Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01844/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01844-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PETER STROJNIK,

Plaintiff,

v.

ENSEMBLE HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01844-VKD 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

COUNTERCLAIM WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 15

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Peter Strojnik, Sr. filed this disability rights action, claiming that he is a disabled 

individual and was denied full and equal access to the facilities and services at a hotel in Santa 

Cruz, California. Defendant is Ensemble Hotel Partners, LLC dba Dream Inn Santa Cruz (“Hotel 

Partners”).1 Mr. Strojnik claims that booking websites did not describe accessibility features and 

guest rooms in sufficient detail and did not permit reservations to be made in the same manner as 

reservations for individuals who do not require accessible rooms. Dkt. No. 1. Mr. Strojnik also 

alleges the existence of accessibility barriers in various places at the hotel, including the pool, bar, 

and guestroom accommodations. Id. He asserts claims for violation of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and corresponding regulations, the 

California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51, 52, and the California Disabled Persons 

Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54-54.3. Mr. Strojnik also asserts a claim for negligence based on 

 

1 All parties have expressly consented that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally 

adjudicated by a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.

Case 5:19-cv-01844-VKD Document 30 Filed 10/30/19 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

allegations that Hotel Partners lost his car keys during his stay at the hotel.

Hotel Partners answered the complaint and asserted various affirmative defenses, as well 

as a counterclaim for breach of contract. Dkt. No. 11. In its counterclaim, Hotel Partners alleges 

that by filing the present lawsuit, Mr. Strojnik breached a March 19, 2019 settlement agreement 

that resolved a different disability access lawsuit Mr. Strojnik filed earlier this year in the Central 

District of California, Strojnik v. Hyatt Hotels Corp. dba Hyatt Place Pasadena, Case No. CV19-

1148-PS (ASx) (“Hyatt Action”). Hotel Partners claims that it entered into the settlement 

agreement with Mr. Strojnik in the Hyatt Action. Id. at 12. According to paragraph 5 of the 

counterclaim:

In the Agreement in the Hyatt Action, Strojnik released Ensemble 

Investments, LLC and its “past and present” “representatives”, 

“partners”, “third-party vendors”, “affiliates” “assigns, agents, 

independent contractors” and “joint ventures” “from all liabilities, 

causes of actions . . . complaints, suits, claims, obligations, costs, 

losses, damages, rights, judgments, attorneys’ fees, expenses, . . . 

penalties . . . and all other legal responsibilities of any form 

whatsoever, whether known or unknown, presently existing or 

arising in the future . . . including those arising under any theory of 

law, whether common, . . . statutory or other, of any jurisdiction . . . 

which they/now have, ever had or may claim to have against any of 

them, including, without limitation, those arising out of or 

relating to . . . any acts or omissions by the releasing parties 

occurring, or conditions existing, prior to the [March 19, 2019] 

Effective Date.

Id. at 12-13 (alterations and ellipses in original). Hotel Partners says that after the present lawsuit 

was filed, it informed Mr. Strojnik that this action is covered by the prior settlement agreement, 

but Mr. Strojnik refused to dismiss his claims. Id. at 13

Mr. Strojnik now moves to dismiss Hotel Partners’s counterclaim for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for relief.

2

 He contends that the Court lacks 

supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the counterclaim 

has no relation whatsoever to the claims he asserts in this case. Additionally, Mr. Strojnik argues 

 

2 The motion before the Court is an amended one. Hotel Partners claims that the original motion

(Dkt. No. 13) appended an inaccurate version of the subject settlement agreement. Additionally, 

Hotel Partners says that the agreement is confidential. Mr. Strojnik withdrew his original motion. 

Dkt. No. 15. Although Hotel Partners has not requested sealing with respect to the settlement 

agreement appended to Mr. Strojnik’s original motion, the Court will seal the docket entry for that 

motion.

Case 5:19-cv-01844-VKD Document 30 Filed 10/30/19 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

that Hotel Partners has no standing to assert a claim based on the prior settlement agreement 

because Hotel Partners is not a party to, or a third-party beneficiary of, that agreement. Hotel 

Partners opposes the motion. The Court previously advised that the motion was deemed suitable 

for determination without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Dkt. No. 22. Upon 

consideration of the moving and responding papers, the Court grants Mr. Strojnik’s motion to 

dismiss.

II. DISCUSSION

The parties cite virtually no legal authority in support of their respective arguments. 

Nevertheless, the Court observes that for motions to dismiss counterclaims, the same standards 

that apply to a complaint also apply to counterclaims. Rescap Liquidating Trust v. First 

California Mortgage Co., No. 18-cv-03283-WHO, 2019 WL 402318, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 

2019) (citation omitted). Although Mr. Strojnik does not say so expressly, his motion is one 

brought pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court first addresses Mr. Strojnik’s 

arguments under Rule 12(b)(1) pertaining to subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed 

below, the Court concludes that Hotel Partners fails to establish that this Court has supplemental 

jurisdiction over the counterclaim.

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions that either “aris[e] under 

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or where complete diversity of jurisdiction 

exists and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Here, the Court 

has original jurisdiction over Mr. Strojnik’s ADA claim because that claim arises under federal 

law. On the record presented it is not apparent that diversity jurisdiction exists; and, in any event, 

neither side has invoked this Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Thus, the 

Court concludes that it does not have original jurisdiction over Hotel Partners’ counterclaim.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court may nonetheless exercise “supplemental 

jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original 

jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United 

States Constitution.” Id. § 1367(a). Relevant to the discussion here, counterclaims may be 

compulsory or permissive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a), (b). “A counterclaim is compulsory ‘if it arises 

Case 5:19-cv-01844-VKD Document 30 Filed 10/30/19 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim’ and 

‘does not require adding another party over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.’” Moore 

v. Pflug Pkg. & Fulfillment, Inc., No. 17-cv-05823-YGR, 2018 WL 2430903, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 

May 30, 2018) (quoting Rule 13(a)(1)(A)-(B)); see also Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 705 

F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (same). “In determining if the counterclaim is compulsory, the 

Ninth Circuit applies a ‘logical relationship test,’ where the court ‘analyze[s] whether the essential 

facts of the various claims are so logically connected that considerations of judicial economy and 

fairness dictate that all the issues be resolved in one lawsuit.’” Campos v. Western Dental Servs., 

Inc., 404 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 

827 F.2d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir.1987)); see also Moore, 2018 WL 2430903 at *3 (same). “A logical 

relationship exists when the counterclaim arises from the same aggregate set of operative facts as 

the initial claim, in that the same operative facts serve as the basis of both claims or the aggregate 

core of facts upon which the claim rests activates additional legal rights otherwise dormant in the 

defendant.” Mattel, Inc., 705 F.3d at 1110. Courts are required to read the “transaction or

occurrence” component liberally, and should consider whether there is substantial overlap between 

the facts necessary to prove the claim and counterclaim. Moore, 2018 WL 2430903 at *3. “If a 

counterclaim is compulsory, it is inherently part of the same case or controversy and will always 

invoke supplemental jurisdiction.” Id. at *3 (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also 

Campos, 404 F. Supp. 2d at 1167 (“[C]ompulsory counterclaims by definition form party of the 

same case or controversy since they arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and, therefore, 

supplemental jurisdiction over compulsory counterclaims is proper.”) (internal quotations and 

citation omitted).

A counterclaim that is not compulsory is permissive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(b). Traditionally, 

“federal courts did not have jurisdiction over permissive counterclaims absent an independent 

basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Campos, 404 F. Supp. 2d at 1167. Some courts, 

including the Second and Seventh Circuits, and some district courts within this circuit, have 

concluded that “[t]he test for supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 appears to be broad 

enough to encompass some permissive counterclaims.” Id.

Case 5:19-cv-01844-VKD Document 30 Filed 10/30/19 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Hotel Partners has offered no argument as to whether its counterclaim is compulsory, 

except to say that it operates the subject hotel in this action and that the Hyatt Action is a 

“practically . . . identical lawsuit.” Dkt. No. 18 at 2. Although Mr. Strojnik may have asserted the 

same types of claims under the same statutes, his allegations in the present action appear to

concern a different hotel than the one at issue in the Hyatt Action. Moreover, Hotel Partners’s 

counterclaim does not sufficiently allege facts establishing that the settlement agreement released 

Hotel Partners, or that Hotel Partners properly may assert a claim for breach of that agreement. 

Indeed, the counterclaim states that the settlement agreement released an entity called “Ensemble 

Investments, LLC.” Dkt. No. 11 at 12. In its opposition brief, Hotel Partners claims that it is 

owned by Ensemble Investments LLC. Dkt. No. 18 at 2. Even assuming that assertion is true, 

Hotel Partners’s counterclaim contains no such allegation or any facts establishing whether and 

how Hotel Partners and the present action fall within the parties and matters reportedly released by 

the prior settlement agreement.

Accordingly, on the record presented, the Court finds no basis to conclude that Hotel 

Partners’s counterclaim is so related to the claims in this action falling within the Court’s original 

jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Mr. 

Strojnik’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. To 

the extent Hotel Partners believes that, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, it can remedy 

the defects identified in this order, it may amend its counterclaim.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Mr. Strojnik’s motion to dismiss Hotel Partners’s 

counterclaim with leave to amend. If Hotel Partners chooses to amend, its amended counterclaim 

shall be filed by November 13, 2019. Mr. Strojnik’s response to any such amended counterclaim 

shall be filed by November 27, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-01844-VKD Document 30 Filed 10/30/19 Page 5 of 5