Strojnik v. 574 Escuela, LLC
- James Donato
- 3:18-cv-06777
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Strojnik v. 574 Escuela, LLC, Judge Donato denied leave to seek reconsideration, finding the defendant had not met the required standards.
The ruling directly affected 574 Escuela, LLC’s request to seek reconsideration and Strojnik’s motion to strike the defendant’s supplemental-authorities notice.
What happened
In Strojnik v. 574 Escuela, LLC, the defendant asked the court for permission to seek reconsideration of an earlier order that had granted in part and denied in part its motion to dismiss. The defendant does business as Monte Cristo Inn B&B.
The court rejected the request. It found no change in controlling law, no new material facts, and no failure to consider important facts or legal arguments. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that the California-based website claim was improper because it involved conduct outside California.
Judge Donato denied the request for permission to seek reconsideration. He also dismissed as moot Strojnik’s motion to strike the defendant’s notice of supplemental authorities.
The detailed version
- Strojnik v. 574 Escuela, LLC · No. 3:18-cv-06777
- James Donato
- May 4, 2020
Background
The court had previously granted in part and denied in part 574 Escuela, LLC’s motion to dismiss. The defendant, which does business as Monte Cristo Inn B&B, then sought permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider that earlier order.
Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), a party seeking permission to request reconsideration must show one of three things: a material difference in the facts or law, new material facts or a change in law after the earlier order, or a clear failure by the court to consider important facts or decisive legal arguments. The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that these standards were not met. It rejected the defendant’s contention that later authorities showed a change in controlling law. The court said that a subsequent Ninth Circuit memorandum, an earlier related proceeding involving Strojnik, and the district court orders cited by the defendant did not provide controlling precedent.
The court also found that the defendant had not shown that the court failed to consider facts or arguments previously presented. The earlier order had already considered Strojnik’s pattern of accessibility litigation in state and federal courts.
The court further rejected the defendant’s argument based on the presumption against applying a law outside its territory. The court said the argument had been raised in the original briefing and was not properly added later. It also said the argument was incorrect because Strojnik alleged that a California-based website made it impossible for him to determine whether the hotel met his accessibility needs. The court concluded that, as alleged, the conduct giving rise to liability occurred in California.
Ruling
Judge James Donato denied the motion for leave to seek reconsideration. The court also dismissed as moot Strojnik’s motion to strike the defendant’s notice of supplemental authorities.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.