Mugs, Frayed Towels And Poolside Pina Coladas

A lawsuit brought against the Four Seasons (a Canadian corporation) has been dismissed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Judge Cooper) on jurisdictional grounds

Because this suit is between a noncitizen and a foreign corporation, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this case. The parties do not assert, and the Court is not aware of, any other basis for jurisdiction.

Parties

Luxury travelers worldwide extol the Four Seasons hotel chain for its five-star service and amenities. Plaintiff Adaeze Nwosu is not among them. In this pro se lawsuit, Ms. Nwosu claims she received substandard service at several Four Seasons locations across the United States. She further asserts that the Four Seasons in Washington, D.C. unlawfully refused to rent her space for a would-be art gallery and café.

The Four Season moves to dismiss Nwosu’s complaint for failure to state a claim and opposes her request for leave to file an amended complaint on grounds of futility. For the reasons explained below, the Court will dismiss the case. It will do so, however, because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. It will also deny Nwosu leave to amend, deny Nwosu’s motion for sanctions, deny as moot the Four Seasons’ motion to strike Nwosu’s jury demand, and grant the Four Seasons’ motion to strike Nwosu’s notice of interlocutory appeal.

After inquiring about installing an art gallery in the D.C. hotel

A few days later, Nwosu emailed the Four Seasons again, claiming that the marketing director had “lied to” her by denying her the opportunity to rent the space. Opp’n Mot. Dismiss Ex. B at 1. Another executive replied, reaffirming that the space was unavailable because the hotel had plans to “reclaim” the space for its own use. Compl. ¶ 5.15. Because the executive did not provide any details regarding the Four Seasons’ plans, Nwosu concluded that the Four Seasons was unfairly refusing to lease her the space. See id. ¶¶ 5.23, 5.33

Allegations of poor service

Nwosu also raised several complaints in her email about the quality of service she received as a guest in three different Four Seasons hotels. Opp’n Mot. Dismiss Ex. B at 1. She complained that the staff had messy appearances, room service served her tea in a mug instead of a teacup, some hotels provided only “3 star level[]” breakfast credits, and a floor towel in one of her rooms was frayed. Id.

Plaintiff had entered into a short term residential lease at Four Seasons Houston

The lease stipulated that housekeeping services would be provided three times a week and could be scheduled between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Id. at 4. A few weeks later, during the 2023 holiday season, Nwosu complained to hotel management that housekeeping was coming at inconvenient times. See Opp’n Mot. Dismiss Ex. B at 8–10. A Four Seasons staff member apologized for the inconvenience and told Nwosu that he “understood [Nwosu was] usually busy with work from 9am – 4pm daily,” so the housekeeping staff would “always try to aim to service [her] room after 4pm[.]” Id. at 10. Nwosu was not pleased with this “regimented” schedule, however, and told the staff member that she would request housekeeping when she wanted it. Id. at 8–9. She instructed the staff not to “schedule [her] in.” Id. at 9.

Three months later

One night, she called room service and asked that a piña colada be delivered to her at the pool. Id. ¶ 5.42. Nwosu claims the employee taking the order over the phone asked her to describe her appearance so the server could identify her. Id. Nwosu described herself as “brown skin girl with short afro hair.” Id. ¶ 5.44. The employee allegedly called back a few minutes later and said that the hotel did not have a blender to make the drink and that the pool bar was closed. Id. ¶ 5.46. Later that night, Nwosu called guest services and told another employee what happened. Id. ¶ 5.47. The second employee purportedly called Nwosu back and told her the drink would be delivered in ten minutes. Id. ¶ 5.49. Since the second employee made the drink after the first said it was unavailable, Nwosu concluded that the first employee, who is white, deliberately denied her service because of her race. Id. ¶ 5.51.

Sanction sought by the plaintiff were not imposed on defendant based on its motion to dismiss

The Four Seasons’ motion to dismiss falls well short of that high bar, even if it did not raise any jurisdictional issues. Indeed, some of the grounds for dismissal advanced by the Four Seasons may well be meritorious.

(Mike Frisch)