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.

Geneva Lema v. Courtyard Marriott Merced

March 27, 2012

GENEVA LEMA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
COURTYARD MARRIOTT MERCED, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 49)

Defendants move for dismissal pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction because of Plaintiff's lack of standing. This court reviewed the papers and determined that this matter was suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h). Having considered all written materials submitted, the Court is required to dismiss the complaint as a result of Plaintiff's failure to allege facts establishing subject matter jurisdiction.

I. Procedural History

On June 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants seeking injunctive relief and damages for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.); California state disabilities rights laws (California Civil Code §§ 54, 54.1, and 55); and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief, and treble damages. Defendants answered on July 29, 2010.

Following multiple substitutions of counsel in the spring and summer of 2011, Defendants failed to provide timely expert discovery, resulting in the Court's striking Defendants' designation of its expert witness on January 19, 2012. On February 3, 2012, Defendants moved to dismiss the complain for lack of jurisdiction.

II. Factual Allegations

Plaintiff alleged that she is a person with physical disabilities who uses a wheelchair, but has "short term semi-ambulatory abilities with the use of hand crutches." Plaintiff alleged that, in the two years before she filed her complaint, she was unable to patronize Defendants' hotel due to a laundry list of deficiencies:

1. In the Designated Accessible Guestrooms (hereafter simply "guestrooms"), the entrances lack 18 inches or strike side clearance on the pull side of the door;

2. Guestroom restrooms lack 19 inches of strike side clearance on the pull side of the door, and 12 inches on the push side;

3. The security latch on that door is mounted too high;

4. Guestroom restrooms lack the landing depth outside the restroom door, 60 inches of turning space within the restroom, and clear floor space in front of the sink;

5. The water closets inside the guestroom restrooms are not mounted 18 inches on center, lack both side and front transfer space, their adjacent toilet paper holders are outside or required reach range, their seats are too low, and their grab bars are obstructed;

6. Grab bars are obstructed;

7. Grab bars in roll in showers are obstructed;

8. In the guestroom restrooms, mirrors are mounted too high, water feeds are not wrapped;

9. Amenities above the sink constitute noncompliant reaches over an obstruction;

10. Coat hooks are set too high;

11. The threshold of the guestroom restroom is too high;

12. The roll-in shower lacks a fixed drop-down bench;

13. The whirlpool in the King bed room has a noncompliant entry and lacks ...


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.