Brooke v. IA Lodging Santa Clara LLC, 5:19-cv-07558

Background:

Plaintiff Theresa Brooke, an Arizona resident who uses a wheelchair, sought to book an Executive Suite at the Hyatt Regency Santa Clara (IA Lodging Santa Clara LLC).
Brooke alleges the hotel only offers ADA-accessible standard rooms and no accessible Executive Suites or comparably luxurious accessible options, causing deterrence from visiting.
Brooke filed suit asserting violations of Title III of the ADA and the California Unruh Act; she amended her complaint after an initial motion to dismiss.
Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state an ADA and Unruh claim, and also sought an order declaring Brooke a vexatious litigant.
The court dismissed the ADA and Unruh claims with leave to amend (finding Brooke failed to allege how the alleged barriers affected her specific disability and that her alleged injury occurred within California), denied the vexatious-litigant request as premature, and set a deadline to amend.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / ADA injury-in-fact	Brooke alleged she was deterred because no Executive Suite comparable to non-ADA rooms was accessible, impairing full and equal enjoyment	Brooke lacks Article III standing because she did not show how the lack of an accessible Executive Suite actually affected her specific disability or caused imminent injury	Dismissed for lack of standing; leave to amend granted (Brooke failed to connect barrier to her disability)
Failure to state an ADA claim under §224.5	The hotel’s failure to provide accessible rooms comparable to Executive Suites violates §224.5 dispersion and choice requirements	Hotel argued plaintiff’s allegations were hypothetical or unrelated to physical access and thus insufficient	Court found allegations plausibly suggested a §224.5 violation but overall ADA claim failed for lack of specified connection to plaintiff’s disability; dismissal with leave to amend
Unruh Act jurisdiction	Brooke asserted statutory Unruh claim based on ADA violations	Defendant argued Unruh applies only to persons injured within California and plaintiff is an Arizona resident who did not allege injury occurred in-state	Court declined supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing ADA claim and dismissed Unruh claim with leave to amend, noting plaintiff failed to allege injury "within the state"
Vexatious litigant motion	N/A (defendant sought pre-filing order based on plaintiff’s litigation history)	IA Lodging argued Brooke’s numerous prior suits warranted a narrowly tailored pre-filing restriction	Denied as premature: court found inadequate record and that not all prior suits were frivolous; extreme remedy requires notice, record, substantive findings, and narrow tailoring

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdictional defects must be addressed and are central to Article III)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (standing elements explained)
Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (Ninth Circuit standard for ADA injury and deterrence)
Civil Rights Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. Hosp. Properties Trust, 867 F.3d 1093 (deterrence standing under ADA requires actual knowledge of barriers)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient to state claim)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (leave to amend should be granted unless futile)
De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (standards and safeguards for pre-filing vexatious-litigant orders)
Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal.4th 661 (Unruh Act requires injury "within the state")