United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; ORDER
CONSOLIDATING CASE. RE: DKT. NO. 12
VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge.
case, Plaintiff Theresa Brooke alleges that Defendant AJU
Hotel Silicon Valley LLC, which owns and/or operates the
Westin San Jose hotel, violates the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the California Unruh
Civil Rights Act because the hotel does not offer an ADA
accessible room corresponding to each non-accessible room
type it offers. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the
Westin San Jose does not offer accessible “Penthouse
Suite, ” “Palm Suite, ” or “Saint
Claire Suite” rooms even though it offers a
non-accessible suites in those categories. Dkt.1 (Complaint)
¶ 4. Defendant now seeks to dismiss the complaint. Dkt.
12. Defendant argues that the complaint in this case violates
the anti-claim splitting doctrine because it is duplicative
of an earlier-filed related case, Brooke v. AJU Hotel
Silicon Valley LLC, N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:19-cv-00411-SVK
(“the ‘411 case”). Id. Defendant
also argues that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Dkt. 12. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a
magistrate judge. Dkt. 10, 13.
to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court deems this matter
suitable for determination without oral argument. After
considering the parties' submissions, the case file, and
relevant law, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to
dismiss the ADA claim, GRANTS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claim,
consolidates this case with the ‘411 case, and directs
the parties to take additional steps as described below.
January 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against
Defendant in the ‘411 case, alleging that the Westin
San Jose hotel, which is owned and/or operated by Defendant,
violates the ADA because the hotel allegedly does not offer
an accessible “studio king” room even though it
offers non-accessible “studio king” rooms.
‘411 Dkt. 1; see also ‘411, Dkt. 7
(first amended complaint (“FAC”)). Plaintiff also
seeks relief under the Unruh Act in that case. Id.
On May 20, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the FAC
in the ‘411 case. ‘411 Dkt. 18. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on August 27, 2019, and issued an
order granting the motion to dismiss in part on September 5,
2019. ‘411 Dkt. 36, 42. Following the Court's
September 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
(“SAC”) in the ‘411 case, and Defendant
moved to dismiss the SAC. ‘411 Dkt. 43, 46.
the time of the hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss
the FAC in the ‘411 case and issuance of the order on
that motion, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case (the
“‘5559 case”). Dkt. 1. The complaint in
this case asserts causes of action under the ADA and the
Unruh Act stemming from Defendant's alleged failure to
offer an accessible “Penthouse Suite, ”
“Palm Suite, ” or “Saint Claire
Suite” at the Westin San Jose, even though Defendant
offers non-accessible suites in those categories.
Id. ¶ 4. On October 16, 2019, the Court issued
an order relating this case to the ‘411 case. Dkt. 8.
before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss the
complaint in this case. Dkt. 12. Defendant argues that (1)
this action should be dismissed on the grounds of improper
claim splitting; and (2) the ADA and Unruh Act claims should
be dismissed for lack of standing or failure to state a
ADA and Unruh Act claims
states that the claims in this case and the ‘411 case
are identical other than the type of hotel room at issue and
the date of Plaintiff's alleged access to Defendant's
website. Dkt. 12-1 at 5-6. Accordingly, Defendant
“relies on and incorporates by reference” its
motion to dismiss the SAC in the ‘411 case.
Id. at 6. For the same reasons articulated in the
order on that motion (‘411 Dkt. 53), Defendant's
motion to dismiss the ADA claim in this case is DENIED and
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claim in this
case is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
states that “Plaintiff can and should have litigated
her entire dispute with Defendant in a single case” and
requests that the Court dismiss this case on the grounds of
claim splitting. Dkt. 12-1 at 5. Plaintiff opposes
Defendant's claim splitting argument. Dkt. 19. In her SAC
in the ‘411 case, Plaintiff states that she “does
not object to the consolidation of both cases.”
‘411 Dkt. 43 ¶ 11.
the posture of both cases and the parties' apparent
agreement that the cases involve common questions of fact and
law, the Court finds that consolidation of this case with the
‘411 case is appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P.