Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05559/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-05559-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESA BROOKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

AJU HOTEL SILICON VALLEY LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-05559-SVK 

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

COMPLAINT; ORDER 

CONSOLIDATING CASE.

Re: Dkt. No. 12

In this 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.

Pursuant 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.

Case 5:19-cv-05559-SVK Document 21 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

I. BACKGROUND

On 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.

Between 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 nonaccessible suites in those categories. Id. ¶ 4. On October 16, 2019, the Court issued an order 

relating this case to the ‘411 case. Dkt. 8. 

Now 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 claim. Id.

II. DISCUSSION

A. ADA and Unruh Act claims

Defendant 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 

Case 5:19-cv-05559-SVK Document 21 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claim in this case is GRANTED WITHOUT 

LEAVE TO AMEND.

B. Claim splitting

 Defendant 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. 

Considering 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. 42(a). 

III. DISPOSITION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claim is DENIED.

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is GRANTED 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

3. The Court CONSOLIDATES this case with the Case No. 19-cv-00411-SVK for 

all purposes, including trial and dispositive motions. All future filings must be 

made in the ‘411 case only. The Clerk is ordered to administratively close the file 

in Case No. 19-cv-05559-SVK.

4. On or before January 15, 2020, Plaintiff must file a consolidated third amended

complaint in the ‘411 case that combines its ADA causes of action in this case and 

the ‘411 case. The consolidated complaint shall not include the Unruh Acts that 

have been dismissed in both cases, and it shall not include any other new claims or 

parties.

5. Defendant must file a response to the consolidated third amended complaint within 

15 days after it is filed.

6. Within 10 days of the filing of Defendant’s response to the consolidated third 

Case 5:19-cv-05559-SVK Document 21 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

amended complaint, the parties are ordered to meet and confer and submit a 

stipulation to the Court regarding a proposed schedule for the case that includes an 

opportunity for Defendant to bring an early motion for summary judgment, if 

Defendants intend to bring such a motion.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2019

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-05559-SVK Document 21 Filed 12/23/19 Page 4 of 4