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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Fernando Gastelum, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CP Buttes LLC, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-18-00940-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Fernando Gastelum’s Response to the Order 

to Show Cause, a Motion to Amend, and a Motion to Consolidate for Purpose of Appeal. 

(Doc. 25). For the following reasons, the Court find that Plaintiff has failed to show cause 

and dismisses the case for lack of standing pursuant to the Court’s Order in Gastelum v. 

Canyon Hospitality, No. 17-cv-02792-PHX-GMS at Doc. 42. The Court also denies 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate. 

 Plaintiff’s Response to the Order to Show Cause provides no additional 

particularized facts about Plaintiff’s deterrence from and intent to actually visit or make a 

return visit to Defendant’s hotel sufficient to grant him standing. Plaintiff discusses why 

he views the Canyon Hospitality decision as erroneous, but does not give the Court any 

additional facts specific to Defendant’s hotel that would justify a departure from the 

Canyon Hospitality decision. Plaintiff booked a room at Defendant’s hotel after the 

Canyon Hospitality decision in an effort to show an intent to return. (Doc. 25, Ex. 3). But, 

as this Court discussed in Canyon Hospitality, merely booking a room is not sufficient to 
- 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 

show a likelihood of encountering the alleged barriers or being deterred by them and 

suffering injury as a result. Canyon Hospitality, at pp. 14–15. The Court finds that 

Plaintiff has failed to show cause, and therefore dismisses the case for lack of standing 

pursuant to the Canyon Hospitality order. 

 Plaintiff then requests leave to amend. Courts are to “freely give leave to amend 

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, local rules require that “a 

party who moves for leave to amend a pleading must attach a copy of the proposed 

amended pleading as an exhibit to the motion, which must indicate in what respect [the 

amended pleading] differs from the pleading it amends by bracketing or striking through 

the text to be deleted and underlining the text to be added.” LRCiv. 15.1(a). The local 

rule imposes this requirement, among other reasons, to permit the court and the parties to 

determine whether there has been “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the party 

of the movant, . . . [or] futility of amendment,” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 

182(1962). The Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Rule prevents the Court from 

assessing whether the Plaintiff would add facts relevant to the particular lodging 

defendant to suggest that the amendment he proposes would not be futile in light of this 

Court’s previous rulings. However, Plaintiff has had opportunities in multiple hearings 

and in this Order to Show Cause to present facts which would demonstrate a real injury 

and likelihood of future injury. Plaintiff has not provided any information to the Court 

which would allow the Court to find standing. In Plaintiff’s Response to the Order to 

Show Cause, Plaintiff suggests that “[i]f the distinction between intending to visit a hotel 

and intending to book a room at a hotel is constitutionally problematic, Plaintiff can 

easily change the verbiage to the Court’s satisfaction.” (Doc. 25, p. 5, n. 3). This is the 

only mention of how Plaintiff would specifically amend his complaint. Plaintiff, 

however, misunderstands the Court’s ruling. Amending the Complaint to change its 

verbiage would not cure the Court’s findings that Plaintiff has not actually established 

any sufficient desire to visit the hotel in question sufficient to be deterred from visiting 

there in the present. Merely changing the verbiage of the Complaint does not change the 
- 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 

facts of Plaintiff’s sparse prior stays at hotels, limited finances, lawsuits against 139 

hotels in the Phoenix area, and lack of detail as to why Plaintiff wishes to stay at 

Defendant’s hotel. 

 Finally, Plaintiff requests that this case be consolidated with the Canyon 

Hospitality matter for purposes of appeal. Because the cases address the same question 

and rely on the same Order, the Court grants the motion. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the case is dismissed for lack of standing 

pursuant to the Court’s Order in Gastelum v. Canyon Hospitality, No. 17-cv-02792-PHXGMS at Doc. 42. The clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend is DENIED and the 

Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED for appeal purposes (Doc. 25). 

 Dated this 15th day of June, 2018. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge