Strojnik v. IA Lodging Napa First LLC

Background

Peter Strojnik, who represented himself, sued IA Lodging Napa First LLC, referred to in the opinion as Andaz Napa. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the California Unruh Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence.

Strojnik alleged that he has several medical conditions, walks with difficulty and pain, and needs mobility-accessible features at public accommodations. He said that third-party booking websites and Andaz Napa’s website did not describe mobility-related accessibility features and accessible rooms in enough detail. He also alleged that the hotel’s website did not make accessible rooms available for reservation in the same manner as other rooms. He stated that he did not book a room because alleged accessibility barriers prevented him from having equal access to the hotel.

Andaz Napa moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that Strojnik had not shown standing. The hotel also sought an order declaring him a vexatious litigant, but the court stated that request would be addressed in a later order.

Standing analysis

Standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury caused by the defendant that a court decision can likely remedy. Because private plaintiffs generally seek an injunction under the ADA, an ADA plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat of being injured again.

The court found that the complaint did not adequately allege an injury from an actual encounter with an accessibility barrier. The complaint did not state when Strojnik planned to travel, the purpose of the trip, when or from where he accessed the hotel’s website, or which mobility-accessibility features he needed and could not identify. Although the complaint included photographs and screenshots with captions describing purportedly inaccessible features, Strojnik did not allege that he personally took the photographs, identify how the features violated the ADA, or explain how they related to his disability. The complaint also did not allege that he had visited the hotel or encountered barriers there.

The court separately found that the complaint did not adequately show an intent to return. Strojnik stated that he intended to visit the hotel when it became compliant, but the court found that statement insufficient without specific facts showing a concrete future plan. The court noted that the complaint did not allege prior visits, a concrete plan to visit again, or a reason he would patronize the hotel in the future.

The court also rejected deterrence as a basis for standing. A plaintiff proceeding under a deterrence theory must allege actual knowledge of an unlawful barrier and an intent to visit the facility once it becomes compliant. The court found that Strojnik’s complaint did not adequately identify barriers related to his disability or show that those barriers deterred him from visiting the hotel.

The court considered additional facts in a declaration, including Strojnik’s assertions that he had visited Andaz and that he and his wife traveled to Napa once or twice a year. However, the court emphasized that those facts did not appear in the complaint.

Disposition

The court granted Andaz Napa’s motion to dismiss because Strojnik had not pleaded facts sufficient to establish Article III standing. The court granted leave to amend and required Strojnik to file an amended complaint by March 4, 2020. It warned that continued failure to provide case-specific information could result in sanctions or a pre-filing order. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The separate vexatious-litigant request was left for a forthcoming order.