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

Background

Peter Strojnik brought disability-access claims against R.F. Weichert V, Inc. concerning alleged accessibility barriers at the Jabberwock Inn in Monterey, California. He alleged claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. The opinion states that Weichert was the alleged owner, operator, or lessee of the Inn.

The court had previously dismissed Strojnik’s First Amended Complaint for lack of standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court explained that the complaint did not adequately describe Strojnik’s disabilities and required accommodations, connect the alleged barriers to those disabilities, establish a concrete intent to return, or allege actual knowledge of accessibility barriers beyond website screenshots and photographs. Because the Americans with Disabilities Act claim was the sole basis for federal jurisdiction, the court also dismissed the state-law claims at that stage.

Strojnik later filed a proposed Second Amended Complaint based primarily on an alleged visit to the Inn in September 2020. The court construed the filing as a motion for permission to supplement the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), which governs claims based on events occurring after an earlier pleading. Weichert opposed the motion, arguing that the proposed complaint would cause undue delay, was futile, and was brought in bad faith.

Website allegations

The proposed complaint alleged that Weichert’s website and a third-party website did not provide enough accessibility information for Strojnik to determine whether the Inn met his mobility-related needs. The court found that these allegations still did not identify the accessibility features Strojnik required or specify that those features were missing from the websites. Because Strojnik had several opportunities to amend and offered no basis to conclude that additional facts could cure these deficiencies, the court concluded that allowing the website-information allegations would be futile.

The court therefore denied the motion to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint insofar as it relied on alleged insufficient information on websites.

Physical-barrier allegations and standing

For the alleged physical barriers, the proposed complaint included a chart describing photographs of stairs, paths with allegedly improperly configured handrails, and paths without handrails. The chart stated that the stairs prevented Strojnik from using a wheelchair and that the handrails or lack of handrails interfered with his ability to walk or grasp support.

The court acknowledged that other parts of the proposed complaint described Strojnik’s impairments and use of mobility devices in vague or equivocal terms. But it concluded that the allegations in the chart were sufficient, at the pleading stage, to connect the alleged barriers to his disabilities. The court allowed these allegations to proceed because, as the court understood them, they indicated that Strojnik required a wheelchair for mobility, used one during his visit to the Inn, and was denied full and equal access.

The court did not resolve whether those allegations were true. It stated that Strojnik could proceed only if they were accurate and warned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires factual allegations to be made in good faith. The court also noted that sanctions could be imposed if Rule 11 was violated.

State-law claims

Because the proposed complaint adequately alleged standing for the Americans with Disabilities Act claim concerning physical barriers, the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims.

The court granted leave to proceed with the Unruh Act claim only insofar as it was based on the alleged physical barriers encountered at the Inn in September 2020. It granted leave to file the California Disabled Persons Act claim because Weichert provided no other basis for preventing that claim from proceeding.

The court denied leave to proceed with the negligence claim. It treated the proposed claim as apparently relying on a negligence-per-se theory based on alleged Americans with Disabilities Act violations. The court explained that Strojnik had not identified an independent duty, apart from the duty imposed by the Americans with Disabilities Act, that could support a negligence claim.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Strojnik’s motion for leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint. It granted the motion for the Americans with Disabilities Act, Unruh Act, and Disabled Persons Act claims based on alleged physical barriers encountered in September 2020. It denied the motion for claims based on alleged insufficient website information and denied it with respect to the negligence claim.

If Strojnik intended to continue the action, the court ordered him to file a revised Second Amended Complaint as a separate electronic docket entry within seven days. The revised complaint had to remove the introduction and legal argument, the website-information allegations, and the negligence claim. The court stated that failure to comply could result in sanctions, including dismissal with prejudice of the action.