1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DEBORAH LAUFER, Individually,

Plaintiff,

v.

J&J EXECUTIVE SUITES LLC, 

Defendant.

Case No. 6:20-cv-385

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Notice of 

Supplemental Authority in support of her Memorandum in Support of Standing filed 

on May 29, 2020.

In Parks v. Richard, 2020 U.S. Dist. Lexis 86790 (M.D. Fla. 5/18/2020), one 

court in the Middle District of Florida rejected the defendant’s argument that the 

plaintiff needed to intend to book a room at the hotel. First, the court held that the 

plaintiff sufficiently “alleged he suffered an injury in fact by encountering barriers 

that violate the ADA.” Id., at 4-5. The court directly rejected the defendant’s 

argument that the plaintiff lacked standing because he never visited or intended to 

visit the hotel. The court held that the:

ADA claim is based upon [defendant's] website failing to identify the 

accessible features of the motel and its rooms, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 

36.302(e)(1)(ii). Therefore, the relevant 'future injury' inquiry relates to the 

motel's website and reservation system, rather than the motel's physical 

Case 6:20-cv-00385-ADA-JCM Document 17 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 3
2

property." [Citation omitted.] While Parks may have never visited the motel, 

he visited its website and several third-party sites.

Id. at 7. The court also held that the Proximity Test was less applicable to ORS cases 

and additionally held that the distance between the property and the home was 

inapplicable, or weighed in plaintiff’s favor, because hotels are designed to cater to 

travelers from afar. Id., at *6. The court additionally held that a plaintiff establishes 

standing when they have a system of rechecking websites. Id.

In Kennedy v. Swagath Hospitality, LLC, 0:19-cv-60583-DPG, DE 27 (S.D. 

Fla. 1/2/2020), a court in the Southern District rejected the physical nexus argument, 

stating: 

Plaintiff alleges that (1) she visited Defendant's website to ascertain whether 

it met the requirements of 28 C.F.R. Section 36.302(e), (2) she intends to 

return to the website to test it for compliance and/or to reserve a guest room, 

and (3) Defendant's failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities 

Act ("ADA") is ongoing and harmful to her..... Based on these allegations, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact and an intent 

to the return to the website in the future.

In Kennedy v. Galleon Resort Condominium Assn, Inc., et al., 19-cv-62421-

CMA, DE 52 (S.D. Fla. 1/28/20), another district court rejected the defendant’s 

arguments (filed at DE 39) that a physical nexus was required between a 

discriminatory ORS and the physical hotel.

In Kennedy v. Nila Investments, LLC, 2:19-cv-90-LGW-BWC, DE 34 (S.D. 

Ga. 7/1/20), one Georgia court granted default judgment after an evidentiary hearing, 

Case 6:20-cv-00385-ADA-JCM Document 17 Filed 07/29/20 Page 2 of 3
3

finding that the plaintiff Kennedy suffered discrimination when she visited the noncompliant ORS. The court additionally found that the plaintiff had standing because 

she visited the ORS both before and after the lawsuit was filed “for the purpose of 

assessing the accessibility features of the property and to ascertain whether those 

sites met her accessibility needs as well as the requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 

36.302(e)(1).” Id. at p. 5.

DATED: July 29, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tristan W. Gillespie

Tristan W. Gillespie, Esq.

THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.

5150 Cottage Farm Rd.

Johns Creek, GA 30022

Tel: 404.276.7277

gillespie.tristan@gmail.com

Case 6:20-cv-00385-ADA-JCM Document 17 Filed 07/29/20 Page 3 of 3