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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Fernando Gastelum, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GTI Phoenix LLC, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-18-00439-PHX-DLR 

ORDER 

 This is one of about 150 lawsuits brought in this District by attorney Peter Strojnik 

on behalf of Plaintiff Fernando Gastelum alleging violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”). This case, like many of the others, followed a familiar pattern. 

In less than three months, Plaintiff filed his complaint, Defendant served Plaintiff with an 

offer of judgment, Plaintiff accepted the offer, the Clerk of this Court entered judgment 

accordingly, and Plaintiff moved for an award of attorneys’ fees. (Docs. 1, 13-15.) 

Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to award him $9,230.00 in attorneys’ fees and 

$2,882.70 in costs and expenses. (Doc. 15 at 5.) Defendant opposes the motion on several 

grounds, arguing that the fee amount is excessive in light of the services rendered, that the 

fee agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. Stroknik is unethical, and that the Court should 

deny the request outright because of Mr. Strojnik’s “extortionist” litigation tactics. (Doc. 

16.) The Court chooses door number three. 

 The long, sometimes tortured history of Mr. Strojnik’s serial ADA litigation is welldescribed in Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities LLC v. MidFirst Bank, 279 F. 

Case 2:18-cv-00439-DLR Document 22 Filed 12/21/18 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Supp. 3d 891 (D. Ariz. 2017). There, Judge Wake described Mr. Strojnik’s tactics as a 

pervasive “extortionate practice,” and concluded that Arizona courts would not “empower 

[his] unethical extortion of unreasonable attorney’s fees from defendants.” Id. at 894, 898. 

Judge Wake noted that “[n]o fee is the reasonable fee for an unnecessary lawsuit that a 

demand letter would have taken care of.” Id. at 898. 

 Later, when Mr. Strojnik began filing lawsuits on behalf of Plaintiff, Judge Snow 

concluded that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to pursue many of his cases and, as a 

result, denied as moot several attorneys’ fees motions. See Gastelum v. Canyon Hospitality 

LLC, 2018 WL 2388047, No. CV-17-02792-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. May 25, 2018). In that 

order, Judge Snow repeatedly referred to Mr. Strojnik’s serial litigation as an “enterprise.” 

Id. at *4, *8. 

 The State Bar of Arizona evidently has similar concerns. On March 6, 2018, the 

State Bar moved to immediately suspend Mr. Stroknik’s law license based on concerns 

over the ethics of his tactics and his potential use of these ADA actions to extort fee awards. 

(Doc. 16-1 at 2-15.) On July 11, 2018, the State Bar’s Presiding Disciplinary Judge issued 

an order suspending Mr. Stroknik on an interim basis from the practice of law in the state 

of Arizona. (Doc. 18-1.) 

 The ADA gives the Court discretion to award the prevailing party attorneys’ fees 

and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 12205. “The Supreme Court has held that a prevailing plaintiff . . 

. ‘should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render 

such an award unjust.’” Barrios v. Cal. Interscholastic Fed’n, 277 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983)). Given the special 

circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that an award of fees would unjustly reward 

the tactics that repeatedly have been criticized by other judges of this Court, as well as the 

State Bar. The Court therefore exercises its discretion to deny the fee application. See 

Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 

532 U.S. 598, 640 (2001) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (“Congress assigned responsibility for 

awarding fees not to automatons unable to recognize extortionists, but to judges expected 

Case 2:18-cv-00439-DLR Document 22 Filed 12/21/18 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

and instructed to exercise ‘discretion.’”). 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 15) is DENIED. 

 Dated this 21st day of December, 2018. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cv-00439-DLR Document 22 Filed 12/21/18 Page 3 of 3