1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 BRIAN WHITAKER, 7 Case No. 20-cv-06879-JSC Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 GRM BAYSHORE PROPERTY OWNER, 10 LLC, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court are Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and related 14 requests for judicial notice.1 (Dkt. Nos. 13, 14, 17.)2 At issue is the scope of a hotel’s obligation, 15 under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to:

16 Modify its policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that individuals with disabilities can make reservations for accessible guest rooms 17 during the same hours and in the same manner as individuals who do not need accessible rooms; [and] 18 Identify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms 19 offered through its reservations service in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a 20 given hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs[.] 21

(e)(1)(i)-(ii) (the “Reservations Rule”). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that 22 Defendant’s reservation system failed to adequately identify and describe the accessible features in 23 the guestroom he considered booking. Defendant argues that its reservation system complies with 24 the Reservations Rule, as interpreted by the Department of Justice, and thus it prevails as a matter 25 of law. See 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. A. 26 1 All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to

636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 5, 11.) 1 The Ninth Circuit has yet to interpret the Reservations Rule, but appeals are currently 2 || pending in at least two cases. Love v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., No. 20-cv-07137-TSH, 2021 3 || WL 810252 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 21-15458 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2021); 4 Garcia v. Gateway Hotel L.P., No. CV 20-10752 PA (GJSx),

(C.D. Cal. Feb. 5 25, 2021), appeal docketed, No 21-55227 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2021). The cases concern the issue of 6 || law squarely raised in Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly, Plaintiff 7 and Defendant are ordered to show cause as to why this action should not be stayed pending a 8 Ninth Circuit ruling in one or both of the above-cited cases. Each party shall submit a written 9 || response to this Order by August 10, 2021 showing cause as to why this action should not be 10 stayed. 11 The hearing on this matter set for July 29, 2021 is VACATED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13. |] Dated: July 27, 2021 Std Sea gistrate Judge 16

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28