Strojnik v. Hyatt Hotels Corp.

• Decision Date: 18 February 2022
• Docket Number: CV-21-00741-PHX-DWL
• Parties: Peter Strojnik, Plaintiff, v. Hyatt Hotels Corporation, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Arizona

Peter Strojnik, Plaintiff, v. Hyatt Hotels Corporation, et al., Defendants.

No. CV-21-00741-PHX-DWL

United States District Court, D. Arizona

February 18, 2022

ORDER

DOMINIC W. LANZA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court are three motions: (1) Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and request for sanctions (Doc. 8); (2) Defendants' motion to declare Plaintiff Peter Strojnik (“Strojnik”) a vexatious litigant (Doc. 9); and (3) Strojnik's motion to remand (Doc. 13). For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted and the other motions are denied.

BACKGROUND

I Strojnik's Litigation History

Over the last decade, Strojnik has been personally responsible for the filing of thousands of meritless lawsuits. In general, these “cookie-cutter lawsuits” with inadequate allegations have involved the assertion of claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against small businesses. Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities LLC v. MidFirst Bank, 279 F.Supp.3d 891, 893 (D. Ariz. 2017) (“Template complaints filled with non-specific allegations have become the stock-in-trade of attorney[] Peter Strojnik” who, in conjunction with others, “pursued upwards of 160 cookie-cutter lawsuits in federal court and, from early to later 2016, more than 1, 700 such suits in Arizona state court”).

Initially, Strojnik filed these ADA lawsuits in his capacity as an attorney, but he was disbarred by the Arizona State Bar in 2019. The notice of disbarment explained that Strojnik's modus operandi was to engage in “‘extortionate' and ‘ethically suspect' misconduct” by asserting “vague violations” and then “demand[ing] approximately $5, 000 in attorney's fees regardless if the business remedied the purported violations.” Strojnik v. Ashford Scottsdale LP, 2021 WL 2002977, *1 (D. Ariz. 2021) (citation omitted).

Next, Strojnik began bringing ADA lawsuits in federal court as a pro se plaintiff. Those lawsuits were routinely dismissed for lack of standing, and in 2020, Strojnik was declared a vexatious litigant by the United States District Courts for the Northern and Central Districts of California. Strojnik v. IA Lodging Napa First LLC, 2020 WL 2838814, *13 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“Strojnik's litigation tactics are frivolous and harassing.”); Strojnik v. SCG Am. Construction Inc., 2020 WL 4258814, *7-8 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (finding, in the course of making vexatious-litigant finding, that “Strojnik's propensity for filing a multitude of disability discrimination cases, particularly against hotel defendants, is very well known, ” that “countless courts have questioned Strojnik's motives in pursuing the litigation and whether he has a good faith basis for his claims, ” and that “Strojnik's history contains countless filings of frivolous complaints and instances of directly ignoring court orders”).

After this strategy proved ineffective, Strojnik began bringing pro se ADA lawsuits in Arizona state court. Many of the targets of these lawsuits responded by removing the action to federal court, based on the presence of a federal claim (i.e., the ADA claim), and then moving to dismiss based on a lack of standing. Strojnik v. Driftwood Hospitality Mgmt. LLC, 2021 WL 50456, *8-9 (D. Ariz. 2021) (“As of December 19, 2020, Mr. Strojnik claims to have filed 64 cases with ADA claims in Arizona superior courts . . . [and] twenty-two of Mr. Strojnik's pro se ADA cases have been heard in this District since his disbarment after they were removed from state court”). Strojnik not only resisted these efforts but went on the offensive, seeking sanctions against opposing counsel. Such tactics prompted the District of Arizona to declare Strojnik a vexatious litigant in January 2021. Id. at *10 (“The Court finds that Mr. Strojnik harasses and coerces parties into agreeing to extortive settlements . . . [and] finds Mr. Strojnik's litigation tactics frivolous and harassing.”). The vexatious litigant order required Strojnik to pay a $10, 000 bond within 21 days of (1) filing a new action in the District of Arizona, (2) removal of an action from state court, or (3) amending a complaint in an action already pending in the District of Arizona, but the bond requirement was limited to actions that alleged ADA violations. Id. at *11.

Afterward, Strojnik began filing pro se lawsuits in Arizona state court in which he dropped the ADA claim and only asserted state-law claims, including claims under the Arizonans with Disabilities Act (“AzDA”), which “mirror[s] Title III of the ADA.” Tauscher v. Phoenix Bd. of Realtors, Inc., 931 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2019). One surmises that this constituted an attempt to avoid removal and the District of Arizona's bond requirement. Some defendants have nevertheless removed these actions on diversity grounds. Such is the case here.

II. This Case

On March 19, 2021, Strojnik filed this action in Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 1-3 at 11.) Strojnik alleges that Defendant XHR Phoenix Palms, LLC (“XHR”), a subsidiary of Defendant Xenia Hotels and Resorts, Inc. (“Xenia”), owns Royal Palms Resort and Spa, the Unbound Collection by Hyatt (“Royal Palms”), but Defendant Hyatt Hotels Corporation (“Hyatt”) has a “practice of misleading Plaintiff and the public into believing that [Royal Palms] is one of its hotels.” (Id. at 11 ¶¶ 1-3.) Strojnik further alleges that “Hyatt, Xenia and XHR intentionally hide the true ownership of [Royal Palms] from Plaintiff and the public because Hyatt has excellent reputation in the lodging services industry, particularly as related to accessibility, but Xenia and XHR are known violators of accessibility laws.” (Id. at 11 ¶ 4.)

According to the complaint, on February 13, 2021, Strojnik wanted “to get away, ” so he reviewed Hyatt's website, which directed him to Royal Palms. (Id. at 13 ¶¶ 14-15.)

Although the booking website contained accessibility information for “individual allegedly accessible rooms, ” it lacked accessibility information for the “general grounds.” (Id. at 13 ¶ 16.)

On February 14, 2021, Strojnik sent a letter^[1] to Royal Palms' “attorneys and general manager” (id. at 13 ¶ 17), which opened as follows:

I must congratulate you all on your excellent work in Judge Humetewa case [sic]! I intended to get away from the stresses of dealing with Arizona's excellent ADA Defense Bar so I tried to get away to the Royal Palms. Unfortunately, Royal Palms remains woefully inaccessible.^[2] I feel it my civic obligation to file suit in the Superior Court pursuant to the AzDA. In advance of your res judicata reaction, let me confirm that Judge Humetewa's extraordinary decision is not final, not on the merits, and that I will appeal it when the judge finally gets around to ruling on my Motion for a New Trial.

(Doc. 1-3 at 21.)

Strojnik's letter indicated that if Royal Palms responded “by March 18, 2021 that all AzDA violations have been cured, ” he would book a room-if not, he would file a new lawsuit. (Id. at 23.) An addendum featured poor-quality photographs of the property with the same sort of vague labels that typically accompany Strojnik's complaints. See, e.g., Strojnik v. Ogle, 2021 WL 1250345, *2 (D. Ariz. 2021) (“[T]he complaint includes several unclear, dark, and grainy photos of the Hotel that are captioned with vague and conclusory language.”).

Stojnik did not receive the requested response by March 18, 2021, so he filed suit on March 19, 2021. (Doc. 1-3 at 13 ¶ 19.) Strojnik alleges, in vague and conclusory language that echoes his many other complaints, that various accessibility barriers impair his full and equal access to Royal Palms due to his standard litany of alleged limitations on his major life activities. (Id. at 13 ¶¶ 21-22.) He brings claims of (1) fraud under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (“ACFA”), (2) civil conspiracy, (3) civil aiding and abetting, and (4) denial of full and equal access under the AzDA. (Id. at 13-18.) Such claims have been routinely dismissed by Arizona courts. See, e.g., Strojnik v. FlagExpress, LLC, 2021 WL 5183632, *2 (Ariz.Ct.App. 2021) (“Various courts have called Strojnik's ADA cases inadequate cookie-cutter lawsuits. This case is no different. On appeal, we currently have this case from Strojnik and one other . . . . Our review of the complaints from both cases shows the same cut-and-paste problems. Not only has Strojnik failed to address the procedural and jurisdictional deficiencies in his nearly 2, 000 previous complaints, even his typographical errors are unchanged.”).

On June 10, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and request for sanctions (Doc. 8) and a motion to have Strojnik “declared a vexatious litigant as to all complaints” filed in or removed to the District of Arizona (as opposed to only those containing ADA claims) (Doc. 9).^[3]

The deadline for Strojnik to respond to the vexatious litigant motion was June 24, 2021, and the deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss was July 12, 2021. LRCiv 7.2(e); LRCiv 12.1(b). Both deadlines lapsed unheeded.

On July 15, 2021, Strojnik filed a “motion to remand for lack of diversity jurisdiction and cautionary response to Defendants' motion to dismiss.” (Doc. 13.)

On July 29, 2021, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss and response to Strojnik's motion to remand. (Doc. 15.)

Strojnik did not file a reply in support of his motion to remand.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion To Remand

A. Legal Standard

“A defendant generally may remove any action filed in state court if a federal district court would have had original jurisdiction.” Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). A federal district court has “original jurisdiction...