Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Lawsuit Dismissed Over Hotel Water Bottle That Contained More Than Expected

By Kit Yona, M.A. | Reviewed by Joseph Fawbush, Esq. | Last updated on

While water is available in a vast plethora of flavors, the horrifying variety served to a guest at a Ritz-Carlton hotel that contained semen is unlikely to become a popular choice. Despite confirmation that the substance in question was unknowingly imbibed by the plaintiff, a judge in California granted a summary judgment to the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Half Moon Bay, California, on June 16, 2025.

U.S. District Court Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin wrote that the plaintiffs, who filed as Jane and John Doe to avoid the ignominy attached to the story, had a "remarkable lack of evidence" proving the Ritz-Carlton was responsible for the water bottle's extra ingredient. This allowed the court to dismiss the case under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 602 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, stating the plaintiffs couldn't prove that an employee of the hotel was responsible.

Not That Kind of Enhanced Water

The Does had spent over 600 nights staying in Ritz-Carlton hotels and other Marriott International properties, so it was their go-to choice for a four-day celebration of Jane's birthday in November 2022. Unfortunately, they encountered a problem at the Half Moon Bay hotel that couldn't be easily handled by the famous Ritz-Carlton $2,000 rule.

According to their filing, the Does had Ritz-Carlton-branded water delivered to their room. Jane later drank from one of the bottles and realized something was amiss. Concerned that the taste and texture of the contents included semen, the Does alerted the Half Moon Bay management and the local police.

The Ritz-Carlton eventually had the water tested, which confirmed that semen was indeed present. The Does alleged that after claiming the employee accused by the couple was not a DNA match for the sample, the Ritz-Carlton absolved itself of all blame and responsibility, offering only token compensation. The lawsuit followed in 2023.

The Does' suit charged the Ritz-Carlton, their parent company Marriott International, and ten unnamed employees of the hotel with counts of sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and loss of consortium. The filing is written to amplify the ongoing horror that the couple claimed to be enduring. "Sexually-deviant criminal activity" is frequently used as a stand-in for "tainted water."

Seeking unspecified damages from the defendants, including punitive relief, the Does argued that only a Ritz-Carlton employee could be responsible for the tainted water. That may not have been their best option.

They Probably Don't Have a Well in the Basement

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in February 2025. They did so under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, pointing out that the Does' claim that the crime had to have been committed by a Ritz-Carlton employee lacked any actual evidence.

They also invoked Rule 602 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to negate the Does' claim of res ipsa loquitur. Judge Martínez-Olguin agreed that the Does weren't witnesses to the bottle's journey and had no expertise concerning who, besides hotel employees, might have had access before it was delivered to their room. The final count failed because, without a cause of action in tort, the spouse doesn't have a cause of action for loss of consortium. While John Doe might strongly disagree with that declaration, it's legally sound.

It's difficult not to feel sorry for the Does, who were indeed the victims of "sexually-deviant criminal activity" and certainly deserved some form of compensation. It might be too soon to suggest they owe themselves a vacation, though.

Was this helpful?

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard