Brooke v. Kashl Corp.
362 F. Supp. 3d 864
| S.D. Cal. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff Theresa Brooke, a wheelchair user from Arizona, alleges ADA and California accessibility violations at the Radisson Rancho Bernardo (operated by Kashl) after two visits (Oct. and Dec. 2018) in which she was deterred from booking due to parking/accessible-room barriers.
- Plaintiff filed a verified first amended complaint seeking injunctive relief and damages under the ADA, Unruh Act, and California Disabled Persons Act.
- Defendant Kashl moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing (challenging Plaintiff’s intent to return) and separately moved to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant seeking a pre-filing order; Kashl submitted evidence of Plaintiff’s extensive prior ADA filings (judicially noticed: 605 CA filings since 2016).
- The court treated Kashl’s standing challenge as a factual attack, requiring Plaintiff to produce evidence of imminent injury/intent to return; Plaintiff relied on her verified complaint sworn statements that she was deterred twice and planned another visit in March 2019.
- The court denied Kashl’s 12(b)(1) motion, finding Plaintiff’s verified allegations sufficient at this stage to show actual deterrent injury and a likely intent to return, but found credibility issues appropriate for later fact-finding.
- The court deferred ruling on the vexatious-litigant motion, declined to grant it on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure to timely oppose, and issued an order to show cause giving Plaintiff an opportunity to respond before any pre-filing restriction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for injunctive relief under the ADA (Rule 12(b)(1)) | Brooke: verified declarations show actual knowledge of barriers, was deterred twice, and has concrete plans to return (March 2019) | Kashl: Brooke lives 400+ miles away, is a serial ADA filer (605 CA cases), lacks genuine intent to return so no imminent injury | Denied dismissal; verified complaint sufficient at this stage to establish deterrent injury and likelihood of return; credibility for later proceedings |
| Sufficiency of injury (deterrent doctrine / likelihood of repeated injury) | Brooke: deterrence from past encounters and stated plans to revisit satisfy imminent injury and likelihood of future harm | Kashl: past litigation history and distance undermine sincerity of return plans | Court applies Ninth Circuit deterrent/intent framework (e.g., Doran, Best Western) and finds Brooke’s sworn statements enough for jurisdictional purposes |
| Use of plaintiff’s litigation history to impeach standing | Brooke: motivation to sue is irrelevant to Article III standing | Kashl: serial filings show pattern of extortion and insincere intent to return | Court cautioned against resolving credibility on 12(b)(1); declined to impute lack of standing based on aggregate litigation history at this stage |
| Vexatious litigant / pre-filing order request | Brooke did not oppose timely; later given chance to show cause | Kashl: seeks pre-filing leave requirement based on alleged abusive litigation history | Court deferred ruling, ordered Plaintiff to show cause and directed briefing; emphasized procedural protections required before pre-filing orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (Article III standing standards in ADA cases and requirement to show standing at each stage)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury-in-fact, causation, redressability standing elements)
- Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (injunctive-relief standing requires real and immediate threat of repeated injury)
- Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (deterrent doctrine for ADA standing; broad view of standing in civil rights cases)
- Best Western Encina Lodge & Suites (D'Lil) v. Stardust Vacation Club, 538 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence supporting intent to return; used to assess likelihood of future injury)
- Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2002) (deterrent effect doctrine in ADA cases)
- Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (standards and procedures for pre-filing restrictions; approving Safir factors)
- De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990) (authority to impose narrowly tailored restrictions on abusive litigants)
- Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986) (five-factor framework for assessing vexatious-litigant/pre-filing orders)