Strojnik v. Bakersfield Convention Hotel I, LLC

Full title: PETER STROJNIK, SR., Plaintiffs, v. BAKERSFIELD CONVENTION HOTEL I, LLC…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 19, 2021

No. 1:19-cv-1098-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021)

Opinion

No. 1:19-cv-1098-NONE-JLT

02-19-2021

PETER STROJNIK, SR., Plaintiffs, v. BAKERSFIELD CONVENTION HOTEL I, LLC, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

(Doc. Nos. 21, 39)

Peter Strojnik, Sr., asserts he is a person with a disability within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act and that he encountered barriers at the Bakersfield Marriot Hotel. (See Doc. No. 20) Defendant moved for dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 21.) The magistrate judge determined plaintiff had failed to allege facts sufficient to support a conclusion that he suffered an injury-in-fact as a result of the alleged barriers due to his asserted disabilities, and that he failed to establish standing under Article III. Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction on January 27, 2021. (Doc. No. 39.)

The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendations. (Doc. No. 39 at 15.) In addition, the parties were "advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. (Id. at 15-16, citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). To date, no objections have been filed by either party.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this court conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations dated January 27, 2021 (Doc. No. 39) are adopted in full;

2. Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 21) is granted;

3. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this action for purposes of closing the matter and close this case, because this order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19 , 2021

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE