Strojnik v. VY Verasa Commercial Company LLC

Background

Peter Strojnik filed the case without a lawyer, asserting claims against VY Verasa Commercial Company LLC, doing business as the Westin Verasa Napa, including claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The opinion describes Strojnik as a disabled veteran and an ADA tester. He said he was deterred from visiting the hotel because he knew of its alleged ADA noncompliance.

The district’s General Order 56 governs ADA access cases. It requires the parties to meet at the property within 105 days after the complaint is filed, jointly inspect the portions of the property allegedly violating the ADA, and discuss settlement during the inspection or within 28 days. The order also stays discovery and other proceedings unless the assigned judge orders otherwise.

The parties scheduled an inspection for September 30, 2019. According to VY Verasa’s counsel, Strojnik arrived without the equipment he had said he would bring, was unprepared, and did not identify specific changes needed at the property. Strojnik described counsel as unpleasant. The inspection did not occur.

Motions and analysis

Strojnik filed a motion for partial summary judgment on his ADA and Unruh Act claims before the scheduled inspection. VY Verasa told him the motion violated General Order 56 and asked him to withdraw it, but he did not do so. The court held that the motion plainly violated General Order 56 and an earlier instruction requiring compliance with the district’s ADA-case scheduling order. The court therefore denied the motion on that basis. The court also noted that summary judgment would not have been appropriate in any event, but the stated disposition rested on the scheduling-order violation.

VY Verasa requested $3,000 in sanctions to cover attorney fees incurred opposing the summary-judgment motion. The court did not award sanctions at that time, although it warned that Strojnik’s conduct could be considered in a future motion if his litigation performance did not substantially improve.

Strojnik separately moved to enforce compliance with General Order 56 and requested reimbursement of $1,321 in travel expenses. The court’s opening ruling states that both of Strojnik’s motions were denied, and it rejected the expense request. The court said the parties’ differing accounts of the failed inspection did not need to be resolved because the important problem was that the inspection had not occurred and the case was not progressing. The court also found that Strojnik’s due-diligence report did not satisfy his inspection obligations.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick denied Strojnik’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied his motion to enforce compliance, while separately ordering both parties to agree on a new inspection date and conduct the inspection by December 1, 2019. The parties also had to hold a settlement discussion during the inspection or within 28 days. The court denied Strojnik’s request for travel expenses, declined to award VY Verasa sanctions at that time, ordered the parties to act civilly and follow the scheduling order, and vacated the November 13, 2019 hearing.