United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Padraigin Browne, Browne Law LLC, for Plaintiff.
Peter Sheu, Best & Flanagan LLP for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 16]
(“Motion to Dismiss”). Defendants also ask the
Court to strike improper supplemental pleading by Plaintiff.
For the reasons stated below, the Court will strike those
allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. No.
13] that describe events occurring after the initial
Complaint [Doc. No. 1] was filed and will deny
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss involves a factual
challenge to jurisdiction, the Court considers some evidence
outside the pleadings. Unless contradicted by the limited
record, the Court takes Plaintiff's properly-plead
allegations as true. See Sawczyn v. BMO Harris Bank
Nat'l Ass'n, 8 F.Supp.3d 1108, 1111 (D. Minn.
Aaron Dalton (“Dalton”) is a Minnesota resident
living in Burnsville, Minnesota. (Am. Compl., ¶ 9.)
Dalton suffers from cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair for
mobility, as well as a van with a wheelchair lift.
(Id. ¶¶ 10, 13.) On June 24, 2017, Dalton
attempted to visit Simonson Station, a service station and
convenience store in Alexandria, Minnesota. (Id.
¶¶ 1, 14.) Defendant Simonson Station Stores, Inc.
is the operator and lessee of the station, and Defendant
Bemidji Management Company L.L.C. is the owner and lessor of
the station. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12.)
Dalton plead in his original Complaint, on this June 24 visit
Dalton observed that the parking lot contained 30 parking
spaces and only 1 space reserved for disability-accessible
parking. (Complaint, ¶¶ 13-14.) The reserved space
had no access aisle adjacent to it, and was not identified
with a posted sign. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.)
Additionally, Dalton noted that “[t]he exterior side to
the customer entrance to ‘Simonson Station'
appeared to be sloped and lacked adequate maneuvering
clearance.” (Id. ¶ 19.) As a result of
these barriers, Dalton was deterred from parking at Simonson
Station and patronizing the service station or convenience
store. (Id. ¶ 21.)
filed his Complaint in this Court on September 27, 2017,
seeking injunctive relief under Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (Id.)
Less than a month later, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 7], arguing that they had
remedied all the alleged ADA violations and that the
Complaint was moot. Defendants submitted documentation
showing that, since the filing of the Complaint, they had
added an additional reserved parking space, an access aisle
adjacent to each reserved space, and signage identifying
reserved and van-accessible parking. (See Decl. of
Arch Simonson [Doc. No. 10], ¶ 5; id., Ex. 2
[Doc. No. 10-1].) Defendants submitted a picture of the
entrance closest to the reserved parking spaces and submitted
a declaration that is was “flat, on a level path from
accessible parking.” (Id. ¶ 6;
id., Ex. 3.)
did not respond to Defendants' first Motion to Dismiss,
but instead filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint
raises additional alleged violations, included that the
reserved parking space is too steeply sloped, that the route
from the reserved space to the entrance extends into the
vehicular traffic lane, and that the dining surfaces for the
in-store deli are not at a proper height. (Am. Compl.,
¶¶ 18, 22-23.) Dalton also amended his allegations
to specify that it was the customer entrance closest to the
reserved parking that is “sloped and lacked adequate
level maneuvering clearance.” (Id. ¶ 21.)
Amended Complaint also alleges that Defendants'
remediation efforts were insufficient. Dalton alleges that,
though Defendants installed an additional reserved parking
space and an access aisle for van-accessible parking, they
are too steeply sloped. (Id. ¶ 27.) Further,
Dalton alleges that one of the newly installed signs is not
at least 60 inches off the ground, as required by the ADA
accessibility guidelines. (Id. ¶ 26.)
again filed a Motion to Dismiss. Defendants assert that this
Court does not have jurisdiction over Dalton's claim
because it is moot and because Dalton does not have standing.
(Defs.' Mem. of Law to Supp. their Mot. to Dismiss
Pl.'s Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 21] (“Defs.'
Mem.”), at 10-20.) Defendants further argue that Dalton
has failed to plead factual allegations that plausibly state
a claim for relief, and that Dalton's improper
supplemental pleading should be stricken. (Id. at
The Americans with Disabilities Act
prohibits property owners or lessees from discriminating
against persons with disabilities by preventing them from
fully and equally accessing and enjoying public
accommodations. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Structures built
or modified after the ADA effective date of January 26, 1993
must comply with accessibility standards in the ADA
regulations except where “structurally
impracticable.” Id. § 12183(a)(1). For
structures built before 1993, the ADA creates an ...