Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brooke v. Regency Inn-Downey LLC

United States District Court, D. Arizona

September 18, 2017

THERESA BROOKE, a married woman dealing with her sole and separate claim, Plaintiff,
v.
REGENCY INN-DOWNEY, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Regency Inn and Suites, Defendant.

          ORDER

          H. Russel Holland United States District Judge

         Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue

         Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, or in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Central District of California.[1] This motion is opposed.[2] Oral argument was not requested and is not deemed necessary.

         Background

         Plaintiff is Theresa Brooke. Plaintiff alleges that she is a resident of Pinal County, Arizona.[3]

         Defendant is Regency Inn - Downey, LLC, which owns and/or operates the Regency Inn and Suites in Downey, California.[4]

         Plaintiff alleges that on July 1, 2017, she went to defendant's website, www.regencyinnla.com, “for purposes of booking a room later this year.”[5] Plaintiff, who is confined to a wheel chair, requires the use of an ADA accessible room and she attempted to reserve such a room on defendant's website.[6] Plaintiff alleges that she “entered her desired dates for” later in July, “but the website only offered non-accessible rooms for her desired dates.”[7] Plaintiff alleges that she then attempted to book dates two months out and four months out, but the website did not offer any ADA accessible rooms for these dates either.[8]Plaintiff alleges that she “later discovered on [d]efendant's website that it states as a matter of fact that it does not accommodate reservations for ADA accessible rooms via its online reservation system.”[9] Plaintiff alleges that defendant's website informs a potential guest that the guest “must call [d]efendant to reserve an ADA room.”[10]

         On July 2, 2017, plaintiff commenced this action in which she asserts a claim under Title III of the ADA, [11] which prohibits discrimination by public accommodations. Plaintiff alleges that defendant has violated Title III of the ADA because “it has failed to make its website reservation system fully and equally accessible to [p]laintiff and [other] disabled persons.”[12] More specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant “does not allow for the reservation of ADA accessible rooms in the same manner and during the same hours as a patron can reserve non-accessible rooms.”[13]

         Defendant now moves to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for improper venue. In the alternative, defendant moves to transfer this case to the Central District of California.

         Discussion

         “Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for improper venue.” Omnicell, Inc. v. Medacist Solutions Group, LLC, 272 F.R.D. 469, 472 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), a court need not accept the pleadings as true and may consider facts outside of the pleadings.” Id. “Once the defendant has challenged the propriety of venue in a given court, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that venue is proper.” Id.

         “Generally, courts look to the venue provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 to determine whether venue is proper.” Id. Section 1391(b) provides:

A civil action may be brought in--
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.