Strojnik v. Moraya Investments, LLC

Background

Peter Strojnik, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Moraya Investments, LLC, doing business as the Jack London Inn. He alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and common-law negligence.

Strojnik alleged that he has several medical conditions and uses a prosthetic right knee, walks with difficulty and pain, and needs accessible mobility features at public accommodations. He alleged that he intended to visit the Oakland area in September 2019, stayed at a competitor hotel, and then went to Moraya’s hotel to assess its accessibility for future travel and lodging. He alleged that he encountered accessibility barriers there and attached photographs with captions referring to an inaccessible check-in counter, an inaccessible coffee dispenser, identification, and an insufficient number and dispersion of accessible rooms.

Moraya answered the complaint and moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that Strojnik had not established Article III standing. Strojnik opposed the motion, arguing that Moraya had already admitted that he had standing and that Moraya had not conducted discovery about jurisdiction.

Legal standard

A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted when, accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true and viewing them favorably to the nonmoving party, no material factual dispute exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court stated that Rule 12(c) uses the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), including whether the complaint contains enough factual matter to state a plausible claim.

Article III standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete and particularized injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a court decision would redress the injury. Because a private plaintiff seeking relief under the ADA can obtain only an injunction, the plaintiff must also show a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. An ADA plaintiff may do so by showing either an intent to return to a noncompliant facility or that accessibility barriers deterred the plaintiff from returning.

Discussion

The court concluded that Strojnik did not plausibly allege the facts needed for standing.

Injury in fact. The court found that the complaint did not adequately describe a concrete, personal injury. Strojnik did not state when he visited Moraya’s hotel. His complaint referred to an intended visit to the Oakland area on September 28–29, 2019 and to visiting the hotel while staying at a competitor, while the addendum referred to encountering barriers on or about September 27–28, 2019. The court stated that he needed to identify the date or dates on which he encountered the barriers.

The court also found that Strojnik’s statements that he encountered accessibility barriers and was denied equal access were conclusory. The photographs and generic captions did not specify how the alleged features violated ADA standards, how they related to his particular disability, or how they prevented his full and equal enjoyment of the hotel. The complaint also did not allege who took the photographs or when they were taken.

Intent to return. Even assuming Strojnik adequately alleged a past injury, the court held that he did not allege a sufficient likelihood of being injured again. His statement that he intended to visit the hotel at a specific time when it became fully compliant did not provide a concrete plan. The court noted that Strojnik lived in Maricopa County, Arizona, which Moraya argued was more than 700 miles from the hotel, and that Strojnik did not explain when or why he would return.

Deterrence. The court separately found that Strojnik did not adequately allege that the barriers deterred him from returning. His statements that he was deterred because the hotel was not compliant and intended to visit when it became compliant were vague and conclusory. He did not sufficiently allege that he personally encountered the barriers, took the photographs, knew why the features were unlawful, or understood how they affected his disability. The court therefore found that he did not plausibly show an imminent injury if he returned or identify what Moraya needed to fix before he could return.

Disposition

The court granted Moraya’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. It concluded that Strojnik failed to state a legally cognizable ADA claim because he had not plausibly established standing. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, and negligence claims.

The court determined that amendment would not be futile and dismissed Strojnik’s complaint without prejudice. It ordered him to file an amended complaint within one week, by January 27, 2022. The court also vacated the existing case schedule, including the trial date, and set a case-management conference for March 16, 2022.