Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Golden China of Red Wing, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

July 5, 2018

SCOTT SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
GOLDEN CHINA OF RED WING, INC., and VU THU LAM, Defendants.

          Padraigin Browne, BROWNE LAW LLC, for plaintiff.

          Edward P. Sheu and John A. Sullivan, BEST & FLANAGAN LLP, for defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JOHN R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE

         Plaintiff Scott Smith brought this discrimination action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) based on architectural barriers on the premises of Defendant Golden China of Red Wing, Inc., owned by named Defendant Vu Thu Lam[1] (collectively, “Golden China”). United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that Golden China's Motion to Dismiss be granted with respect to Smith's MHRA claim but otherwise denied. Golden China objects. Although Golden China has remediated the parking-space violations, its argument that remediation of the remaining violations is not readily achievable does not justify dismissal. As such, the Court will overrule Golden China's objections, adopt the R&R, and grant in part and deny in part the Motion to Dismiss.

         BACKGROUND

         Scott Smith, a Burnsville resident, suffers from arthrogryposis and uses a wheelchair for mobility. (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9, June 2, 2017, Docket No. 1.) Golden China, a Red Wing restaurant, has been owned and operated by George Lam since 1995. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 11; Decl. of George Lam ¶ 2, Oct. 12, 2017, Docket No. 24.)

         Smith brought this action against Golden China on June 2, 2017, alleging unlawful discrimination in violation of the ADA and MHRA. (See generally Compl.) Specifically, Smith alleged that the sole parking space reserved for patrons with disabilities was noncompliant with ADA requirements because its signage was not high enough above the ground, the space was not marked to define its width, the space lacked an adjacent access aisle, and the space was not located on an accessible route into the restaurant. (Compl. ¶ 24.) Smith also alleged that Golden China must provide a second accessible parking space. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) Finally, Smith alleged that the ramp in the parking lot does not comply with the ADA because its slope is too steep and the maneuverable landing too small. (Id. ¶ 24.)

         Golden China moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that modifications to the parking lot mooted Smith's claims. (1st Mot. to Dismiss, Oct. 12, 2017, Docket No. 19.) Smith then filed an Amended Complaint that incorporates measurements taken during a second site inspection and adds an additional claim alleging violations of the MHRA. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44-53, Oct. 31, 2017, Docket No. 42.) Golden China filed a second Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (2d Mot. to Dismiss, Nov. 17, 2017, Docket No. 46.)

         After a hearing, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R on the second motion, recommending dismissal of Smith's MHRA claim but not his ADA claim. (R&R, Mar. 8, 2018, Docket No. 72.) Golden China timely objected, arguing that it remediated the parking-space violations and that it is not required to fix the remaining barriers. (Objs., Mar. 22, 2018, Docket No. 73.) Golden China also contends that the Eighth Circuit's March 29 decision in Davis v. Anthony, Inc., 886 F.3d 674 (8th Cir. 2018), is superseding authority that bars standing. (See Defs.' Notice, Apr. 9, 2018, Docket No. 75.)

         DISCUSSION

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         After a magistrate judge files an R&R, a party may file a “specific written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). “The objections should specify the portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objections are made and provide a basis for those objections.” Mayer v. Walvatne, No. 07-1958, 2008 WL 4527774, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2008). For dispositive motions, the Court reviews de novo a “properly objected to” portion of an R&R. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

         II. RULE 12(B)(1)

         Golden China asserts that this case must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because it is moot. Specifically, Golden China argues that it has remediated the parking-space violations and that remediation of the remaining violations is not readily achievable. Golden China also submits supplemental authority to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.