Brooke v. A-Ventures, LLC

Brooke v. A-Ventures, LLC

Opinion

ORDER

Motion for Default Judgment

Plaintiff moves for default judgment.¹ This motion is opposed.² Oral argument was requested but is not deemed necessary.

Background

Plaintiff Theresa Brooke is "a disabled woman confined to a wheelchair" who requires an ADA-accessible room when she travels.³ Defendant A-Ventures, LLC owns/operates the Boulder Adventure Lodge in Boulder, Colorado.⁴ Defendant maintains a website for the hotel at www.a-lodge com.⁵

Plaintiff alleges that she went to defendant's website for the purpose of booking a room but was unable to book an ADA-accessible room for her selected dates as well as for "a few different dates farther out."⁶ Plaintiff thus alleges that defendant has violated 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(i), which requires that

[a] public accommodation [*2]  that owns ... or operates a place of lodging shall, with respect to reservations made by any means, including by telephone, in-person, or through a third party ... [m]odify its policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that individuals with disabilities can make reservations for accessible guest rooms during the same hours and in the same manner as individuals who do not need accessible rooms[.]

On August 24, 2017, plaintiff commenced this action in which she asserts a single cause of action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189. Plaintiff expressly alleges that defendant violated Title III of the ADA because defendant was not complying with 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(i).⁷ Although defendant believes that plaintiff has also alleged that its website "did not identify and describe the accessible features of the lodge in enough detail to reasonably permit Mrs. Brooke to assess independently whether A-Ventures met her accessibility needs[,]"⁸ nowhere in plaintiff's complaint does she make any such allegations. Plaintiff's claim is based only on her inability to book an ADA-accessible room on defendant's website. Her claim is not based on allegations that defendant had failed to "[i]dentify [*3]  and describe the accessible features" in its guest rooms "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). In other words, plaintiff's claim is based solely on 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(i) and whether or not defendant has complied with 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(ii) is not at issue here.

In her complaint, plaintiff seeks a declaration that defendant violated Title III of the ADA because its website did not comply with 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)(i), injunctive relief ordering defendant to modify its website to allow for the reservation of ADA-accessible rooms, closure of defendant's website until defendant has complied with the ADA, attorney's fees, costs, and whatever other relief the court deems just and appropriate.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.