Strojnik v. VY Verasa Commercial Company LLC

Background

Peter Strojnik, proceeding without a lawyer, sued VY Verasa Commercial Company LLC, doing business as The Westin Verasa Napa, over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state law. He described himself as an “ADA tester” and alleged several disabilities. He claimed that third-party booking websites did not provide enough accessibility information and that the hotel had architectural and physical barriers, including problems involving its loading zone, entryway, doors, concierge desk, bar, restrooms, and shower.

The court had previously ordered Strojnik to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The order focused on whether he had Article III standing, meaning a sufficient injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a court could remedy. Strojnik submitted a response and proposed amendments.

Standing and the alleged barriers

The court explained that an ADA plaintiff seeking an injunction must show a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. Under the theories relevant here, a plaintiff may do that by showing that an ADA violation deterred him from visiting a facility or by showing an injury and an intent to return. In either situation, the alleged barrier must be connected to the plaintiff’s particular disability and must affect his full and equal enjoyment of the facility.

The court found that the original complaint relied largely on photographs and short, vague captions, without explaining how the alleged barriers related to Strojnik’s disabilities or denied him full and equal enjoyment of the hotel. The court also found that his proposed amendments remained insufficient. For the booking websites, Strojnik did not identify what accessibility information was missing or explain how its absence injured him. For the physical barriers, he generally did not identify the specific accessibility requirement allegedly violated, explain how the barrier affected him because of a particular disability, or allege that no adequate accessible alternative was available.

The court discussed the individual allegations in detail. It found that the loading-zone allegation did not explain how the area failed to meet the applicable requirement or how the hotel’s setup caused a cognizable injury. The entryway and front-door allegations did not show that there was no accessible alternative route. The concierge-desk and bar allegations did not identify the accessibility provisions allegedly violated or show that Strojnik lacked full and equal access. The restroom allegations likewise did not address available alternatives. The shower allegations were unclear and did not adequately connect the alleged conditions to a particular disability or explain how they denied full and equal enjoyment.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court considered Strojnik’s history of similar ADA litigation and prior court warnings about vague and conclusory allegations. It concluded that his response was an opportunity to propose amendments, but that he largely repeated the earlier allegations and added boilerplate rather than facts establishing standing. The court therefore found that further amendment would be futile.

The court denied leave to amend. It dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the related ADA claim. It also dismissed the retaliation claim, which was based on conduct by a law-firm defendant that had already been dismissed. The court stated that all claims were dismissed.