Strojnik v. Xenia Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:19-cv-03082
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 10
In Peter Strojnik Sr. v. Xenia Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Judge Cousins granted Xenia’s dismissal motion in part and denied it in part, and denied its vexatious-litigant request.
Peter Strojnik’s claims against Xenia Hotels & Resorts, Inc.; the door-related Americans with Disabilities Act claim remained, while the other challenged claims and damages claims were dismissed with leave to amend.
What happened
In Peter Strojnik Sr. v. Xenia Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Peter Strojnik alleged that Xenia’s hotel violated disability-access laws and was negligent. He described website problems and physical barriers, including doors that required more force to open than allowed by accessibility standards.
Xenia asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that Strojnik lacked the required legal basis to sue and had not stated valid claims. The court found that he had adequately alleged a disability-access claim based on the non-compliant doors, but that his allegations about the website and most other barriers were too vague or did not connect those barriers to his disability.
Judge Cousins granted Xenia’s dismissal motion in part and denied it in part, allowing the door-related disability claim to proceed. The court dismissed the other claims and damages claims with leave to amend, and denied Xenia’s request to declare Strojnik a vexatious litigant as premature.
The detailed version
- Strojnik v. Xenia Hotels & Resorts, Inc. · No. 5:19-cv-03082
- Nathanael Cousins
- June 9, 2020
Background
Peter Strojnik sued Xenia Hotels & Resorts, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and a negligence theory. Strojnik alleged that he has conditions that impair walking and that he needs lodging with ambulatory and wheelchair assistance. After viewing Xenia’s website and visiting its Hyatt Regency Santa Clara hotel, he alleged that he encountered inadequate accessibility information and architectural barriers. Those barriers included an unmarked drop-off zone, inaccessible check-in desks and seating, inadequate signage, non-compliant doors, and inadequate grab bars and handrails. He alleged that the barriers prevented his full enjoyment of the hotel and caused him to book a room elsewhere, but that he intended to return when the hotel became fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Xenia moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and failure to state a claim. Xenia also asked the court to declare Strojnik a vexatious litigant, meaning a litigant subject to filing restrictions because of abusive or meritless filings.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected Xenia’s argument that Strojnik lacked standing for his Americans with Disabilities Act claim. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court accepted his factual allegations as true and found that his allegations of personal encounters with barriers, deterrence from using the hotel, and intent to return after compliance were enough under the deterrent-effect doctrine.
The court dismissed the website portion of the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Strojnik did not explain what accessibility information was missing or adequately describe how the reservation process differed for accessible rooms. The screenshots showed that the website provided some accessibility information, and the complaint did not provide enough detail to show that the website violated the applicable requirement. The court granted dismissal with leave to amend.
The court allowed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim to proceed to the extent it relied on the hotel’s non-compliant doors. Strojnik alleged that one exterior door required 14 pounds of force to open and one restroom door required 16 pounds, while the applicable accessibility guideline limits opening force to 5 pounds. Given his alleged difficulty walking, the court found it plausible that he would have difficulty exerting the force needed to open those doors.
The court otherwise dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act allegations concerning the other barriers, with leave to amend. Strojnik did not adequately connect most of those barriers to his particular disability. The court also dismissed his damages claims under the Unruh Act and the California Disabled Persons Act, with leave to amend, because he did not allege facts showing that the doors or other violations actually denied him full and equal access to the hotel. A violation of accessibility standards alone was not enough to establish the statutory basis for damages under those laws.
The court dismissed the negligence-per-se claim, with leave to amend, because Strojnik’s allegations that Xenia caused him damage or injury were too vague to show what injury occurred or whether it was the type of injury covered by the relevant laws. The court did not decide whether an Americans with Disabilities Act violation could support a negligence-per-se claim.
Rulings
The court granted Xenia’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. It denied the motion as to the Americans with Disabilities Act claim based on the non-compliant doors and otherwise granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Strojnik was required either to amend his complaint or notify the court that he would not amend by June 26, 2020. The amended complaint could not add claims or parties without the court’s permission.
The court also denied Xenia’s motion to declare Strojnik a vexatious litigant. It found that the request was premature because the court had not found that Strojnik’s claims were frivolous or clearly meritless. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins signed the order.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.