1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER STROJNIK, Case No.: 22-CV-440 TWR (MDD)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REJECTING COMPLAINT 13 v. PURSUANT TO PREFILING ORDER 14 BUFFALO WILD WINGS, LLC,

15 Defendant. (ECF No. 1) 16

17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Peter Strojnik’s Verified Complaint for 18 Violations of Americans with Disabilities Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Compl.,” ECF 19 No. 1) against Defendant Buffalo Wild Wings, LLC (the “Restaurant”), which was 20 randomly assigned to the undersigned for a determination of whether it should be accepted 21 for filing pursuant to the Honorable Larry Alan Burns’ Original (ECF No. 27 (the “Sept. 22 2021 Order”)) and Amended (ECF No. 41 (the “Apr. 2022 Order”)) Orders (1) Granting 23 in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant 24 and Impose Pre-Filing Restrictions; and (2) Granting Defendant’s Request for Attorney’s 25 Fees in Strojnik v. 1315 Orange, LLC, No. 19-CV-1991 LAB (JLB) (S.D. Cal.) (together, 26 the “Prefiling Order”). As documented in Judge Burns’ September 2021 Order, 27 Mr. Strojnik had been disbarred by the State Bar of Arizona and declared a vexatious 28 litigant in at least three jurisdictions—the United States District Courts for the Northern 1 District of California, the Central District of California, and the District of Arizona —for 2 filing frivolous ADA complaints. (See generally Sept. 2021 Order at 10–13.) Judge Burns 3 therefore declared Mr. Strojnik a vexatious litigant and entered a narrowly tailored 4 Prefiling Order, (see id. at 14), pursuant to which: 5 Strojnik is enjoined from filing any civil action in the Southern District of 6 California that alleges a cause of action for a violation of the ADA without first obtaining certification from this Court that his claims plausibly allege 7 Article III standing and are not frivolous or asserted for an improper purpose. 8 To the extent Strojnik wishes to file a complaint that challenges access to public accommodations, Strojnik must provide a copy of the complaint, a 9 letter requesting that the complaint be filed, a copy of the September 29, 2021 10 Order, and a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Court. The Clerk shall randomly assign the case to a District Judge in accordance with normal 11 procedure, and shall forward the complaint, letter, a copy of the September 29, 12 2021 Order, and a copy of this Order to the assigned District Judge for a determination of whether the complaint should be accepted for filing. 13

14 (See Apr. 2022 Order at 1–2.) Although Mr. Strojnik has complied with the procedural 15 requirements of the Prefiling Order, the Court nonetheless REJECTS Mr. Strojnik’s 16 Complaint for failure plausibly to allege Article III standing and as “asserted for an 17 improper purpose.” 18 First, as Mr. Strojnik is by now very well aware, “an ADA plaintiff can establish 19 standing to sue for injunctive relief either by demonstrating deterrence, or by demonstrating 20 injury-in-fact coupled with an intent to return to a noncompliant facility.” Chapman v. 21 Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). “[T]o suffer an 22 injury-in-fact arising from an actual encounter with a barrier, an ADA plaintiff must 23

24 25 1 Although Judge Burns noted that Mr. Strojnik had been declared a vexatious litigant in the Northern and Central Districts of California, the Court has found that Mr. Strojnik has also been declared a vexatious 26 litigant in the District of Arizona. See Strojnik v. Driftwood Hosp. Mgmt. LLC, No. CV-20-00343-PHX- DJH,

, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 6, 2021), order amended on reconsideration, No. CV-20- 27 01532-PHX-DJH,

(D. Ariz. June 16, 2021). The Court has not researched whether Mr. Strojnik has been declared a vexatious litigant in any additional jurisdictions, federal or state, trial or 28 1 establish that the barrier relates to his disability.” Strojnik v. Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2 No. CV 19-00136 JMS-RT,

, at *3 (D. Haw. May 26, 2020) (quoting 3 Strojnik v. IA Lodging Napa First LLC,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020) 4 (emphasis in original) (citing Chapman,

n.4)) (citing Doran v. 7-Eleven, 5 Inc.,

, 1044 n.7 (9th Cir. 2008)). Alternatively, under the “deterrent effect 6 doctrine,” see Civil Rights Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. Hosp. Properties Tr.,

, 1098 7 (9th Cir. 2017) (“CREEC”) (citing Chapman, 631 F.3d at 949–50), “[s]o long as the 8 discriminatory conditions continue, and so long as a plaintiff is aware of them and remains 9 deterred, the injury under the ADA continues.”

at 1099 (quoting Pickern v. Holiday 10 Quality Foods, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2002)). In either instance, the plaintiff 11 must also “demonstrate[] an intent to return to the geographic area where the 12 accommodation is located and a desire to visit the accommodation if it were made 13 accessible.” See D’Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites,

(9th Cir. 14 2008) (citing Pickern,

); see also CREEC,

; Doran, 524 15 F.3d at 1040; Pickern,

. 16 Even assuming the truth of Mr. Strojnik’s verified allegations, they fail under either 17 standard for Article III standing. For example, although Mr. Strojnik alleges that he “is 18 often in the area where the Restaurant is located,” (see Compl. ¶ 19), it is unclear why 19 Mr. Strojnik—a resident of Phoenix, Arizona—is frequently in El Centro, California; 20 whether he has concrete plans to return to El Centro; or why he desires to visit the 21 Restaurant, one of a chain with multiple locations in both Southern California and Arizona, 22 in particular. See, e.g., D’Lil,

; Johnson v. DTBA, LLC,

657, 665–66 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Parr v. L & L Drive-Inn Rest.,

, 24 1079–80 (D. Haw. 2000). Mr. Strojnik therefore fails adequately to allege Article III 25 standing. 26 Second, even if Mr. Strojnik had adequately alleged Article III standing, the Court 27 would also reject his Complaint as asserted for an improper purpose. (See Apr. 2022 Order 28 at 1.) Nothing in the instant Complaint distinguishes it from the thousands of ADA 1 ||complaints Mr. Strojnik has filed across the country over the past six years, which Judge 2 || Burns concluded were filed without “a good-faith basis ... and... with the intention of 3 ||harassing defendants and extorting settlements out of them[,]” which “not only [has] 4 imposed a significant strain on the court system, but . . . has also resulted in the harassment 5 numerous establishments across various jurisdictions.” (See Sept. 2021 Order at □□□□□□ 6 also generally id. at 8-13.) It would therefore appear that this action is merely a 7 ||continuation of Mr. Stroynik’s well-documented “abuse of the judicial process” and 8 ‘exploitative behavior.” (See id. at 13.) 9 For these reasons, upon consideration of the instant Complaint and Mr. Strojnik’s 10 || letter requesting permission to file it, the Court REJECTS the Complaint pursuant to Judge 11 || Burns’ Prefiling Order for failure adequately to allege Article III standing and as asserted 12 || for an improper purpose. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: April 8, 2022 □ 15 [ odd (2 re 16 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28