Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Langer v. Music City Hotel LP

Langer v. Music City Hotel LP

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

December 15, 2021, Decided; December 15, 2021, Filed

Case No. 21-cv-04159-PJH

Opinion

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 14.

Defendants' motion to dismiss came on for hearing before this court on December 2, 2021. Plaintiff appeared through his counsel, Cara P. Townsend. Defendants appeared through their counsel, Philip H. Stillman. Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as follows.

I. BACKGROUND

This is an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") case premised on a hotel's alleged violation of the "Reservations Rule," 28 C.F.R. section 36.302(e). Plaintiff Chris Langer identifies as an individual with physical disabilities, and he uses a wheelchair for mobility. FAC ¶ 1. Plaintiff also suffers from Delayed Endolymphatic Hydrops (DEH), which has caused permanent partial hearing loss. FAC ¶ 1. Defendants [*2]  Music City Hotel, LP, and Pacific Equities West, LLC, together own and operate the Music City Hotel located at 1353 Bush St, San Francisco, California. FAC ¶ 2.

Plaintiff requires an accessible guestroom when staying at a hotel. FAC ¶ 14. Plaintiff also requires assistance to hear—he uses hearing-assistive devices and turns on closed captioning when consuming audio content. FAC ¶ 2, 14. Plaintiff considered making a reservation to stay at the Music City Hotel ("Hotel") for a trip to the San Francisco area planned in September 2020. FAC ¶¶ 12, 13. When visiting the Hotel's website located at https://musiccityhotel.org/ on February 6, 2020, plaintiff found the accessibility information insufficient to "assess independently" if a particular hotel room would meet his needs. FAC ¶¶ 16, 18.

Plaintiff contends that the website did not comply with the Reservations Rule because it provided "insufficient information about the accessible features in the 'accessible rooms' at the Hotel to permit him to assess independently whether a given hotel room would work for him." FAC ¶ 18. Plaintiff complains that the Hotel's reservation website "fails to describe or provide details about the accessibility [*3]  features in the guestrooms or any details such as accessible bathtub, shower, toilet, grab bars, lavatory sink, and accommodations for the hearing impaired." FAC ¶ 19.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

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

2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239734 *; 2021 WL 5919825

CHRIS LANGER, Plaintiff, v. MUSIC CITY HOTEL LP, et al., Defendants.

CORE TERMS

hotel, website, moot, Reservations, defendants', judicial notice, features, disabilities, motion to dismiss, courts, documents, violations, contents, rooms, disclosures, fails, guest, injunctive relief, wrongful behavior, Unruh Act, accommodation, questions, lawsuit, webpage, recur

Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Evidence, Inferences & Presumptions, Inferences, Dismissal, Involuntary Dismissals, Failure to State Claims, Justiciability, Mootness, Real Controversy Requirement, Voluntary Cessation Exception, Judicial Notice, Adjudicative Facts, Facts Generally Known, Verifiable Facts, Scientific & Technical Facts, Judicial Records, Governments, Courts, Court Records, Public Records, Business & Corporate Compliance, Protection of Disabled Persons, Americans With Disabilities Act, Enforcement Actions, Civil Rights Law, Accommodations, Protection of Rights, Public Facilities, Scope, Standing, Burdens of Proof, Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Conduct Capable of Repetition, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Supplemental Jurisdiction, Same Case & Controversy, Pendent Claims