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

Background

Peter Strojnik brought a disability-rights action against R.F. Weichert V., Inc. concerning alleged accessibility barriers at the Jabberwock Inn in Monterey, California. His claims included a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence.

The court had previously dismissed Strojnik’s amended complaint for lack of standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act, while allowing him an opportunity to amend. The court later allowed him to proceed with claims based on alleged physical barriers he said he encountered at the Inn in September 2020, but not with his negligence claim or a claim based on insufficient website information. The court warned that the factual allegations had to be supported in good faith under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

After Strojnik filed a further Second Amended Complaint and related explanatory notes, Weichert moved for a $75,000 bond to secure anticipated costs and attorney’s fees. Weichert also moved to stay all proceedings until the bond motion was resolved. Strojnik opposed both motions.

Legal standard

The court explained that federal district courts have inherent authority to require a plaintiff to post security for costs. It applied California Code of Civil Procedure section 1030, which permits a defendant to seek an undertaking securing potentially recoverable costs and attorney’s fees when the plaintiff resides outside California and there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant will prevail.

The court also considered the factors identified in Simulnet, including the likelihood of success, the background and purpose of the lawsuit, and the parties’ views about the reasonable amount of security. The court noted that a defendant generally may recover attorney’s fees in an Americans with Disabilities Act case only when the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

Court’s analysis

The parties did not dispute that Strojnik asserted he was an Arizona resident. The court found a reasonable possibility that Weichert would prevail and would be able to show that Strojnik’s claim was frivolous. The court relied in part on decisions from several courts declaring Strojnik a vexatious litigant based on findings concerning his conduct in other Americans with Disabilities Act cases.

The court also relied on conduct in this case, including inconsistencies concerning the timing of Strojnik’s alleged visit to the Inn and the allegations concerning his need to use a wheelchair. The court considered evidence submitted by Weichert, including observations from another court, a medical examination, and surveillance videos. The court said this evidence cast doubt on the merits of Strojnik’s claims. It also considered evidence concerning unpaid judgments, tax liens, sanctions, and Strojnik’s ability to pay a bond. Strojnik did not rebut the evidence about his ability to walk or the unpaid judgments, liens, and sanctions.

Although Weichert requested a $75,000 bond, the court found that a lower amount was appropriate. The court noted that other courts had imposed more modest bonds in similar actions and found that $20,000 was appropriate under the circumstances.

Disposition

The court granted in part Weichert’s motion for a bond. It ordered Strojnik to post a $20,000 bond within 21 days of the order. The court granted Weichert’s motion to stay, and stayed the proceedings pending Strojnik’s posting of the bond. The court stated that if Strojnik did not post the bond by the deadline, it would dismiss the action without prejudice.