Strojnik v. Portola Hotel, LLC

Background

Peter Strojnik moved for relief under Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He asked the court to reconsider its prior order dismissing his case for lack of standing and to set aside the judgment entered for Portola Hotel, LLC. Portola opposed the motion.

On March 17, 2021, the court had granted Portola’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) and dismissed all of Strojnik’s claims, including his claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, for lack of standing. The court then entered judgment for Portola.

Legal standard

Because Strojnik filed his motion within 28 days after judgment, the court treated it as a motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. Rule 59(e) permits relief on limited grounds, including a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court described this remedy as extraordinary and not an opportunity to relitigate claims or raise arguments that could have been presented earlier.

Rule 60(b) separately allows relief from a final judgment in limited circumstances, including fraud, mistake, newly discovered evidence, or another reason justifying relief. The court’s ruling, however, focused on whether Strojnik was entitled to relief under Rule 59(e).

Court’s analysis

Strojnik argued that the court should reconsider dismissal of his Americans with Disabilities Act claim because the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc. had not been available when the court considered the case. The court noted that Whitaker had been issued before the court’s March 17, 2021 order, so it treated Strojnik’s argument as asserting that the earlier order contained a manifest legal error rather than as relying on an intervening change in controlling law.

The court rejected that argument for two reasons. First, it did not read Whitaker as announcing a change in the law of standing, and Strojnik had not shown otherwise. Second, the court found that Whitaker did not support Strojnik’s position. In Whitaker, the complaint alleged that the plaintiff used a wheelchair, visited the defendant’s premises, personally encountered a barrier related to his disability, and was deterred from returning. Those allegations were sufficient to establish injury-in-fact, which is a concrete injury required for standing.

By contrast, the court stated that Strojnik’s complaint included photographs with generic captions purporting to show architectural barriers at Portola, but did not connect those alleged barriers to his disabilities or explain how they prevented him from having full and equal access to Portola. The court therefore found his pleading unlike the successful allegations in Whitaker.

Disposition

The court denied Strojnik’s motion for relief under Rule 59(e). The order also states that the court denied his motion for relief under Rules 59 and 60. The prior dismissal for lack of standing and judgment for Portola were left in place.