Whitaker v. Montes

Whitaker v. Montes

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Docket No. 29

Plaintiff Brian Whitaker, a disabled individual who uses a wheelchair for mobility, has sued Defendants Jose A. Montes, Maria G. Montes, and Villa Montes Hotel, L.P. (collectively, the "Hotel"). According to Mr. Whitaker, the Hotel does not comply with federal and state disability law because there is "insufficient information [on the Hotel website] 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. Currently pending before the Court is the Hotel's motion to dismiss the operative first amended complaint ("FAC").

Having considered the parties' briefs and the oral argument [*2]  of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss the ADA claim and declines supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Prior Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

The Court previously granted the Hotel's motion to dismiss the original complaint because, based on information of which it could take judicial notice (i.e., the URL provided in the complaint), the Hotel website contained sufficient information related to accessibility. See Docket No. 25 (Order at 2). However, it gave Mr. Whitaker leave to amend based on his contention that, "several weeks before he filed the complaint, he or someone on his behalf visited the website for the Hotel and saw [different] website information," which was much more limited in nature — and, "at some point thereafter, Defendants changed their website to include more information on accessibility." Docket No. 25 (Order at 2-3). The Court noted that, "[a]lthough Defendants have argued that there could be no federal claim because the ADA only allows for injunctive relief, and the website currently complies with the ADA and its regulations, the Court does not prejudge any argument of mootness other than to note [*3]  that it will have to assess the likelihood of Defendants returning to a noncompliant website should a mootness issue arise." Docket No. 25 (Order at 3).

B. FAC

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