Case Background
On August 3, 2019, Helene Astafan checked into the Rodeway Inn at 1261 E. Main Street in Barstow, California, with her husband and their eleven-year-old grandson. Astafan, who lived in Oklahoma, used a cane for stability, had a heart defibrillator, and had undergone hip and knee replacements. Her husband also lived with a disability. At check-in, her husband asked for an ADA-compliant room, and the hotel assigned the family Room 106, which the complaint described as having a roll-in shower, a low sink, and a high commode.
The next morning, August 4, 2019, Astafan finished packing and got ready to check out. As she stepped out of Room 106, she tripped over the door threshold and fell to the ground. The complaint stated that Room 106, like every other room at the property, had a matte gray metal threshold about one and one-quarter inches high with no bevel.
Astafan sued the hotel's alleged owners and operators — BRK Hospitality, Inc. (doing business as BRK Hospitality LLC), Choice Hotels International Services Corp., and Choice Hotels International Inc. She filed her complaint in San Bernardino County Superior Court on November 18, 2022.
Cause
Astafan brought two claims. First, she alleged the hotel violated the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, which incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act. She argued the raised, unbeveled door threshold was an architectural barrier that denied her full and equal access to a public accommodation. Second, she brought a negligence and premises liability claim, alleging the Defendants negligently owned, maintained, managed, and operated the property, and that their conduct was a substantial factor in causing her harm.
Injury
Astafan said the fall caused serious injuries to her head and face. According to the complaint, she suffered hematomas and eye lacerations, among other injuries, and she required medical treatment and cosmetic surgery. She also stated she might need future medical care.
Damages Sought
Astafan asked the Court for several forms of relief. She sought an injunction compelling the Defendants to comply with the ADA and the Unruh Act. She requested damages under the Unruh Act, which provides for actual damages and a statutory minimum of $4,000 per offense. She also asked for special damages, general damages, and reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses, and costs. The complaint noted that Astafan did not invoke Section 55 of the California Civil Code and did not seek injunctive relief under the Disabled Persons Act.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Helene Astafan
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Louis P. Dell | Rosie Barmakszian
Defendants: BRK Hospitality, Inc | Choice Hotels International Services Corp | Choice Hotels International Inc.
· Counsel for Defendants: Melissa T. Daugherty | Stephen E. Abraham
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Astafan's complaint centered on the condition of the door threshold. She alleged the threshold exceeded the height and bevel limits set by the ADA Standards for Accessible Design, and that hotel door thresholds are the kind of barrier the Department of Justice treats as readily achievable to remove. She alleged the Defendants acted intentionally to discriminate in violation of the Unruh Act, and, in the alternative, that they negligently maintained the premises. She added that she would return to the Rodeway Inn once told it was accessible, and that she remained deterred from visiting because she knew of the existing barriers.
Defense
The Defendants denied every allegation in a general denial filed on April 26, 2023, and they denied that Astafan was entitled to any relief. They raised thirty-eight affirmative defenses. Among them, they argued the complaint failed to state a claim, that the claims were time-barred, and that Astafan lacked standing because she had not suffered harm. They asserted she could not establish a violation of the ADA or intentional discrimination, that the barrier removal she proposed was not readily achievable and would create an undue burden, and that alternative methods of access existed.
The defense also placed Astafan's own conduct at the center of its case. It alleged comparative fault, arguing she failed to use the care a reasonably prudent person would have used, and that any recovery should drop in proportion to her share of responsibility. It raised assumption of risk and obvious danger, contending she knew of the danger and freely exposed herself to it. The Defendants further argued that other parties not named in the suit bore responsibility, and that any injuries flowed from intervening or unavoidable causes rather than from their conduct.
Jury Verdict
The case went to trial before the Honorable Thomas S. Garza in Department S27, and trial began on September 9, 2025. On September 23, 2025, the jury returned a general verdict that favored the defense on both claims.
On the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim for disability discrimination based on access barriers to a public facility, the jury answered "No," declining to find for Astafan against the Defendants. On the premises liability claim, the jury again answered "No." Because the jury answered "No" on both claims, it did not reach the damages section, and it awarded nothing. The jury foreperson signed and dated the verdict form on September 23, 2025.
On October 30, 2025, Judge Garza entered judgment on the verdict. The judgment ordered that Astafan recover nothing from BRK Hospitality, Inc., Choice Hotels International Services Corp., and Choice Hotels International Inc. It also ordered that the three Defendants recover their costs of suit from Astafan, in an amount the Court would determine later.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
