Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01247/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01247-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

v. Conclusion

2 | After full consideration of Plaintiff's delay in seeking the amendment, the
3 | prejudice to Defendants, and Defendants’ arguments regarding bad faith and futility,

Given this Court’s decision, Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended
complaint. As the First Amended Complaint proposed by Plaintiff includes material

that this Court has not given her leave to include, it is not to be filed in its current form.

This Court requests that both parties make an effort to be clear in indicating
| whether a particular reference to an “accessible room” refers to a designated accessible
room, or to a designated accessible room with a roll-in shower. Plaintiff is also
requested to check the numbering of paragraphs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

.

Dated: NovemberZ> , 2013

HOM. ROGER T. BENITEZ
United States District Judge

-14- 120v1247

Oo ON DN BB WN

NNN NN NNNDND HB Bee ew ee ee
aI Dun FF WNRK DUO DANI DN FF WN KS CO

additional violations that Plaintiff's expert identified on the premises during the site
inspections. Plaintiff points to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery
Company, 654 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2011), which requires a plaintiff who seeks
relief under Title III of the ADA to identify the barriers in the complaint, rather than
relying upon an expert report generated during discovery to confirm, identify, and
notice defendants of access barriers. A defendant is not deemed to have fair notice of
barriers identified elsewhere. Jd. at 909. Plaintiff thus seeks leave to amend her
complaint to add the necessary detail.
i. Undue Delay

A lengthy delay in seeking leave to amend is not enough alone to support a
denial, but it is relevant to the determination. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v.
Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). The complaint in this
matter was filed on May 23, 2012, and the Motion to Amend was filed May 28, 2013,
approximately one year later. Plaintiff claims that she postponed seeking leave to
amend while working with the Magistrate Judge in an effort to settle the case. (Mot.
at 7). Plaintiff states that she drafted the proposed FAC shortly after Defendants’
response to her first settlement demand made it clear the case would not settle. (/d.)

Plaintiff's first settlement demand was sent November 27, 2012. She has
therefore been aware of the additional barriers in at least some areas since that time.
Examination of the proposed amended complaint indicates that the second document
is dated May 5, 2013, although it not clear whether this is when Plaintiff first received
the information. Plaintiff became aware that she could not inspect rooms without roll-
in showers on April 30, 2013.

Although Plaintiff may have been delaying out of hope ofa settlement, the Court
notes that Plaintiff was engaged in obtaining the information that she ultimately needed
in order to amend the Complaint, and was seeking additional information that she
wanted to add to her Complaint. Although Plaintiff has delayed here, such delay is not

serious under the circumstances, and not enough to support a denial. The Court takes

-5- 12cv1247

oon nan kwWN

NNN NNN NNDB HB KF BS ee Be Be BS eS
oN A nN WHR CD HO AN KDNH PWN KF OS

(9th Cir. 1996); Silvas v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, No. cv-09-265, 2009 WL 1098462, at
*3 (D. Ariz. Apr. 23, 2009) (dismissing complaint for, among other problems, being
overbroad and failing to present necessary facts in an understandable context).

The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 8 requires a plaintiff to identify the barriers
that constitute the grounds for a claim of ADA discrimination in the complaint. Oliver,
654 F.3d at 909. In refusing to allow an ADA plaintiff to rely upon expert reports
generated during discovery, the Ninth Circuit expressed concern with forcing
defendants to guess which barriers were grounds for the claim. Jd. It would not serve
the purposes of fair notice to the defense to force a plaintiff to allege all barriers in the
complaint if the complaint is permitted to be as confusing as the expert reports.

vy. Conclusion

Plaintiff is therefore given leave to amend the Complaint to include additional
barriers found in public areas and accessible rooms with roll-in showers, but Plaintiff
cannot simply reference the overbroad expert reports. Plaintiff must specifically and
clearly identify which additional barriers she claims she may assert under the ADA.

B. New Claims with Regard to Rooms Without Roll-In Showers

Plaintiff also seeks permission to add claims regarding rooms which do not have
the roll-in showers. Plaintiff used such rooms in 2008 and 2009. (Proposed FAC {[f
17, 18, 22, 23, 35, 36). As the Magistrate Judge stated, and as the parties do not
dispute, any claims arising directly from her past encounters with these barriers are
time-barred because they are more than two years old. (April Order; Opp’n at 5).

i. Undue Delay

The Court notes that there is greater delay in seeking this amendment. Plaintiff
was aware of her past difficulties in rooms without roll-in showers before she filed her
lawsuit, and does not claim that there has been any relevant development affecting her
ability to bring these claims. Plaintiff could have brought these claims when she filed
her complaint in May 2012, a full year before seeking leave of court to amend.
However, the Court also notes that Plaintiff became aware that the Magistrate Judge

-10- 12cv1247

ow men Dn FF WN

NN NY NY NN NN YN YS HY KY Be KF FF KF KF KS eS
oN DAMN BWNHeK DOAN DA WN KS SC

Permitting amendment now may shorten litigation.

Defendants state that they are prejudiced by the additional expenses they will
have to incur. (Opp’n at 8-9). Defendants specifically point to the additional expenses
they will incur if Plaintiff is given leave to add claims regarding rooms without roll-in
showers. (Id.) Such expenses do not prejudice Defendants with regard to the claims
in public areas and rooms with roll-in showers. It is not clear that adding additional
violations in these areas will substantially burden Defendants.

Defendants also claim that the amendment is highly prejudicial to Defendants
because the report is lengthy, and contains many barriers that she may or may not
actually be claiming. This concern is valid, and is addressed below.

iv. Futility

Defendants argue that leave to amend should be denied because Plaintiff's
proposed new claims are futile. (Opp’n at 3). In determining whether to grant a
motion for leave to amend, courts consider whether the claim a plaintiff seeks to assert
will be defeated at summary judgment. Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 628-29
(9th Cir. 1991).

Defendants claim that it would be futile for Plaintiffto amend her claims because
the expert reports allege many violations, including many that do not relate to
Plaintiff's disability. They point out that Plaintiff does not explain how her disability
was affected by them so as to deny her full and equal access. (Opp’n at 3).
Defendants’ contentions raise the question of what Plaintiff must demonstrate in order
to establish standing under the ADA, and what claims Plaintiff has standing to make.

a. Standing Requirements

Article III of the United States Constitution requires that a plaintiff establish
standing to sue. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Standing
has three elements: 1) injury in fact, 2) causation, and 3) redressibility. See id. Atissue
in this case is the requirement that a plaintiff suffer an injury in fact. To establish

standing for injunctive relief, including under the ADA, a plaintiff must also allege a

-7- 120v1247

Co ON DN PF WN &

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the delay into consideration alongside the other factors.
ii. Bad Faith

Plaintiff claims that she seeks to provide notice of the barriers in order to aid
negotiations, streamline discovery, and eliminate Oliver arguments. (Mot. at 6).
Defendants arguments on bad faith primarily rely on their contentions regarding
Plaintiff's undue delay in seeking to amend the Complaint. The Court notes that
Defendants also claim that Plaintiff sought leave to amend to circumvent the Magistrate
Judge’s denial of her request to conduct inspections in accessible rooms without roll-in
showers. (Opp’n at 8). That order does not pertain directly to these claims, but the fact
that Plaintiff sought to amend her claim after being told that her current claims did not
allow her to pursue the relief she seeks is not enough to demonstrate bad faith to this
Court. There is also no reason for this Court to conclude that Plaintiff is asserting a
baseless legal theory to prolong litigation, or is making any misrepresentations. See
Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 881 (9th Cir. 1999).

iii. Prejudice to the Opposing Party

Plaintiff argues that Defendants will not be prejudiced. Plaintiff contends that
the parties have conducted no discovery outside of the two site inspections, and that
Defendants have actual notice of all of the barriers that will be alleged in public areas
and in rooms with roll-in showers. (Mot. at 9). Defense counsel was present at all
inspections, Defendants have received two settlement demands detailing violations
which Plaintiffnow seeks to add, and Defendants have already responded to Plaintiff's
first settlement demand. (/d.)

Plaintiffalso claims that permitting the amendment will streamline discovery and
litigation by “illuminating the nature, scope, and location of the alleged access
barriers.” (Mot. at 9). As Plaintiff herself argues, if the Complaint is not amended to
include the additional barriers, Plaintiff cannot seek injunctive relief as to those barriers
in this litigation. However, the Court notes that plaintiffs whose claims fail to survive

a motion to dismiss are frequently given leave to file an amended complaint.

-6- 120v1247

Co Or DNA FF WN

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

b. Plaintiff May Seek Relief for Certain Barriers She Did Not
Experience

Plaintiffhas standing to assert at least some claims against Defendants under the
ADA. She makes allegations in her complaint regarding barriers that she personally
experienced, and which affected her because she was a wheelchair user. (Proposed
FAC {| 27-32). Plaintiff's intention to return to the Resort is supported by her
ownership ofa timeshare. (Compl. 4). Defendants nowhere dispute that Plaintiff has
standing to assert at least one claim.

As she has standing to assert at least some claims, she may raise other claims
related to her disability. This Court concludes that amendment would not be futile as
to additional barriers that Plaintiff has identified which relate to her disability and
which are not located in areas where Plaintiff is not reasonably likely to encounter
them, or where she is otherwise unlikely to enter. See Chapman, 631 F.3d at 952.

c. Plaintiff's Expert Reports are Overinclusive

Defendants argue that the expert reports in the proposed FAC discuss alleged
violations that do not relate to her disability (e.g., signs for the blind), or which are
located in places Plaintiff is unlikely to go (e.g., men’s bathroom). (Opp’n at 4).
Plaintiff concedes that she may not raise claims unrelated to her disability. (Reply at
6). The Court notes that Plaintiff has agreed to redact her proposed attachments to
remove items that are not relevant to Plaintiff or her proposed disability. (Id.).

Plaintiff may not merely attach a report containing many alleged violations,
including some for which she concedes that she cannot seek relief, and force
Defendants to guess which she claims to have standing to assert. The Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure require a Plaintiffto submit “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). A complaint
violates Rule 8 where it contains a significant amount of irrelevant or slightly relevant
material, and defendants will be required to conduct discovery and file motions to

figure out what the plaintiff is claiming. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178

-9- 12ev1247

_

I3NOY 25 PH S29

& UW DEPUTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIE RAPP, CASE NO. 12-cv-1247-BEN (WMC)

Plaintiff, | ORDER GRANTING IN PART
vs. MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO
FILE FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT
LAWRENCE WELK RESORT, the
d/b/a/ of WELK RESORT GROUP, [Docket No. 53]
INC.; WELK RESORT
PROPERTIES, INC.; WELK
HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT.
INC.; WELK RESORTS PLA’
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; and
THE VILLAS AT THE WELK.
RESORT VACATION OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Oo morn KHUN FW DY

ee
onan nk WN S| OC

Defendants.

Ne
o oO

Before this Court is Plaintiff Julie Rapp’s Motion Seeking Leave to File First
Amended Complaint (Docket No. 53). After full consideration of the briefing and the
record in this matter, this court grants the Motion in part.

I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff suffered a stroke in 1997 which paralyzed the left side of her body.

Nw NY N N N
A B&B WN &

(Compl. { 4). Plaintiff cannot independently stand or walk, and requires a walker or
wheelchair for mobility. (/d.) Around 2008, Plaintiff and her husband purchased a
timeshare at the Lawrence Welk Resort in Escondido, CA (Resort). (Id.) Plaintiff

claims she was assured when she bought the membership that she would be given

N
an

27
28

-1- 120v1247

Com rANI Dn fF WN

NNN NN NNNDN YS BS BB eB ee eB Be
on Aun FF WNeRK COC BO DA DN FF WN KS SCS

Circuit has found that it “makes no sense to require a disabled plaintiff to challenge,

in separate cases, multiple barriers in the same facility, controlled by the same entity,

all related to the plaintiff's specific disability.” Doran, 524 F.3d at 1047. IfPlaintiff's

amendment is not futile, considering all matters now could serve judicial economy.
iv. Futility

Defendants claim that Plaintiff's new claims are futile because Plaintiff lacks
standing to assert ADA claims for rooms without roll-in showers.

As discussed in the prior section, Plaintiff has already established standing to
assert claims in other parts of the Resort, allowing her to seek an injunction for other
barriers on the premises, even if she did not personally experience them. However,
Plaintiff cannot obtain an injunction where the barriers do not affect her particular
disability, where she is not reasonably likely to encounter the barriers, or where the
barriers are in areas she is unlikely to enter. See Chapman, 631 F.3d at 953.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff lacks standing to assert these claims because
she would only encounter barriers in a room without a roll-in shower if she a) fails to
book in a timely manner, and b) voluntarily chooses to go despite the risk to her safety.
(Opp’n at 6).

Plaintiff will only be guaranteed such a room if she books fifteen months ahead
of time, with schedule flexibility. This is a significant burden to impose upon an
accessible guest. To be clear, this Court is not finding that the policy itself is a
violation of the ADA. That question is not before this Court at present. However, the
existence of a burdensome policy that would allow Plaintiff to obtain a more desirable
accessible room instead of a less desired accessible room does not allow Defendants
to state that there is no real and immediate threat of injury in the future.

Although Plaintiff cannot assert claims based directly on time-barred
experiences, the Ninth Circuit has found that although past wrongs are not enough to
demonstrate such a “real and imminent threat” to establish standing, they are evidence

of whether such a threat exists. Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075,

-12- 120v1247

Co wanrt Aun F&F WN

NH NN NN NNN WN YH Se Be Be Be ee Be Se eS
on nun fF WNHrK CSO BANDA FB wWN KY CS

would not order inspections in rooms without roll-in showers in April 20, 2013. The
delay for this amendment is more substantial, but it is not egregious. The Court took
the delay into consideration in weighing all the relevant factors.

ii. Bad Faith

Defendants accuse Plaintiff of seeking to delay litigation and evade a court order.
Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint after it became clear that she could not seek
the relief she sought because of the limits of her original complaint. This is insufficient
to show bad faith. There is no other persuasive evidence of bad faith.

iii. Prejudice

The assertion of claims for rooms without roll-in showers has greater potential
to prejudice Defendants. It expands the scope of the litigation to new areas of the
Resort, and will allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery that has been expressly denied by
the Magistrate Judge. (Docket No. 50).

This will generate additional costs for Defendants that they would not otherwise
incur. Defendants correctly point out that Plaintiff conceded that coordinating the
inspections took months and each inspection took multiple days. (Mot. at 8). The
addition of a new category of claims would not streamline discovery, but would add
new subjects, as demonstrated by the additional site inspections Plaintiff seeks to
conduct. Unlike the amendments regarding public areas and rooms with roll-in
showers, Plaintiff has not conducted inspections in the presence of defense counsel, or
made detailed settlement requests. Plaintiffs are therefore not already on notice of
barriers that Plaintiff might find.

However, the Court notes that there has been limited discovery to date, and that
there is no indication that any of Defendants’ past efforts to handle this case will be
wasted. Plaintiff contends that it would harm Plaintiff and waste resources to disallow
the amendment. (Mot. at 10). Plaintiff contends that if she is not allowed to allege
barriers in rooms without roll-in showers at this time, she will only be forced to file

another lawsuit in the future when she encounters those barriers. (/d.) The Ninth

-ll- 120v1247

oon Dn F&F WYN

NN HN NN NNN SB Be ee Be Se ee
ont nnt WNnNeRK CO ODO BNI KDA FF WN KH CO

“real and immediate threat of repeated injury” in the future. Chapman v. Pier I Imports
(U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 946 (9th Cir. 2011).

Under the ADA, when a disabled person encounters an accessibility barrier
violating its provisions, it is sufficient for standing that the barrier interfere with a
plaintiff s “full and equal enjoyment” of the facility. Chapman, 631 F.3d at 947 (citing
42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)). The barrier must affect the plaintiff's full and equal enjoyment
on account of his particular disability. Jd.

Once a disabled plaintiff has encountered a barrier that violates the ADA, “that
plaintiff will have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, so long as his or
her suit is limited to barriers related to that person’s particular disability.” Id. at 947
(quoting Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008)). Therefore,
where an ADA plaintiff has Article III standing as a result of at least one barrier at a
place of public accommodation, he may permissibly challenge all barriers in that public
accommodation that are related to his or her specific disability. Chapman, 631 F.3d
at 951. The plaintiff has standing to seek an order requiring the removal of all barriers
at the public accommodation “that are related to his disability and that he is likely to
encounter on future visits.” Jd. at 951 (citing Doran, 524 F.3d at 1047). The disabled
individual need not personally encounter the barrier. Jd. The injury suffered by the
plaintiff is the discrimination that results from the failure to remove architectural
barriers, and a plaintiff need not establish each barrier as a separate injury meeting
Article III requirements. Id. at 952.

However, a plaintiff cannot seek injunctive relief (1) where the barriers do not
affect that plaintiff s particular disability, (2) where the plaintiff is not reasonably likely
to encounter the barriers (e.g., areas off-limits to customers), or (3) where barriers are
in areas he is unlikely to enter (e.g., arestroom for the opposite gender). See id. at 953.
The plaintiff must also show that he is either deterred from returning, or that he intends
to return and is likely to suffer repeated injury. Id.

Ml

=8- 12ev1247

Co ON HN FW NY

NN NY NN NNN YN SY Be Be Re Be Be Be
OoarNYHDUnN PWN RKHK DO DBA DA FB WN KS CS

facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he
ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. Jd. Leave should
be freely given in the absence of any apparent or declared reason, “such as undue delay,
bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, . . . undue prejudice to the
opposing party. . . , futility of amendment, etc.” Id.

The Ninth Circuit has held that, although Rule 15 should be interpreted with
“extreme liberality,’ leave to amend is not to be granted automatically.” Jackson v.
Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Webb,
655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). Prejudice to the opposing party is the most
important factor. Jd. at 1387 (citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,
401 U.S. 321, 330-31 (1971)).

The decision to grant leave to amend is “entrusted to the sound discretion of the
trial court.” Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996). A
district court may, in its discretion, impose “reasonable conditions” on a grant of leave
to amend a complaint. Int'l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Republic
Airlines, 761 F.2d 1386, 1391 (9th Cir. 1985). In doing so, it considers the factors
relevant to determining whether to grant leave to amend. Jd.

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint in two distinct ways. First, she seeks to
amend her complaint to include allegations regarding additional barriers in public areas
and accessible rooms with roll-in showers. These barriers are in addition to barriers
Plaintiff already identified in those areas in the Complaint. Second, Plaintiff seeks to
add claims regarding barriers found in accessible rooms that do not have roll-in
showers. As the analysis differs for each set of claims, they will be addressed
separately.

A. Amendment to Include Additional Barriers in Public Areas and

Accessible Rooms With Roll-In Showers

Plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint to include two expert reports containing

-4- 120v1247

wo OrAN AWN FF WN

NNN NN NNN YN HY Fe Be Be ee Be eS
orn NDA BF WN RK DO AANA DH PB wWNHN KY CS

each of which specifies the barriers, their locations, and the codes Plaintiff believes
they violate. (/d. at 2-3). The first demand was made on November 27, 2012. (Id. at
2). After Defendants claimed the demand was insufficiently specific, Plaintiffs sent a
revised demand on March 12, 2013. (dd. at 2-3). The second demand, concerning the
barriers in accessible rooms with roll-in showers, was sent on May 13, 2013. (/d. at 3).
There had been no response as of the time briefing in this matter was filed. (/d.)

Plaintiff also sought to inspect accessible guest rooms that do not have roll-in
showers. The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's request on April 30, 2013. (Order
(1) Following Telephonic Conference Re: Discovery; (2) Setting Further
Teleconference (April Order), Docket No. 50). In relevant part,

Without making a decision as to dispositive issues such as standing and

sufficiency, the Court can determine under Rule 26(b) that the scope of

Plaintiff’ s request to inspect rooms without a roll-in shower is overbroad

at this time as Plaintiff's ADA claim, as alleged in the complaint, centers

on the barriers encountered on her 3011 visit to the resort, Under Rule

25), Plaintiff is entitled to discovery related to a parties’ claim or

defense. However, the ADA claims presently contained in Plaintiffs

complaint identify and concentrate on accessibility barriers only in guest
rooms with roll-in showers. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for inspection

of guest rooms without roll-in showers is DENIED at this time.

(April Order at 4).

On May 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to seek leave to file her
proposed First Amended Complaint (FAC). She seeks to (1) allege with greater
specificity the barriers that constitute the grounds for her claim in public areas and
accessible rooms with roll-in showers, and (2) allege claims regarding accessible rooms
without roll-in showers. (Mot. at 3-4). This is Plaintiff's first request to amend her
complaint.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Once a defendant has answered, a plaintiff may only amend the complaint by
leave of court, or with the written consent of the adverse party. FED. R. Cv. P. 15(a).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), leave to amend should be “freely
given when justice so requires,” and the Supreme Court has stated that “this mandate

is to be heeded.” Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Where the underlying

-3- 12ev1247

1
|

accessible rooms to accommodate her disability-related needs. (/d.) Plaintiff claims
that she has been given rooms that are designated as wheelchair accessible, but which
have access barriers. (/d. ]5). She also claims to have encountered barriers in public
areas on the Resort grounds. (/d. 5). Plaintiff asserts that she was informed that all
rooms, including the wheelchair-accessible rooms, were reserved and assigned on a
“first come, first served basis.” (Jd. § 22). Plaintiff claims that the Resort failed to
modify its policies and practices to ensure Plaintiff was not denied an accessible

guestroom based on “first come, first served policies,” and the Resort required her to

wo Orn Hn FS

pay extra money to upgrade her membership to be guaranteed an accessible room. (Jd.

| 129).
On May 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to Title

This action was assigned to the undersigned Court, and to the Hon. William
McCurine, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge. The parties conducted limited initial
| discovery, consisting of two site inspections at the Resort. (Mot. at 2). The first

| inspection covered the exterior public areas of the Resort. (/d.) The second inspection

25 || covered accessible guest rooms with roll-in showers. (Id.) Each inspection took
multiple days, and Defendants’ counsel attended the inspections. (Jd.) The expert
27 | generated two reports concerning accessibility barriers. (Jd.)

28 Plaintiff used the reports to make two settlement demands for injunctive relief,

-2- 12ev1247

ow onan & WN

NO NY NY NY NN NN DN NN HK HK Be Be Re Se Re Se BS eS
aon nA nk WwW NHNeH DO MAAN KDA BF WN YK CO

1081 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff's past experiences are evidence that she may have to
accept a room without a roll-in shower in the future, or risk not being able to go to the
Resort. Even if the policy is entirely proper, Plaintiff's past experiences suffice to
demonstrate that there is a “real and immediate threat” that she may need to stay in an
accessible room without a roll-in shower because she has needed to do so twice in the
past, and there is no guarantee she can have another kind of room without taking
extraordinary steps.

The Court notes that Defendants raise several arguments defending their policy
regarding accessible rooms. Plaintiff stated claims about the policy in her initial
complaint. The Court will not consider the merits of already-pled claims when
deciding a Motion to Amend.

Defendants also claim that she would only have a room without a roll-in shower
if she voluntarily decides to jeopardize her safety. However, the rooms in question are
allegedly designated as wheelchair-accessible.' (See, e.g., Proposed FAC 9 17, 18;
Mot. at 3). Defendants may well be able to claim that the lack of roll-in showers in
those rooms is not an ADA violation; the Court does not express any opinion on this
matter. However, Plaintiff asserts a number of violations related to the accessible
rooms without roll-in showers, which are unrelated to the bathing facilities. (Proposed
FAC 4 18). Although Plaintiff would be choosing a room which may subject her to
discomfort, or require her to decide whether to take on certain safety risks because it
lacks a particular feature, the room is still allegedly designated as suited for wheelchair
users. A place which is labeled accessible is not a place that a wheelchair user is not
reasonably likely to go, or an area she is unlikely to enter, even if it may pose
challenges. Plaintiffs proposed amendment regarding violations in accessible rooms

without roll-in showers would not be futile.

__Although the word “accessible” is sometimes used by Plaintiff to refer
specifically to the rooms with roll-in showers, it appears from the proposed complaint
and the briefing that Plaintiff is seeking to add claims regarding rooms which are
designated accessible, but which do not contain roll-in showers.

-13- 12cv1247