Strojnik v. VY Verasa Commercial Company LLC

Background

Peter Strojnik filed this Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) case against four defendants on May 15, 2019. The court had previously granted a motion to dismiss filed by two defendants. VY Verasa Commercial Company LLC, doing business as the Westin Verasa Napa, later moved to have Strojnik declared a vexatious litigant. Judge Orrick deferred that motion while United States Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu considered the same issue in another ADA case brought by Strojnik in the district.

On June 1, 2020, Judge Ryu declared Strojnik a vexatious litigant and barred him from filing in the district a civil action challenging access to public accommodations by disabled people unless he first obtained certification that his claims plausibly alleged Article III standing. Article III standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a legally sufficient injury connected to the challenged conduct. Judge Ryu also dismissed the case before her for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Strojnik had not alleged an injury related to his disability or that disability-related reasons deterred him from visiting the hotel.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Orrick stated that the standing problems identified by Judge Ryu appeared to be present in Strojnik’s complaint here. Although Strojnik described the hotel’s website and facilities with photographs and captions referring to inaccessibility, the allegations were not tied to the specifics of his asserted disability for purposes of showing an injury or deterrence. The opinion cited Ninth Circuit precedent stating that standing to bring an ADA claim is linked to the nature of the plaintiff’s disability.

Because the court questioned whether Strojnik had standing to pursue the ADA claim, it stated that it would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is a court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside a federal claim.

Order

The court ordered Strojnik to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. His response, limited to ten pages, was due on or by August 28, 2020. The court directed him to address specific allegations he would include in an amended complaint to cure the identified deficiencies. The defendants could submit responses of no more than ten pages within one week after Strojnik’s response.

The opinion is an order to show cause, not a final dismissal. Judge Orrick had not yet ruled in this order that the case was dismissed.