Strojnik v. Portola Hotel, LLC

Background

Peter Strojnik, representing himself, brought an action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state-law claims against Portola Hotel, LLC. He alleged that he has several medical conditions, including conditions affecting his walking and a prosthetic right knee. He said he needed accessible mobility features at places open to the public.

Strojnik alleged that he intended to visit the Monterey area in September 2019 and had encountered accessibility barriers while staying at a competitor’s property. He said he then visited the Portola Hotel to evaluate its accessibility features for future travel and lodging. His complaint included photographs with general labels such as “Inaccessible,” “Improperly configured handrails,” “No signage to accessible route,” and “No marked passenger drop off zone.” He also alleged that the hotel’s websites did not provide enough information about accessible features.

Portola moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that Strojnik lacked standing and had not adequately pleaded his ADA, state-law, and negligence claims. Portola also argued that the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court resolved the motion without oral argument.

Standing and ADA Claim

Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a personal injury that is concrete, traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be remedied by a court decision. Because Title III of the ADA provides only injunctive relief in this action, Strojnik also had to show a real and immediate threat that he would suffer a similar injury again. The court explained that an ADA plaintiff may establish this by showing either an intent to return to a noncompliant facility or deterrence from visiting it.

The court found that Strojnik’s allegations did not establish a sufficiently concrete and particularized injury. His descriptions of his disabilities and mobility needs were vague. The court said it was unclear whether he required a wheelchair, merely had one, or required other walking aids, and he did not explain the nature of his walking difficulty.

The court also found that the website allegations were insufficient. Strojnik cited a regulation requiring lodging businesses to identify and describe accessible features in enough detail for people with disabilities to assess whether a hotel or room meets their needs. But he did not identify the accessibility features he needed or explain which specific information was missing from the websites.

The photographs and captions concerning physical barriers were also insufficient. The court said Strojnik did not explain how the depicted features prevented him from having full and equal access to the hotel or how they related to his particular disability. The complaint also did not allege that he communicated with the hotel or that he made a sufficient effort to gain access.

The court separately found that Strojnik had not shown a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. Although the complaint said he intended to visit the hotel when it became fully compliant with the ADA, it did not provide concrete plans, a specific future time, or a reason he would return. The court also found that he had not pleaded enough facts to establish standing under a deterrence theory because he did not adequately describe barriers related to his disability or explain how they would affect his access.

The court agreed with Portola on the first two standing grounds and did not reach Portola’s argument disputing whether Strojnik actually had a mobility-related disability. Because the ADA claim was the only basis for federal jurisdiction, the court dismissed that claim for lack of standing.

State-Law Claims and Amendment

After dismissing the ADA claim, the court held that it had no authority to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It dismissed those claims without prejudice.

The court denied leave to amend the ADA claim. It noted that Strojnik had not identified additional facts that could cure the pleading deficiencies, even in his opposition to the motion. The court concluded that amendment would be futile and therefore dismissed the ADA claim without leave to amend.

Sanctions and Disposition

Strojnik requested sanctions, asserting that Portola’s motion was retaliatory, legally baseless, and vexatious. The court denied that request because it was not filed and noticed as a separate sanctions motion as required by the court’s local rule. The court also stated that, in light of its ruling, such a motion appeared to lack merit.

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi’s final disposition was: the ADA claim was dismissed for lack of standing without leave to amend; the state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice; and Strojnik’s request for sanctions was denied.