Langer v. B.R. Guest

Langer v. B.R. Guest

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION [18]

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 30, 2021, Plaintiff Chris Langer brought suit against Defendant B.R. Guest. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which Defendant now moves to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (FAC, ECF No. 17; Mot. Dismiss ("Mot."), ECF No. 18.) For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the Motion and dismisses the action.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The essential allegations of this case are uncontested and include the following. Plaintiff is hard of hearing. (FAC ¶ 10.) Defendant is the owner of a hotel in Santa Barbara and operates a website which can be used to access [*2]  information about the hotel and make reservations. (FAC ¶¶ 12-13.) In February 2021, Plaintiff visited Defendant's website and attempted to view a video titled "Pacific Crest Hotel Santa Barbara." (FAC ¶ 17.) Plaintiff struggled to view and understand the video because it lacked closed captioning. (FAC ¶¶ 16-17.) Plaintiff alleges that the lack of closed captioning constitutes an access barrier in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). (FAC ¶¶ 18-24.) Thereupon, Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: one for violation of the ADA (FAC ¶¶ 35-41a) and the second for violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act") (FAC ¶¶ 41b-44).

Defendant seeks to dismiss both claims on the alternative grounds of Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. For the reasons that follow, the Court dismisses the claims with prejudice on the basis of Rule 12(b)(1). The Court does not decide whether the FAC would also be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

III. LEGAL STANDARD

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