On January 15, 2015, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC), along with three individual plaintiffs, brought this action against Hospitality Properties Trust (HPT), Inc., which operates 35 hotels in the state of California, as well as many hotels elsewhere in the United States. Plaintiffs alleged that HPT violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by failing to provide wheelchair accessible vehicles at its hotels. Plaintiffs requested a permanent injunction requiring HPT to comply with the two aforementioned statutes. The case was assigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar.
The three individual plaintiffs all require wheelchairs for mobility. Each claimed in the complaint that he or she was deterred from staying at HPT's hotels around California by HPT's lack of wheel-chair accessible shuttle services. All three plaintiffs stated that they hoped to stay at HPT's hotels in the future and would do so if they learn that HPT does provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles.
On November 12, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, in which they defined the class as “Individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility who, since January 15, 2013, have been, or in the future will be, denied the full and equal enjoyment of transportation services offered to guests at hotels owned and/or operated by Hospitality Properties Trust because of the lack of equivalent accessible transportation services at those hotels.”
On January 13, 2016, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
On April 15, 2016, Judge Tigar denied plaintiffs' motion for class certificate, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet commonality, typicality and FRCP §23(b)(2) requirement. 317 F.R.D. 91. On May 6, 2016, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit, and the parties agreed to stay the case until the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs petition to hear the appeal on July 27, 2016.
On April 11, 2017, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's decision to deny class certification. 867 F.3d 1093. The plaintiffs sought for rehearing from the Ninth Circuit, which was also denied on December 6, 2017.
Back in district court, the parties prepared for the discovery and dispositions. On September 4, 2018, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that there was no dispute of facts and the only issue here was whether the defendant qualified as “a private entity which operates” a fixed route or demand responsive system under ADA. On February 26, 2019, Judge Tigar denied this motion, finding that any private entity that provides a transportation service itself or by a person under a contractual or other arrangement or relationship with the entity was qualified and the defendant could be such an entity. 2019 WL 935134.
The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 14, 2019. Litigation continued throughout 2019, but ended abruptly on January 31, 2020 when the parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice. The case closed that same day. As of May 26, 2020, there are no public statements from either party explaining the dismissal.
Spencer Klein - 02/23/2015
Chiaki Nojiri - 03/01/2019
Alex Moody - 05/26/2020
compress summary
