Soule v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc.
1 F. Supp. 3d 1084
D. Haw.2014Background
- Soule filed a First Amended Complaint in Hawaii federal court asserting Hawaii § 480-2(a) unfair/deceptive practices and unjust enrichment against Hilton arising from resort fees charged in Hawaii.
- Hilton removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rules 8, 9(b), and 12(b)(6); Soule opposed and moved to strike a declaration/file Exhibit A.
- Plaintiff alleges Hilton’s resort fees were inadequately disclosed during the online booking process and seeks class relief for Hawaii residents charged such fees.
- The FTC Warning Letter of November 26, 2012 and Hilton’s Waikiki booking and post-booking communications are central to the dispute over disclosure of mandatory resort fees.
- The court allowed consideration of certain outside documents (emails, FTC letter, hotel bill) under incorporation-by-reference but treated their evidentiary weight with caution, and ordered a more definite statement on paras. 48 and 54 for clarification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HRS 480-2(a) unfair methods claim is adequately pled. | Soule argues Hilton’s conduct unlawfully impacted competition. | Hilton contends the claim fails for lack of alleged nature of competition. | Dismissed without prejudice (need more detail on nature of competition). |
| Whether HRS 480-2(a) unfair or deceptive practices claim is adequately pled. | Soule sufficiently alleged misleading disclosure of resort fees. | Hilton argues disclosures were adequate pre- or during booking and rely on Rule 9(b) if fraud is pleaded. | Denied; claim survives with need for a more definite statement on paras. 48 and 54. |
| Whether the unjust enrichment claim is viable given an adequate legal remedy and implied contract. | Unjust enrichment is a fallback where no adequate legal remedy exists. | Existence of an express contract precludes equitable remedies. | Dismissed without prejudice (precluded where express contract exists; however, court allows claim to be dismissed without prejudice for lack of basis). |
| Whether the Voluntary Payment Rule bars Soule’s claims. | Rule does not bar claims against alleged misrepresentation in online resort-fee disclosure. | Voluntary payment doctrine applies, barring recovery for illegal charges after knowledge of facts. | Not barred; Rule 12(b)(6) not disposed on affirmative defense; declined to apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawaii Medical Ass’n v. Hawaii Medical Service Ass’n, Inc., 113 Haw. 77, 148 P.3d 1179 (Haw. 2006) (defines nature of competition and injury requirements under § 480-2)
- Davis v. Four Seasons Hotel Ltd., 122 Haw. 423, 228 P.3d 303 (Haw. 2010) (elements for unfair methods of competition claim under § 480-2)
- Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) (holds that deceptive practice requires showings of reasonable consumer access to terms)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (requires Rule 9(b) pleading for fraud-based claims)
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (highlights Rule 9(b) pleading standards for fraud)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (incorporation by reference allows consideration of documents attached to motion to dismiss)