# Strojnik v. Woodside Hotel Group LTD > District Court, N.D. California · February 9, 2021 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10066706 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** February 9, 2021 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10066706 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 PETER STROJNIK, Case No. 20-cv-03204-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO POST A COSTS BOND; VACATING HEARING 10 WOODSIDE HOTEL GROUP LTD, FOR PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS 11 Defendant. 12 13 Presently before the Court is a Motion to Require Plaintiff Peter Strojnik to Post a Costs 14 Bond. ECF 7. Defendant Woodside Hotel Group Ltd. d/b/a Monterey Plaza Hotel & Spa requests 15 that Strojnik be required to post a $75,000 bond to cover anticipated costs and reasonable 16 attorneys’ fees likely to be incurred in the defense of this action. See id. at 1. The Court previously 17 found this motion suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b) 18 and vacated the motion hearing scheduled for October 8, 2020. ECF 20. Having considered the 19 parties' submissions and the relevant law, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. 20 21 Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not address security bonds, federal 22 district courts “have inherent power to require plaintiffs to post security for costs.” Simulnet E. 23 Assocs. v. Ramada Hotel Operating Co., 37 F.3d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1994). “‘Typically federal 24 courts, either by rule or by case-to-case determination, follow the forum state’s practice with 25 regard to security for costs, as they did prior to the federal rules; this is especially common when a 26 non-resident party is involved.’” Id. (quoting 10 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and 27 defendant shows that (1) the plaintiff resides out of state and (2) there is a “reasonable possibility” 1 2 that the defendant will prevail on the merits. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1030(a)-(c). 3 Following section 1030’s requirements, and looking to the underlying claims, the Court 4 finds it appropriate to require Strojnik to post a bond for costs and attorneys’ fees. There is no 5 dispute that Strojnik resides out of state in Arizona. See ECF 8 at 1 (listing Strojnik’s address in 6 Arizona). The Court also finds that there is a reasonable possibility that Defendant will prevail on 7 the merits and that Strojnik’s Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim is frivolous. Brown 8 v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 246 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2001) (fees and costs can be awarded under 9 10 the ADA only if the plaintiff’s claims were “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation”). 11 Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss raises significant legal issues, such as Strojnik’s failure to 12 allege Article III standing. See ECF 21 at 6. Strojnik has repeatedly failed to make such a showing 13 in California federal courts. See, e.g., Strojnik v. Pasadena Robles Acquisition, LLC, Case No. 19- 14 cv-2067, ECF 23 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2019) (dismissing without leave to amend for failure to 15 allege standing), aff'd, 801 Fed.Appx. 569 (9th Cir. 2020); Strojnik v. Four Sisters Inns, Inc., Case 16 No. 19-cv-2991, ECF 21 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2019) (same); Strojnik Sr. v. Orangewood LLC, Case 17 18 No. 19-cv-946, ECF 43 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2020) (same); see also Strojnik v. IA Lodging Napa 19 First LLC, No. 19-CV-03983-DMR, 2020 WL 2838814, at *7-*9 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) 20 (collecting cases). 21 And the Northern District of California has declared Strojnik a vexatious litigant precisely 22 because of his unreasonable and frivolous conduct in ADA cases. IA Lodging Napa First, 2020 23 WL 2838814. In Strojnik v. IA Lodging Napa First, the court made extensive findings about 24 25 Strojnik’s litigation tactics, concluding that “courts in the Ninth Circuit have repeatedly 26 admonished Strojnik for failing to allege a connection between ADA violations and a plaintiff's 27 particular disabilities” and highlighting “Strojnik's intransigence in changing his pleadings found that “Strojnik's pleading practices waste the resources of the court and impose unjustified 1 2 costs on parties who are forced to defend loosely pleaded complaints that do not allege specific 3 facts about their misconduct.” Id. at *12 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). 4 Further, because of this vexatious conduct, another district court in the Ninth Circuit required 5 Strojnik to post a $10,000 bond within 21 days of filing any new action alleging ADA violations. 6 See Strojnik v. Driftwood Hosp. Mgmt. LLC, No. CV-20-00343-PHX-DJH, 2021 WL 50456, at 7 *11 (D. Ariz. Jan. 6, 2021). 8 Defendant requests that the Court require Strojnik to post a $75,000 bond. See ECF 7 at 1. 9 10 In support of this bond amount, Defendant offers the declaration of its attorney Philip H. Stillman. 11 See ECF 7-2. Stillman estimates that he will expend a minimum of $36,100 in costs on this 12 litigation and will likely expend $103,140 in fees to achieve a judgment. Id. ¶¶ 16, 25. Stillman 13 also alleges that he has already incurred 35 hours of time on this matter, equating to $15,750 in 14 fees. Id. ¶ 25. Although Stillman requests a bond of $75,000, federal courts in California have 15 awarded more modest fees awards in similar cases brought by Strojnik. See, e.g., Strojnik v. 1017 16 Coronado, Inc., No. 19-cv-02210-BAS-MSB, 2021 WL 120899 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2021) 17 18 (awarding $21,995 in attorneys’ fees after dismissing the complaint); Strojnik v. Inn At Jack 19 London Square, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01289-SBA, ECF 29 (N.D. Cal. January 28, 2021) (report 20 and recommendation for $17,850 in attorney’s fees after dismissing the complaint). In light of this 21 caselaw and the Stillman declaration, the Court finds a bond of $20,000 appropriate here. 22 Defendant’s Motion to Require Strojnik to Post a Costs Bond is GRANTED. Strojnik 23 SHALL post a $20,000 bond within 14 days of this Order. With respect to Defendant’s pending 24 25 Motion to Dismiss at ECF 21, the Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral 26 argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b) and VACATES the motion hearing scheduled for 27 February 18, 2021. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 || Dated: February 9, 2021 han en 4 Ly (MAM BETH LABSON FREEMAN 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12 © 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10066706. Public record. Not legal advice.