Theresa Brooke v. Hotels

5 Citing cases

  1. Advocates for Individuals With Disabilities LLC v. WSA Props. LLC

    210 F. Supp. 3d 1213 (D. Ariz. 2016)   Cited 8 times

    Id. at 14. It does not identify these agents, but the Court assumes they are ADA experts like those used by attorney Peter Strojnik in other ADA cases. SeeBrooke v. Peterson, 184 F.Supp.3d 1203, 1205, 2016 WL 2851440, at *2 (C.D.Cal. May 13, 2016) ; Brooke v. Kalthia Grp. Hotels, No. 15CV1873–GPC(KSC), 2015 WL 7302736, at *5 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 18, 2015).Thus, this case squarely presents the question of whether Ritzenthaler must have personally visited Defendant's property to have standing to assert ADA violations. This question was raised in the Court's Order (Doc. 13 at 4), but Plaintiffs chose not to address it. The Court can only conclude that Ritzenthaler has not visited Defendant's business and seeks to establish standing merely on the basis of his second-hand knowledge of barriers.

  2. Brooke v. Elite Hospitality, LLC

    No. 4:15-cv-0425-HRH (D. Ariz. Jun. 10, 2016)

    In its opening brief, defendant urges the court to reconsider its motion to dismiss primarily because of a decision that has been issued by a district court in California. Having filed over 150 "pool lift" cases against hotels and like premises in Arizona, plaintiff filed what appears to be an identical "pool lift" case in the Southern District of California: Brooke v. Kalthia Group Hotels, No. 15cv1873-GPC (S.D. Cal.). The California court dismissed plaintiff's complaint because it concluded that plaintiff lacked standing and that plaintiff's claims were moot. The California court found that plaintiff lacked standing because "[a]n allegation that [p]laintiff's agent 'independently verified' the alleged violations, without more information about the agent, is not sufficient to allege standing." And the California court found that plaintiff's claims were moot because the hotel had installed a fixed pool lift and it was clear that defendant's allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.

  3. Johnson v. Melehan

    Case No.5:16-cv-04064-HRL (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039 (quoting Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc. v. Ernst Enters., 711 F.2d 138, 139 (9th Cir. 1993)). However, that does not necessarily mean that motions of this kind can never be granted in the ADA context. Indeed, in Brooke v. Kalthia Group Hotels, the district court did just that. No. 15cv1873-GPC (KSC), 2015 WL 7302736 (S.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2015). Here, plaintiff failed to produce any evidence raising a genuine dispute as to defendants' evidence about the current condition of the parking lot.

  4. Zachman v. Wells Fargo N.A.

    Case No.: 3:15-cv-02909-BEN-JMA (S.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Plaintiff, as the party seeking federal jurisdiction, has the burden of showing that Article III standing exists. Brooke v. Kalthia Grp. Hotels, No. 15CV1873-GPC(KSC), 2015 WL 7302736, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2015) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). To demonstrate standing, Plaintiff must show (1) an injury in fact; (2) traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.

  5. Brooke v. Capitol Regency LLC

    No. 2:16-cv-02070-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. May. 17, 2017)   Cited 3 times
    Dismissing the plaintiff's state law claims under the Unruh Act and the California Disabled Persons Act without prejudice after dismissing plaintiff's federal ADA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

    us problems with ADA plaintiffs suing a multitude of establishments from afar."); Brooke v. Ayres-Laguna Woods, No. 16-cv-00347-CJC- KES, 2016 WL 1714880 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2016) (dismissing complaint for failure to allege injury in fact in analogous circumstances); Brooke v. Perry Family Trust, No. 2:16-cv-04648-DMG-AJW (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2016) (same); Brooke v. Everest Hotel, Inc., No. 5:16-cv-01378-DMG-PJW (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016) (same); see also Order to Plaintiff to Show Cause Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of Standing, Brooke v. H & K P'ship, No. 1:16-cv-1406-AWI-JLT (E.D Cal. Oct. 26, 2016) (order issued for 28 related cases) ("Thus, because Plaintiff did not stay at—or even visit—the hotels and did not personally encounter the alleged barriers, it appears Plaintiff lacks standing under Article III to pursue her claims for violations of the ADA."). The Court also finds that Judge Curiel's dismissal order in Brooke v. Kalthia Grp. Hotels supports dismissal. No. 15-cv-01873-GPC-KSC, 2015 WL 7302736 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2015). Contrary to Plaintiff's argument, only dictum from that decision lends credence to Plaintiff's position. Judge Curiel ultimately dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for lack of standing and did not, as Plaintiff contends, Opp. at 5-6, hold that Plaintiff's "call and confirm method" confers standing.