Reddish v. Ovadia

Reddish v. Ovadia

Opinion

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Avraham Ovadia, a/k/a Avi Ovadia d/b/a Daytona Paradise 770, and Elephant Group Hotel 77 Princess Inc., f/k/a Elephant Group Hotel 7 Inc., a/k/a Elephant Group Hotel 77 (collectively, "Defendants") Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 8) (the "Motion"). United States District Judge Kathleen Williams has referred the Motion to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation. See (ECF No. 10). Accordingly, having reviewed the Motion, Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition (ECF No. 9), and being otherwise duly advised in the matter, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Motion be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth [*2]  below.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Complaint

This case is one of many filed by Plaintiff, who is a self-admitted tester of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").¹ Compl. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 7). Plaintiff's single-count Complaint seeks injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and costs from Defendants, who own or operate Daytona Paradise, in Daytona Beach, Florida (the "Hotel") for alleged noncompliance with the ADA. See generally (ECF No. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he is confined to a wheelchair due to his primary lateral sclerosis and Parkinson's Disease, and thus qualifies as a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 6).

The Complaint alleges that Defendants operated or maintained a website for the Hotel at IP address www.daytonaparadise770.com (the "Website"). Id. ¶¶ 1, 2, 18. The Complaint further alleges that the Hotel is a place of public accommodation. Id. ¶ 17. Prior to filing the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff visited the Website "to learn about accessible features [of the Hotel] . . . and to see if he could reserve an accessible room at the Hotel online." Id. ¶ 20. During that process, Plaintiff discovered that Defendants' Website did "not provide [*3]  him with any meaningful accessibility information at all or allow for the reservation of an accessible room (with known accessibility features)" in the same manner as non-accessible ones, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1). Id. ¶¶ 13-22, 24. Plaintiff alleges that these violations discriminated against him by denying him equal access and enjoyment of the Hotel's services offered on the Website. Id. ¶ 26.

B. The Motion

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