Garcia v. A5 Hospitality LLC, 2:20-cv-02164

Plaintiff Orlando Garcia, who has cerebral palsy and limited mobility, visited the Comfort Inn & Suites Rancho Cordova hotel website on October 19, 2020 to make a reservation and claims he could not determine whether the hotel’s rooms met his accessibility needs.
Garcia alleges the website used the term “accessible” but omitted details about clear floor space, accessible toilet/sink, desk/table, and common-area accessibility, and he was deterred from booking.
Defendant A5 Hospitality, LLC (hotel owner/operator) was served, failed to respond, and the clerk entered default; Garcia moved for default judgment seeking injunctive relief, Unruh Act statutory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The court evaluated the motion under the Eitel factors governing default-judgment discretion and reviewed ADA reservations-rule requirements and DOJ guidance (as construed in Love v. Marriott).
The court concluded Garcia’s ADA reservations-rule claim was insufficiently pleaded because the website identified some accessible features and Garcia did not allege he could not obtain further information by contacting the hotel.
The court denied the motion for default judgment without prejudice and granted leave to amend the complaint within 28 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default judgment is appropriate	Garcia sought default judgment after entry of default to obtain injunctive relief, Unruh damages, and fees	No opposition filed (default)	Denied: court exercises discretion and finds factors weigh against default because claim is not plausibly pleaded
Whether hotel website violated ADA reservations rule	Website failed to describe specific accessible features required to assess suitability (clear floor space, toilet/sink, desk/table, common areas)	No response; record shows website stated “accessible,” listed some features, and plaintiffs did not allege inability to obtain more info by phone	Held: claim insufficiently pleaded under the reservations rule; allegations do not establish a violation
Whether Unruh Act claim is stated	Garcia asserted a state-law disability claim based on the ADA violation	No response	Held: Unruh claim fails because it depends on a viable ADA claim, which was not pled
Entitlement to statutory damages, fees, and costs	Garcia sought $4,000 in Unruh statutory damages and $6,761.80 in fees/costs	No response	Held: Court did not address merits of amounts because default judgment denied due to insufficient pleadings

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (sets the multi-factor test for default judgment discretion)
Love v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 40 F.4th 1043 (9th Cir. 2022) (interprets how “accessible” on a hotel website interacts with the ADA reservations rule and DOJ guidance)
TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987) (well-pleaded allegations in a complaint are taken as true after default)
Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1977) (default does not establish the amount of damages and admissions are limited to well-pleaded facts)
Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1978) (claims legally insufficient or missing necessary facts are not established by default)
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2007) (default does not cure a failure to state a claim)
Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (necessary facts not in pleadings are not established by default)
Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements required to state a Title III ADA claim)
Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980) (district court’s discretion to grant or deny default judgment)