United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER ON (1) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, (2)
DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND (3)
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: DKT.
NOS. 5, 5-2, 13
VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge
case, Plaintiff Peter Strojnik, representing himself pro
se, alleges that Defendant Resort at Indian Springs,
LLC, which owns, operates, or leases a hotel in Calistoga,
California (the “Hotel”), violates the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the California
Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), and the
California Disabled Persons Act (“DPA”) and is
liable for negligence. According to Plaintiff, first-party
and third-party booking websites did not describe the
Hotel's accessibility features in sufficient detail to
permit Plaintiff to assess whether the Hotel meets his
accessibility needs; he was unable to reserve accessible
guest rooms in the same manner as individuals who do not need
accessible rooms; and the Hotel has architectural barriers to
accessibility. Dkt. 1 (Complaint) ¶¶ 16-22.
Defendant now seeks to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of subject
matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
Dkt. 5. In support of its motion to dismiss, Defendant also
filed a request for judicial notice. Dkt. 5-2. Following
filing of Defendant's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed
a motion for partial summary judgment. Dkt. 13. The parties
have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.
Dkt. 6, 11.
to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court deems the pending
motions suitable for determination without oral argument.
After considering the parties' submissions, the case
file, and relevant law, and for the reasons discussed below,
Defendant's motion to dismiss is (1) GRANTED WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND with respect to Plaintiff's ADA, Unruh Act, and
DPA claims; and (2) GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's
negligence claim, without prejudice to Plaintiff's
refiling that claim in state court or in an amended complaint
in this case. Defendant's request for judicial notice is
DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment
Peter Strojnik, a resident of Arizona, alleges that he has
“a severe right-sided neural foraminal stenosis with
symptoms of femoral neuropathy, prostate cancer and renal
cancer, [and a] degenerative right knee” that
“substantially limit his major life activities.”
Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 3-4. According to Plaintiff, he
“walks with difficulty and pain and requires compliant
mobility accessible features at places of public
accommodation.” Id. ¶ 4.
claims that he sought information about Defendant's Hotel
in connection with a planned trip to the California Wine
Country. Id. ¶ 15. According to Plaintiff, he
became aware that first-party and third-party booking
websites “failed to identify and describe mobility
related accessibility features and guest rooms offered
through its reservations service in enough detail to
reasonably permit Plaintiff to assess independently whether
Defendant's Hotel meets his accessibility needs”
and “failed to make reservations for accessible guest
rooms available in the same manner as individuals who do not
need accessible rooms.” Id. ¶¶
17-20. Plaintiff further alleges that online information
about the Hotel disclosed architectural barriers to
accessibility. Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff contends
that as a result of these conditions, he “is deterred
from visiting the Hotel” but “intends to visit
Defendant's Hotel at a specific time when the
Defendant's noncompliant Hotel because fully
compliant” with the ADA. Id. ¶¶
11-12. Plaintiff's complaint is accompanied by an
addendum containing screen shots from booking websites and
photographs of the Hotel. Dkt. 1-1.
August 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action, asserting causes
of action for: (1) violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §
12101 et seq.; (2) violation of the California Unruh
Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code §§ 51
et seq.; (3) the California Disabled Person Act,
California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3; and (4)
negligence. Dkt. 1. Defendant seeks to dismiss the complaint
(Dkt. 5), and Plaintiff seeks summary judgment in his favor
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
12(b)(1) allows the Court to dismiss a complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. A challenge to a plaintiff's
Article III standing is properly challenged by a Rule
12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. Chandler v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010).
12(b)(1) motions can challenge subject matter jurisdiction in
two different ways: (1) a facial attack based solely on the
allegations of the complaint, or (2) a factual attack based
on extrinsic evidence apart from the pleadings. See Safe
Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.
2004). If a defendant initiates a factual attack by
submitting a declaration with extrinsic evidence of the
plaintiff's lack of standing, the plaintiff must then
“present affidavits or any other evidence necessary to
satisfy its burden of establishing that the court, in fact,
possesses subject matter jurisdiction.” Colwell v.
Dep't of Health and Human Svcs., 558 F.3d 1112, 1121
(9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if
it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court may consider only
“the complaint, materials incorporated into the
complaint by reference, and matters of which the court may
take judicial notice.” Metzler Inv. GmbH v.
Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir.
2008). In deciding whether the plaintiff has stated a claim,
the court must assume the plaintiff's allegations are
true and draw all inferences in the plaintiff's favor.
Usher v. City of L.A., 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir.
1987). However, the court is not required to accept as true
“allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted
deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In
re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th
Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This
“facial plausibility” standard requires the
plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more than a
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
to amend must be granted unless it is clear that the
complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment.
Lucas v. Dept' of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
support of its motion to dismiss, Defendant has filed a
request that the Court take judicial notice of the following
Exhibit A: A printout from Google Maps
showing the distance measurement and directions from
Plaintiff's address in Phoenix, Arizona to
Defendant's Hotel in Calistoga, California.
Exhibit B: PACER search results reflecting
25 unique pro se cases filed by Plaintiff since
Exhibit C: An Arizona State Bar complaint
Exhibit D: The Arizona State Bar's
Judgment of Disbarment of Plaintiff.
objects to the requests for judicial notice, primarily on
relevance grounds. Dkt. 12.
A, B, C, and D are not relevant to the Court's
consideration of the motion to dismiss, and the Court
therefore DENIES Defendant's request for judicial notice
of those documents, without prejudice to renewal of the