Strojnik v. Moraya Investments, LLC

Background

Peter Strojnik, representing himself, sued Moraya Investments, LLC, doing business as the Jack London Inn, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the California Unruh Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. Moraya owns and operates the hotel in Oakland, California.

Strojnik alleged that he has several physical impairments, sometimes uses a wheelchair, and has difficulty walking and standing. He alleged that he visited the Oakland area on September 28–29, 2019, stayed at another hotel, and then went to Moraya’s hotel to evaluate its accessibility for a future trip. He alleged that he personally observed that the hotel’s bar counter was too high for wheelchair access. He also alleged that a Moraya agent told him that only two of the hotel’s 108 rooms were accessible and that none had a roll-in shower. Strojnik alleged that these conditions deterred him from staying at the hotel but that he would stay there on future trips if the barriers were removed.

Motions and analysis

Moraya moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and, alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). Strojnik filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a ruling without trial when the required evidence shows that no genuine dispute exists over an important fact.

The court denied both summary-judgment motions because neither party submitted competent supporting evidence. Both motions relied only on allegations in the amended complaint, and the court held that allegations in an unverified complaint are not evidence sufficient to support or oppose summary judgment. Strojnik’s statement that the facts in his opposition were true did not change that result because the facts were not supported by record evidence or an affidavit.

Moraya also argued that Strojnik had not adequately alleged standing under Article III of the Constitution. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a personal injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a favorable court decision could address. The court held that, accepting the amended complaint’s allegations as true, Strojnik plausibly alleged a concrete injury and a likelihood of repeated injury. The court found that he alleged a personal encounter with accessibility barriers related to his disabilities and adequately alleged an intent to return or that he was deterred from returning. The court did not decide which specific accessibility standard applied to the hotel’s bar because the parties had not addressed that issue sufficiently.

Disposition

The court denied Moraya’s motion for summary judgment, denied Moraya’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and denied Strojnik’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The order therefore did not end the case. The court advanced the pretrial conference to October 14, 2022, while leaving the other pretrial deadlines in place.