1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No. 21-cv-01275-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 20 10 KHP III SF SUTTER LLC, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Orlando Garcia has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, walker, or cane for 14 mobility. Dkt. No. 19 ¶ 1. He has alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 15

et seq. (ADA), and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal Civ. Code 16 §§ 51-53, against defendants KHP III SF Sutter LLC and Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group 17 LLC (collectively “Kimpton”), which own and operate the Kimpton Buchanan Hotel in San 18 Francisco, California. 19 In a first amended complaint, Garcia alleges that the Kimpton website does not comply 20 with the “Reservations Rule,”

(e)(1)(ii), which requires places of lodging to 21 “identify and describe accessible features . . . in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals 22 with disabilities to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her 23 accessibility needs.” Dkt. No. 19 ¶ 36. Garcia says the website did not adequately disclose the 24 features of the Kimpton Buchanan Hotel’s “accessible” room, namely whether there is a mirror 25 mounted at the correct height, grab bars by the toilet, sufficient clearance and hot water pipe 26 insulation under the sink for a wheelchair user, a doorway width of “at least 32 inches,” a desk or 27 table with sufficient clearance underneath, and a shower seat with grab bars.

. The 1 alleged paucity of information is said to have deterred Garcia from patronizing the Kimpton 2 || Buchanan Hotel.

§ 29. 3 Kimpton says its website complies with the Reservations Rule, and has asked to dismiss 4 the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible claim. The Court took the motion 5 under submission on the written papers. Dkt. No. 30. 6 Dismissal is warranted for the same reasons the Court discussed in Love vy. MW □ J LLC, 7 No. 21-cv-01471-JD, Dkt. No. 13 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2021). In pertinent summary, the 8 Reservations Rule does not demand the level of detail that Garcia urges. Consequently, Garcia 9 || has not alleged a plausible ADA claim or Unruh Act claim (which was predicated on the ADA 10 allegations). See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). Dismissal is without 11 prejudice for the reasons explained in Love, No. 21-cv-01471-JD, Dkt. No. 13 at 3. Garcia may 12 file an amended complaint consistent with this Order, and with Love, by November 12, 2021. A 5 13 failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil 14 Procedure 41(b). The requests for judicial notice, Dkt. Nos. 21 and 26, are denied as moot 3 15 because the Court did not consider them in reaching its decision. 16 CONCLUSION IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: October 26, 2021 19 20 JAMES/#PONATO United tates District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28