Strojnik v. BW RRI II, LLC

Background

Peter Strojnik brought a disability-discrimination case against BW RRI II, LLC, which the opinion says owns a Red Roof Plus hotel in Burlingame, California. The complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and several state laws. BW moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the complaint did not adequately establish Strojnik’s standing.

The court treated BW’s arguments as a facial challenge to standing. That means it considered the complaint and materials subject to judicial notice, accepted Strojnik’s allegations as true, and drew reasonable inferences in his favor. At BW’s request, the court took judicial notice of a Google map and judicial records.

ADA Standing

To establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, Strojnik had to allege an injury in fact. Because the ADA claim sought only injunctive relief, he also had to allege a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. The court explained that Strojnik could potentially meet the latter requirement by alleging that accessibility barriers deterred him from returning and that he intended to visit the hotel after the barriers were removed.

The complaint included nine photographs of the hotel, with seven brief descriptions identifying alleged accessibility barriers, including an improper reach range at washing machines and an inaccessible check-in counter. But the complaint did not explain how those barriers prevented Strojnik from enjoying the hotel because of his particular disabilities. The complaint identified his disabilities as a spinal condition, prostate and renal cancer, and a prosthetic right knee.

The court held that Strojnik had not sufficiently alleged an injury in fact because he did not explain how the hotel’s barriers harmed him in relation to his disabilities. It therefore concluded that dismissal of the ADA claim was warranted, while allowing him leave to amend because the pleading defect might be curable.

The court separately considered whether Strojnik had adequately alleged an intent to return. He alleged that he visited the hotel in 2019, encountered accessibility barriers, was deterred from returning, and intended to return when the barriers were removed. BW argued that these allegations were too conclusory, noting that the hotel was more than 730 miles from Strojnik’s home.

The court did not decide whether more detail is always required to defeat a facial challenge to standing. It found that more detail was warranted here because, according to the opinion, Strojnik had filed boilerplate ADA complaints against small businesses, sought attorney’s fees even when businesses did not remedy the alleged violations, had been disbarred in Arizona, and had been declared a vexatious litigant in this district and another district within the circuit. The court said these circumstances gave it reason to doubt the truth of Strojnik’s statement that he intended to visit the hotel after the barriers were removed.

Required Evidence if Amended

The court exercised its authority to require more particularized allegations and supporting evidence about standing. If Strojnik amended his complaint, he also had to submit evidence supporting his intent to visit the Burlingame hotel after removal of the barriers. The requested evidence included prior visits to the Burlingame area, reasons for visiting that area, concrete plans for future visits, and evidence of prior stays at Red Roof-branded hotels.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

Because Strojnik had not established standing to pursue his federal ADA claim, the court concluded that it presently lacked authority to retain jurisdiction over his state-law claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

The court granted BW’s motion to dismiss and allowed Strojnik to amend. It ordered that any amended complaint and the requested supporting evidence be filed by September 30, 2020.