Arroyo v. S.M. Broadway Corp.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Arroyo v. S.M. Broadway Corp.

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAFAEL ARROYO, Case No. 20-cv-09007-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY 9 v. CLOSING CASE

10 S.M. BROADWAY CORP., 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo alleges that Defendant S.M. Broadway Corp. violated the 14 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),

42 U.S.C. § 12101

et seq. and California’s Unruh Civil 15 Rights Act,

Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53

. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently 16 pending. [Docket No. 15]. At issue in this case is the scope of the regulations implementing the 17 ADA, specifically with respect to reservations systems for lodging facilities. See

28 C.F.R. § 18

36.302(e)(1)(i),

28 C.F.R. § 36.302

(e)(1)(ii). Those regulations are collectively referred to as the 19 “Reservations Rule.” The Ninth Circuit has yet to interpret the Reservations Rule, but appeals are 20 currently pending in at least two cases. See Love v. Marriott Hotel Srvcs., Inc., No. 20-cv-07137- TSH,

2021 WL 810252

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 21-15458 (9th Cir. Mar. 21 15, 2021); Garcia v. Gateway Hotel L.P., No. CV 20-10752 PA (GJSx),

2021 WL 936176

(C.D. 22 Cal. Feb. 25, 2021), appeal docketed, No 21-55227 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2021). As the cases on 23 appeal squarely concern the issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint, on September 3, 2021, the court 24 issued an Order to Show Cause why this action should not be stayed pending a Ninth Circuit 25 ruling in one or more of the foregoing cases. [Docket No. 22.] 26 Plaintiff does not oppose a stay of the case pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit 27 1 court sees no reason not to pause this litigation until the Ninth Circuit issues guidance. 2 For docketing reasons, rather than impose a stay, the court administratively closes this 3 case. Either party may reopen this case by filing a notice within 14 days after the Ninth Circuit 4 || issues its first mandate in Love and/or Garcia, or any other currently pending Ninth Circuit appeal 5 || interpreting the Reservations Rule. Ss DISTR; KEE i CS 6 ON IT IS SO ORDERED. ay g || Dated: September 17, 2021 ir 1 [A □□

10 a aN MES PEN. Yb OAIGSAIV □□ od o> □□ CY DISTRICL=

© 15 16

= 17

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

Reference

Status
Unknown