Strojnik v. IA Lodging Napa First LLC

Background

Peter Strojnik, representing himself, sued IA Lodging Napa First LLC, which the opinion refers to as Andaz Napa. He alleged that architectural barriers at the Andaz Napa hotel violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state laws. He alleged multiple disabilities, said he had difficulty walking and needed accessible features, and claimed that he encountered barriers during an April 18, 2019 visit. He also alleged that the hotel’s and third-party booking websites did not adequately describe accessible features or offer accessible rooms in the same way as other rooms.

The court had previously granted IA Lodging’s first motion to dismiss because Strojnik had not adequately alleged standing—the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury connected to the defendant’s conduct and likely to be addressed by a court decision. Strojnik then filed an amended complaint. IA Lodging filed a second motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, again arguing that Strojnik lacked standing.

IA Lodging also moved to have Strojnik declared a vexatious litigant and sought sanctions based on his failure to provide supplemental information ordered by the court. Strojnik filed the requested information after the court overruled his objections. The court also considered and denied as moot Strojnik’s motion to stay the vexatious-litigant motion.

Second Motion to Dismiss

The court held that Strojnik’s amended complaint still did not adequately allege an injury in fact. Although the complaint listed his disabilities and included photographs with descriptions of alleged barriers, it did not explain how the specific features shown in the photographs were inaccessible to him because of his particular disabilities. The court also found that the allegations about the booking websites did not identify which accessibility features he needed or show that those features were not identified.

The court likewise found that Strojnik had not adequately pleaded standing under a deterrence theory. A plaintiff using that theory must allege actual knowledge of a barrier related to the plaintiff’s disability and an intention to visit the facility after it becomes compliant. Because Strojnik had not adequately described barriers connected to his disabilities, the court found that he had not adequately pleaded either an injury in fact or deterrence.

The second motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was granted without leave to amend. The ADA claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the remaining state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice because the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for IA Lodging and close the case.

Vexatious-Litigant Motion and Pre-Filing Order

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s four requirements for a pre-filing order: notice and an opportunity to be heard, an adequate record for review, substantive findings that the filings were frivolous or harassing, and a narrowly tailored restriction.

The court found that Strojnik had received notice and an opportunity to oppose the motion, including through written briefing and oral argument. It also found an adequate record based on information about 114 ADA cases Strojnik had filed in California federal district courts, including 34 in the Northern District of California. The court noted that none of the 114 cases had been tried on the merits and that many had settled early or had been dismissed.

The court found that Strojnik’s complaints were substantially identical and repeatedly omitted basic facts connecting alleged barriers to his specific disabilities, despite prior court rulings identifying the same pleading problem. It concluded that his litigation tactics were frivolous and harassing and granted IA Lodging’s motion to declare him a vexatious litigant.

The resulting pre-filing order applies to civil actions that challenge access to public accommodations by disabled people and that Strojnik files in the Northern District of California. It does not bar him from filing such cases, but requires him to submit the proposed complaint, a filing-request letter, and a copy of the order to the Clerk. The general duty judge must review the materials and certify that the claims plausibly allege standing before the complaint can be accepted for filing. Violations may lead to a contempt hearing, sanctions, and dismissal of an action filed in violation of the order.

Other Disposition

The court denied IA Lodging’s motion for sanctions. It explained that, although Strojnik’s objections were not well-founded, he submitted the requested information in substantially compliant form, and additional sanctions were not warranted after the court granted the vexatious-litigant motion and dismissed the case.