no lifts.

11

(Id.) She asserts her “agent, an expert in ADA accessibility guidelines, as part of due diligence

12

investigation, independently verified that the Jacuzzi does not have a pool lift… and provided Plaintiff

13

with photographs demonstrating the lack of accessibility.” (Complaint, ¶ 25) Plaintiff alleges:

14
15
16

But for these barriers, Plaintiff would lodge with Defendant in the near future. If and
when Defendant removes these barriers, Plaintiff will lodge with Defendant’s hotel since
she has several upcoming planned visits to the…area. However, she will not pay money
to book a room at Defendant’s hotel when she already is aware through photographs and
expert assertions that Defendant’s hotel does not provide disabled persons such as her
access equal to able-bodied persons.

17
18

(Id.) Plaintiff concludes that because she “is currently deterred” from staying at each of the hotels by

19

the pool accessibility barrier, she has standing to bring the actions. (Complaint, ¶ 26)

20

As explained by the Supreme Court of the United States, “those who seek to invoke the

21

jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the

22

Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101

23

(1983). “[T]he Constitution mandates that prior to our exercise of jurisdiction there exist a

24

constitutional ‘case or controversy,’ that the issues presented are ‘definite and concrete, not

25

hypothetical or abstract.’” Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir.

26

2000) (quoting Railway Mail Assoc. v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 93 (1945)). To satisfy the “case or

27

controversy” requirement, a plaintiff must demonstrate standing under Article III to bring suit. Human

28

Life of Wash., Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Skaff v. Meridien N. Am.
9

1

Beverly Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832, 838 (2007) (“standing is an essential and unchanging part of the

2

case-or-controversy requirement of Article III”).
To establish standing—and thus that there is an actual case or controversy—a plaintiff “must

3
4

demonstrate (1) an injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by

5

a decision in the plaintiff’s favor.” Human Life, 624 F.3d at 1000 (citing Lujan v. Defenders of

6

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). To establish standing to pursue injunctive relief under the ADA, a

7

plaintiff must also “demonstrate a ‘real and immediate threat of repeated injury’ in the future.”

8

Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 946 (9th Cir. 2011).
Significantly, several courts have determined that merely calling to inquire about accessibility

9
10

and potential barriers is insufficient to support a conclusion that the plaintiff has standing under the

11

ADA. See, e.g., Brooke v. Kalthia Group Hotels, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156163, 2015 WL 7302736

12

(S.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2015) (an ADA plaintiff has not suffered an injury-in-fact until he or she has

13

“actually become aware of discriminatory conditions existing at a public accommodation, and is

14

thereby deterred from visiting or patronizing that accommodation”); Brooke v. Ayres-Laguna Woods,

15

L.P., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59863 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2016); Brooke v. Joie de Vivre Hospitality LLC,

16

2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123316 (D. Az. May 20, 2015). Indeed, “[d]riving by, or to the property,

17

without staying in a hotel room or facing the allegedly discriminatory amenities is not sufficient to meet

18

the ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ requirement.” Meggs v. MHD Vegas Realty Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

19

21645 at *7 (D. Nev. Mar. 10, 2016) (citing Parr v. L & L Drive-Inn Restaurant, 96 F.Supp.2d 1065,

20

1079 (D. Haw. 2000)). Thus, because Plaintiff did not stay at—or even visit— the hotels and did not

21

personally encounter the alleged barriers, it appears Plaintiff lacks standing under Article III to pursue

22

her claims for violations of the ADA.2

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
2

28

Plaintiff’s complaints also contain claims for violations of California law. However, the Court should not
exercise jurisdiction over these claims if she lacks standing for her sole claim under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

10

1
2

Accordingly, within 14 days, Plaintiff SHALL show cause why the actions should not be
dismissed for lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 26, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11