Strojnik v. 574 Escuela, LLC

Background

Peter Strojnik, representing himself, alleged that 574 Escuela, LLC’s Monte Cristo Inn B&B in San Francisco violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California’s Disabled Persons Act. He also asserted negligence per se, a claim that treats violation of a statute or regulation as evidence of negligence.

Strojnik alleged that he has a condition making it difficult to walk and also suffers from prostate and renal cancers. He intended to visit San Francisco, but did not specify when or why. After reviewing third-party booking sites and the hotel’s reservation website, he said he could not determine whether the hotel met his accessibility needs. He did not travel to San Francisco or visit the hotel. He alleged that he was deterred from visiting because he knew the hotel was not compliant with disability-access laws, and that he intended to visit at a specific time after the hotel became compliant.

The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court struck the defendant’s first oversize motion, after which the defendant filed a substantially similar conforming motion. Strojnik relied on his original opposition.

ADA standing and claim

For the ADA claim, the court considered whether Strojnik had standing, meaning a sufficient legal basis to bring the claim in federal court. Because the ADA claim sought only injunctive relief, Strojnik had to allege an actual or imminent injury and a sufficient likelihood that he would experience a similar injury again.

The court expressed substantial doubt that Strojnik’s allegations showed a concrete and particularized injury. It noted that he had never visited the hotel, had no stated reason or specific plan to visit San Francisco, and described only an unspecified future visit. The court also observed that his asserted knowledge of the hotel’s noncompliance came from websites.

Nevertheless, the court concluded that a controlling Ninth Circuit decision required it to accept Strojnik’s allegations at the dismissal stage. That decision found standing where plaintiffs alleged that they intended to visit hotels, were deterred by alleged ADA violations, and would visit after the violations were corrected. Strojnik made the same type of allegations, so the court found that he adequately alleged an injury in fact for purposes of the motion.

The court also held that the ADA claim met the plausibility requirement for surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. ADA regulations require lodging businesses to identify and describe accessible features offered through reservation services in enough detail for people with disabilities to assess whether a hotel or room meets their needs. Strojnik alleged that the hotel’s reservation website failed to meet that requirement. The court found that allegation sufficient to allow the ADA claim to proceed.

State-law claims

The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim for failure to state a claim. The statute applies to persons “within the jurisdiction” of California, which the court interpreted to mean persons within the state. Strojnik alleged that he lived in Arizona and did not travel to San Francisco, and he did not allege that he was in California when the claim arose. The court therefore found the Unruh Act claim implausible as pleaded.

The court allowed the Disabled Persons Act claim to proceed. It explained that the Disabled Persons Act incorporates ADA violations as a basis for relief and does not contain the same requirement that the person be within California when the claim arose. Because the court found that Strojnik plausibly alleged an ADA violation, it also found the Disabled Persons Act claim sufficient at this stage.

The court also allowed the negligence-per-se claim to proceed. It found that Strojnik plausibly alleged a violation of a public regulation, an injury caused by that violation, an injury of the type the regulation was intended to prevent, and that he belonged to the class of people the law was designed to protect.

Disposition

The court stated that the motion to dismiss was granted and denied in part. The ADA, Disabled Persons Act, and negligence-per-se claims would go forward. The court granted Strojnik leave to amend by May 1, 2020, while prohibiting new claims or parties without prior court approval. The order stated that failure to respond by that date would result in dismissal of the Unruh Act claim with prejudice.