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 * This matter was determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN BOWMAN, an individual; )

and DISABILITY RIGHTS ) 2:04-cv-0755-GEB-PAN

ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION )

SERVICES: HELPING YOU HELP ) ORDER*

OTHERS, a California public )

benefit corporation, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

) 

BEST WESTERN STATION HOUSE )

INN; THE WILLIFORD FAMILY )

PARTNERSHIP, L.P., a )

California limited )

partnership; BEST WESTERN )

INTERNATIONAL, INC., an )

Arizona corporation; and )

LEWIS T. WILLIFORD, an )

individual dba BEST WESTERN )

STATION HOUSE INN, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Pending is The Williford Family Partnership, L.P. and Best

Western International, Inc.’s (jointly “Defendants”) motion to

dismiss. Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff Disability Rights

Case 2:04-cv-00755-GEB-PAN Document 28 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 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

2

Enforcement, Education Services: Helping You Help Others (“DREES”)

from the claim for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act

of 1990 (“ADA claim”), arguing that DREES lacks standing as an

organization to assert the ADA claim. Defendants also move to dismiss

the claims for violations of the California Disabled Persons Act, the

California Health and Safety Code, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the

Unfair Business Practices Act (collectively “state law claims”),

arguing that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over the claims. For the reasons stated below, the

motion to dismiss DREES from the ADA claim is granted and the motion

to dismiss the state law claims is denied. 

BACKGROUND

Susan Bowman (“Bowman”) is a person with a disability. 

DREES is a disability rights organization of which Bowman is a member. 

Bowman and DREES brought suit against the Defendants raising identical

ADA and state law claims arising from Bowman’s alleged contact with

Defendants and/or their representatives on or about July 22, 2003 and

July 29, 2003. 

ANALYSIS

Standing

An organization may have standing to sue on behalf of its

members when (1) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in

their own right, (2) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to

the organization's purpose, and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the

relief requested requires the participation of individual members. 

Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Baldrige, 827 F.2d

1353, 1358 (9th Cir. 1987). The doctrine of organizational standing

is made up of two components: constitutional requirements and

Case 2:04-cv-00755-GEB-PAN Document 28 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 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

3

prudential considerations. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). 

The prudential considerations of organizational standing embrace

“judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal

jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigant's raising

another person's legal rights . . . .” Id. DREES’s standing to

pursue injunctive relief under the ADA claim must be evaluated in

light of these self-imposed limits.

DREES’s ADA claim for injunctive relief is the same as

Bowman’s ADA claim for injunctive relief. DREES has not shown

sufficient reason for it and Bowman to prosecute the same claim. 

DREES is merely repeating the claims brought by Bowman. Furthermore,

Bowman “appears to be the better party to assert [her] own claims. 

Therefore, [DREES] lacks standing to assert claims on [Bowman’s]

behalf,” and has not shown that it has standing to assert claims on

behalf of its other members. Access 123, Inc. v. Markey’s Lobster

Pool, Inc., 2001 WL 920051, at *4 (D.N.H. Aug. 14, 2001); see also

Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York v. Trump Intern. Hotel &

Tower, 2003 WL 1751785, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2003). Therefore,

DREES is dismissed as a plaintiff in the ADA claim. 

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Supplemental jurisdiction may be exercised over the state

law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. A court may decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction in four situations enumerated in 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c). Defendants’ motion fails to adequately explain why

supplemental jurisdiction should not be exercised in this case. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00755-GEB-PAN Document 28 Filed 09/01/05 Page 3 of 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

4

Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the state law claims is 

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00755-GEB-PAN Document 28 Filed 09/01/05 Page 4 of 4