Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council
- David Doty
- 0:25-cv-00213
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council, Judge Doty dismissed class claims and Raines and Parshall without prejudice, dismissed Delta and Sun Country with prejudice, and denied Delta’s motions as moot.
Michael Fiorito, Dennis Raines, Joseph Parshall, Delta Airlines, Sun Country Airlines, and the proposed class of similarly situated individuals. The order also addresses claims against Metropolitan Council but does not state a disposition for every such claim.
What happened
Michael Fiorito filed an amended complaint against Metropolitan Council, Delta Airlines, and Sun Country Airlines. The complaint sought relief under disability-rights and other laws based on allegedly broken elevators or escalators at a Minneapolis light-rail station, and it also tried to assert claims for Dennis Raines, Joseph Parshall, and a class of similar people.
The court said Fiorito could not represent Raines, Parshall, or a class because he is not an attorney. It also found no legal or factual basis for claims against Delta and Sun Country because the airlines did not operate or control the transit station.
Judge Doty dismissed Raines and Parshall and the class claims without prejudice, dismissed Delta Airlines and Sun Country Airlines with prejudice, and denied Delta’s motions to dismiss as moot.
The detailed version
- Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council · No. 0:25-cv-00213
- David Doty
- Apr. 7, 2025
Background
Michael Fiorito filed an amended complaint against Metropolitan Council, doing business as Metro Transit; Delta Airlines; and Sun Country Airlines. The complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Federal Rehabilitation Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. It alleged that elevators or escalators at a Minneapolis public transit station were not properly maintained. The complaint also purported to bring claims for Dennis Raines, Joseph Parshall, and an unspecified class of similarly situated people.
Court’s reasoning
The court found the amended complaint frivolous in several respects. First, only Fiorito had signed documents in the case, and Fiorito is not an attorney. The court held that he could not litigate claims for Raines or Parshall. Second, the court held that Fiorito could not prosecute claims for a class of other litigants.
Third, the court found no plausible basis for naming Delta and Sun Country. The complaint connected the airlines to the transit-station allegations because travelers may use light rail to reach the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and the airlines operate there. The court noted that the station is miles from the airport and is neither operated nor controlled by the airlines. It concluded that the claims against the airlines had no basis in law or fact and were frivolous.
Disposition
The court dismissed Raines and Parshall from the action without prejudice. It dismissed all claims purportedly brought for the class of similarly situated individuals without prejudice, based on Fiorito’s lack of standing to prosecute those claims. It dismissed Delta Airlines and Sun Country Airlines with prejudice. The court denied Delta’s motions to dismiss, identified as ECF Nos. 22 and 39, as moot because the court had dismissed Delta from the proceeding on its own initiative as to the frivolous claims. The order does not state a disposition for every claim against Metropolitan Council.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed claims and parties as frivolous and for lack of standing without deciding the underlying disability-access claims on their merits.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.