Strojnik v. Flagrock Hospitality LLC
3:20-cv-08317
D. Ariz.Mar 22, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Peter Strojnik routinely tests hotels and websites for ADA compliance and has a history of numerous ADA suits; other courts have labeled him a vexatious litigant.
- After a September 10, 2020 visit to a Howard Johnson Inn, Strojnik filed an 8-count state-court complaint (ADA claim + seven state-law claims).
- Defendants removed to federal court invoking federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- Strojnik moved for remand of certain counts, demanded defendants prove removal jurisdiction, and sought a writ prohibiting defense counsel from removing cases and then asserting lack of jurisdiction.
- The district court denied the writ, held Strojnik failed to plead Article III standing (for both physical-barrier and website claims), found amendment futile, and sua sponte remanded the entire case to Coconino County Superior Court.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Writ of prohibition | Bar defense counsel from removing then asserting lack of jurisdiction | No comparable misconduct in this case; no basis for extraordinary writ | Denied — no grounds to issue writ |
| Standing: physical barriers | Boilerplate allegations + photos show deterrence from visiting | Allegations are conclusory and fail to connect barriers to plaintiff's disabilities | Denied standing — allegations do not plausibly link barriers to Strojnik's specific disabilities |
| Standing: hotel website | Website fails to describe accessible features, deterring him | Allegation parrots regulation and lacks specificity tying features (or lack thereof) to plaintiff's needs | Denied standing — website claim is too vague to show deterrence |
| Remand / supplemental jurisdiction & amendment | Sought remand of counts and proof of removal jurisdiction | Removal initially invoked federal jurisdiction; court must assess Article III standing | Court remanded entire case to state court; denied leave to amend as futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Carney v. Adams, 141 S. Ct. 493 (2020) (restates injury-in-fact requirements for Article III standing)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (concrete-injury requirement)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; courts may apply judicial experience and common sense)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (ADA deterrence doctrine for injunctive relief standing)
- Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc., 985 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2021) (wheelchair user’s allegations held sufficient to show deterrence)
- Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2002) (deterrent-effect standing in ADA cases)
- Collier v. SP Plus Corp., 889 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 2018) (example of removal followed quickly by a motion to dismiss for lack of standing)
- Scott v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2002) (federal court lacks power to retain state-law claims when federal claim lacks jurisdiction)