Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01449/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01449-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theresa Brooke
Plaintiff
KPK, Inc.
Defendant
Travelodge Turlock
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

H&K PARTNERSHIP, a California 

partnership dba Best Economy Inn & Suites,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

C & S CHONG INVESTMENT 

CORPORATION, a California corporation 

dba La Quinta Inn Bakersfield North,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JDS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, a 

California limited liability company dba 

Days Inn Bakersfield,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1406-AWI-JLT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR LACK OF STANDING

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1407-LJO-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1408-DAD-JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01449-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 11
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

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JHP HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., a 

California corporation dba Ramada Limited 

Bakersfield North,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D.P.R.L. INVESTMENTS, LLC, a 

California limited liability company dba 

Hotel Rosedale,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KOO JIN HYUN & CHU MYUNG HEE, 

trustees of the KOO JIN HYUN & CHU 

MYUNG HEE TRUST dba Hampton Inn & 

Suites Bakersfield North-Airport,

Defendants.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PRIME HOSPITALITY SERVICES, LLC, a 

California limited liability company dba 

Hampton Inn & Suites Bakersfield/Hwy 58,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1409-AWI-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1410-LJO-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1411-DAD-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1414- LJO-JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01449-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 11
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

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RP GOLDEN STATE MGT, LLC, a 

California limited liability company dba 

Garden Suites Inn,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KPK, INC., a California corporation dba 

Travelodge Turlock,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

LILJENQUIST MODESTO COMPANY, 

LLC, a California limited liability company 

dba Modesto Hotel,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

METRO HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC., 

a California corporation dba Hampton Inn 

Fresno NW,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1415-LJO-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1449-LJO -JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1454-DAD-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1455- DAD-JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01449-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/26/16 Page 3 of 11
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

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JAYESHKUMAR PATEL, an individual; 

PRAFULBHAI PATEL, an individual, both 

individuals dba Budget Inn Modesto,

Defendants.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KHATRI BROTHERS, L.P., a California 

limited partnership dba Clarion Modesto,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

A&A TARZANA PLAZA, LP, a California 

limited partnership dba Hilton Garden Inn 

Clovis,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

AKSHAR, INC., a California corporation 

dba Parkside Inn Fresno,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1456-LJO-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1465-AWI-JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1499-AWI- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1502-DAD- JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01449-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/26/16 Page 4 of 11
5

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

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

THANDI ENTERPRISES, LLC, a California 

limited liability company dba Holiday Inn 

Express Fresno,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

BHAGAT BHAVESH, an individual dba 

Rodeway Inn Fresno,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO AIRPORT HOTELS, LLC, a 

California limited liability company dba 

Ramada Fresno Airport,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KAINTH BROTHERS, INC., a California 

corporation dba Country Inn Suites Fresno

North,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1503-DAD- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1505-DAD- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1506-DAD- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1508-LJO- JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01449-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/26/16 Page 5 of 11
6

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

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SHIV HOTELS, LLC, a California limited 

liability company dba Hampton Inn Fresno,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SHIVKRUPA INVESTMENTS, INC., a 

California corporation dba La Quinta Inn 

Suites Fresno,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SHRIGI, INC., a California corporation dba 

Welcome Inn Fresno,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

THE DAE SUNG & HEE JAE CHA TRUST 

dba Quality Inn Tulare,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1509-LJO- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1510-LJO- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1511-LJO- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1520-LJO- JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01449-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/26/16 Page 6 of 11
7

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

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HANFORD INVESTORS, INC., a 

California corporation dba Comfort Inn 

Hanford,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

INTERLINK PROPERTIES L.P., a 

California limited partnership dba Hampton 

Inn Visalia,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

NMA HOSPITALITY LLC, a California 

limited liability company dba La Quinta 

Tulare,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TERRA INVESTMENTS I, LLC, a 

California limited liability company dba 

Charter Inn Suites,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1521-AWI- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1522-LJO- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1529-DAD- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1530-DAD- JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01449-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/26/16 Page 7 of 11
8

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

Plaintiff Theresa Brooke seeks to proceed with claims in each of the foregoing actions for 

violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and 

the California Disabled Persons Act.1 

 

1

See Case No. 1:16-cv-01406-AWI-JLT (Doc. 1), Case No. 16-cv-01407-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv01408-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01409-AWI-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01410-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case 

No. 1:16-cv-01411-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01414-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01415-LJO-JLT 

(Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01449-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01454-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv01455-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01456-LJO-JLT (Docs. 1, 4); Case No. 1:16-cv-01465-AWI-JLT (Doc. 1); 

Case No. 1:16-cv-01499-AWI-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01502-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01503-DADJLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01505-AWI-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01506-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv01508-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01509-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01510-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case 

No. 1:16-cv-01511-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01520-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01521-AWI-JLT 

(Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-01522-LJO-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:cv-01529-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-1530-

DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-1594-AWI-JLT (Doc. 1); Case No. 1:16-cv-1595-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1); and Case No. 

1:16-cv-01596-DAD-JLT (Doc. 1) Because the allegations to which the Court refers in its analysis are identical in each of 

the 28 cases, the citation to “Complaint” refers to the operative pleading in each case. 

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PICADILLY INN UNIVERSITY, dba 

University Square Hotel,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DAYS INN OF FRESNO PARTNERSHIP, 

dba Days Inn Fresno Central,

Defendant.

____________________________________

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PICADILLY INN EXPRESS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1594-AWI- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1595-DAD- JLT

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1596-DAD- JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01449-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/26/16 Page 8 of 11
9

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

Plaintiff reports she resides in Pinal County, Arizona and is disabled and confined to a wheel 

chair. (Complaint, ¶1) She alleges the defendants’ hotels—located throughout the Eastern District of 

California in Bakersfield, Fresno, Tulare, Modesto, and Sacramento—have “barriers to use of the 

swimming pool facilities” and “do not have acceptable means of entry for disabled persons.” 

(Complaint, ¶ 4) However, Plaintiff fails to allege she visited the hotels and encountered the barriers, 

or facts supporting a conclusion that she has personal knowledge of the alleged barriers. Rather, in 

each complaint, Plaintiff alleges she “contacted Defendant’s hotel for purposes of booking a room for 

personal and business affairs,” and “inquired whether Defendant’s hotel pool or Jacuzzi (“pool”) had a 

pool lift or other means of access for disabled persons such as Plaintiff.” (Complaint, ¶ 24) According 

to Plaintiff, hotel representatives at each of the defendants’ hotels informed her there were no lifts. 

(Id.) She asserts her “agent, an expert in ADA accessibility guidelines, as part of due diligence 

investigation, independently verified that the Jacuzzi does not have a pool lift... and provided Plaintiff 

with photographs demonstrating the lack of accessibility.” (Complaint, ¶ 25) Plaintiff alleges: 

But for these barriers, Plaintiff would lodge with Defendant in the near future. If and 

when Defendant removes these barriers, Plaintiff will lodge with Defendant’s hotel since 

she has several upcoming planned visits to the...area. However, she will not pay money 

to book a room at Defendant’s hotel when she already is aware through photographs and 

expert assertions that Defendant’s hotel does not provide disabled persons such as her 

access equal to able-bodied persons.

(Id.) Plaintiff concludes that because she “is currently deterred” from staying at each of the hotels by 

the pool accessibility barrier, she has standing to bring the actions. (Complaint, ¶ 26)

As explained by the Supreme Court of the United States, “those who seek to invoke the 

jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the 

Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 

(1983). “[T]he Constitution mandates that prior to our exercise of jurisdiction there exist a 

constitutional ‘case or controversy,’ that the issues presented are ‘definite and concrete, not 

hypothetical or abstract.’” Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 

2000) (quoting Railway Mail Assoc. v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 93 (1945)). To satisfy the “case or 

controversy” requirement, a plaintiff must demonstrate standing under Article III to bring suit. Human 

Life of Wash., Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Skaff v. Meridien N. Am. 

Case 1:16-cv-01449-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/26/16 Page 9 of 11
10

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

Beverly Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832, 838 (2007) (“standing is an essential and unchanging part of the 

case-or-controversy requirement of Article III”).

To establish standing—and thus that there is an actual case or controversy—a plaintiff “must 

demonstrate (1) an injury-in-fact, (2) causation, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by 

a decision in the plaintiff’s favor.” Human Life, 624 F.3d at 1000 (citing Lujan v. Defenders of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). To establish standing to pursue injunctive relief under the ADA, a 

plaintiff must also “demonstrate a ‘real and immediate threat of repeated injury’ in the future.” 

Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 946 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Significantly, several courts have determined that merely calling to inquire about accessibility 

and potential barriers is insufficient to support a conclusion that the plaintiff has standing under the 

ADA. See, e.g., Brooke v. Kalthia Group Hotels, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156163, 2015 WL 7302736 

(S.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2015) (an ADA plaintiff has not suffered an injury-in-fact until he or she has 

“actually become aware of discriminatory conditions existing at a public accommodation, and is 

thereby deterred from visiting or patronizing that accommodation”); Brooke v. Ayres-Laguna Woods, 

L.P., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59863 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2016); Brooke v. Joie de Vivre Hospitality LLC, 

2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123316 (D. Az. May 20, 2015). Indeed, “[d]riving by, or to the property, 

without staying in a hotel room or facing the allegedly discriminatory amenities is not sufficient to meet 

the ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ requirement.” Meggs v. MHD Vegas Realty Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

21645 at *7 (D. Nev. Mar. 10, 2016) (citing Parr v. L & L Drive-Inn Restaurant, 96 F.Supp.2d 1065, 

1079 (D. Haw. 2000)). 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.

2

///

///

///

///

 

2

Plaintiff’s complaints also contain claims for violations of California law. However, the Court should not 

exercise jurisdiction over these claims if she lacks standing for her sole claim under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Case 1:16-cv-01449-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/26/16 Page 10 of 11
11

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

Accordingly, within 14 days, Plaintiff SHALL show cause why the actions should not be 

dismissed for lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01449-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 10/26/16 Page 11 of 11