1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SAMUEL LOVE, Case No. 20-cv-08445-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE1 v. 9 Re: ECF No. 17 10 HOYAS OWNER LLC, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 17. 14 At issue is the scope of a hotel’s obligation, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to:

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

(e)(1)(i)-(ii) (the “Reservations Rule”). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that 21 Defendant’s reservation system failed to adequately identify and describe the accessible features in 22 the guestroom he considered booking. Defendant argues that its reservation system complies with 23 the Reservations Rule, as interpreted by the Department of Justice, and thus it prevails as a matter 24 of law. See 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. A. 25 The Ninth Circuit has yet to interpret the Reservations Rule, but appeals are currently 26

27 1 This order is copied nearly verbatim from the Order to Show Cause issued in Whitaker v. GRM 1 pending in at least two cases. Love v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., No. 20-cv-07137-TSH, 2021 2 |} WL 810252 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 21-15458 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2021); 3 Garcia v. Gateway Hotel L.P., No. CV 20-10752 PA (GJSx),

(C.D. Cal. Feb. 4 25, 2021), appeal docketed, No 21-55227 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2021). The cases concern the issue of 5 law squarely raised in Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Defendant are 6 || ordered to show cause as to why this action should not be stayed pending a Ninth Circuit ruling in 7 one or both of the above-cited cases. Each party shall submit a written response to this Order by 8 September 10, 2021 showing cause as to why this action should not be stayed. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 || Dated: September 2, 2021 11 JON S. TIGAR 12 ited States District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28