Rutherford v. On the Beach LLC

Summary

On December 11, 2019, James Rutherford filed a Complaint in California State court against On the Beach, LLC. Plaintiff James Rutherford alleges that www.veniceonthebeachhotel.com/ is not accessible.

About the defendant

On the Beach, LLC owns and operates Venice On The Beach, a beachfront hotel in Venice, California.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• On the homepage of www.veniceonthebeachhotel.corn, there is a general description ofthe Hotel's location and features; however, none ofthe information provided relates to accessibility as required by Disability Access Laws.
• There is a link labeled "Accommodations" which offers photos, a description, and a "Book" link for each of the Hotel's four room options. There is a statement at the top of the page that reads: "If you're looking for accessible accommodations., please visit our sister property, Ocean Park Hotel" whichcreates uncertainty as to the accessibility standards of the Hotel.
• There is a link labeled "Amenities" which offers descriptions of the Hotel's various amenities; however, none of the information provided relates to accessibility as required by Disability Access Laws.
• There is a link labeled "Policies** which offers a large description of the Hotel's various policies; however, none of the information provided relates to accessibility as required by Disability Access Laws.
• There is an accessibility link that prompts Plaintiff to obtain accessibility info via contacting the Hotel instead of providing it on the Website; however, this method merely obstructs Plaintiff's ability to reserve a room in the samemanner as able-bodied users.
• Remaining links from the homepage do not contain information regarding accessibility as required by Disability Access Laws.
• When attempting to make a reservation, Plaintiff was unable to book a room because he was unable to find any information or room option pertaining to accessibility as required by Disability Access Laws.
• The Website, including the reservations aspect, does not indicate with any degree of detail whether the Hotel offers accessible features, including but not limited to parking and/or accessible pathways to the accessible entrance(s), oraccessible pathways to resort amenities,
• The Website does not permit reservation of accessible rooms in the same manner as other rooms including the identification of accessible features of rooms and of the Subject Property in enough detail to reasonably permitPlaintiff to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets their accessibility needs.

Legal claims

The laws the plaintiff says the defendant broke, called causes of action.

• Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.
• Declaratory Relief

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

• A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from further violations of the Unruh Act, Civil Code 5 51 er seq. requiting Defendants to take the steps necessary to ensure that Defendants’aintain and implement policies and procedures.
• A declaration that since March 15, 2012, Defendants discriminated against persons with mobility impairments by failing to ensure that Defendants’eservations service offered through the Website allowed persons with mobility impairments to independently identify accessible features of Defendants’otel and rooms and independently reserveaccessible rooms in the Hotel, and that Defendants did not comply with the requirements of 28 CFR ( 36.302(e)(1) et seq. in violation of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42U.S.C. $ 12181 et seq.as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-325), 28 CFR fl 36.302(e)(1) et seq., and California’s Unruh Act, California Civil Code (fan 51-524
• Statutory damages pursuant to California Civil Code ( 52(a), for each and every violation of law;
• Plaintiff hereby expressly limits the injunctive relief to require that Defendants expend no more than $ 50,000 thereon;
• Plaintiff seeks no relief related to any architectural barriers to access in this Complaint and expressly limits all claims to injunctive relief to modifications of Defendants'9policies and procedures related to the Website;
• For attorneys’ees and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws including, without limitation, Civil Code ( 52(a);
• An order awarding Plaintiff’s post-judgment interest; and
• For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.