Strojnik v. R.F. Weichert V, Inc.

Background

Peter Strojnik, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a disability-rights action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and asserted related claims under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act. His allegations concerned accessibility barriers at the Jabberwock Inn in Monterey, California. The opinion identifies R.F. Weichert V, Inc. as the alleged owner, operator, or lessee of the Inn.

Strojnik alleged that he has disabilities affecting, among other things, walking and standing, and that he requires accessible mobility features. His amended complaint alleged problems with information on hotel websites and physical barriers at the Inn, including allegedly inaccessible routes and improperly configured handrails. He also alleged that he intended to visit the area and the Inn at some unspecified future time, including when the Inn became compliant with accessibility standards.

Weichert moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which challenges whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Weichert argued that Strojnik lacked standing and had not pleaded enough facts to support his claims.

Standing analysis

The court treated Weichert’s standing challenge as a facial attack, meaning it evaluated whether the allegations in the amended complaint were sufficient on their face to establish federal jurisdiction. The court explained that standing generally requires an injury that is concrete and particularized, a connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury.

Because Title III of the ADA provides injunctive relief as the available remedy in this case, the court said Strojnik also had to show a real and immediate threat that he would suffer a similar injury again. The court identified two possible ways to establish standing in an ADA access case: showing an intent to return to a noncompliant facility or showing that known barriers deterred the plaintiff from visiting.

The court found the website allegations insufficient because Strojnik repeated the language of an accessibility regulation without identifying which accessibility features he needed or stating that those specific features were missing from the websites.

The court also found the allegations about physical barriers insufficient. Although the amended complaint added information to the photographs, Strojnik generally stated only that he needed compliant mobility features and an accessible lodging facility. He did not explain how the depicted barriers prevented his full and equal access, allege facts showing that he had actual knowledge of the barriers, or describe efforts to determine whether the alleged barriers actually existed.

The court separately found that Strojnik had not shown a sufficient intent to return. His statement that he intended to visit the Inn when it became fully compliant did not include concrete travel plans or a time frame. The court also found that he had not adequately pleaded deterrence because he did not allege actual knowledge of barriers related to his particular disability or explain how the depicted features would affect his access.

Disposition

The court held that Strojnik had not pleaded facts sufficient to establish Article III standing, which was the sole basis for federal jurisdiction. It granted Weichert’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Strojnik’s ADA claim for lack of standing, with leave to amend.

Because the federal claim was dismissed, the court stated that it had no authority to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. The court granted leave to amend because some allegations about barriers encountered in September 2019 might be clarified, while reminding Strojnik that any amended complaint had to have a basis in law and fact. The court set February 8, 2021, as the deadline for a second amended complaint.