Smith v. Golden China of Red Wing, Inc.

Background

Scott Smith, who uses a wheelchair, sued Golden China of Red Wing, Inc. and Vu Thu Lam over alleged architectural barriers at Golden China’s parking facility. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The alleged barriers included problems with the accessible parking sign, parking-space markings, the lack of an adjacent access aisle, the route from the parking space to the restaurant, the number of accessible spaces, and the slope and landing of a parking-lot ramp.

Golden China moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that repairs had made Smith’s claims moot. It also argued under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legally plausible claim, that Smith had not pleaded his allegations specifically enough and had not plausibly alleged that removing the remaining barriers was readily achievable. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the MHRA claim but not the ADA claim. Golden China objected.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Golden China had shown that it needed to provide one accessible parking space, not two. Although Smith alleged that the property could hold 75 spaces, the court concluded that areas marked “no parking” or “no trespassing” were not spaces the restaurant had provided for parking.

The court also found that Golden China had repaired the accessible parking sign and repainted the lot to define the accessible space and access aisle. Those particular parking-space violations therefore could not reasonably be expected to recur. But the court held that the record did not contain enough evidence to determine that the remaining barriers were subject to an existing-facility defense or that their removal was not readily achievable. The court stated that Golden China could present that evidence in a later motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, but it denied the motion to dismiss on that ground.

The court rejected Golden China’s argument that Smith lacked standing to challenge barriers he had not personally encountered. It distinguished an Eighth Circuit decision involving unencountered barriers inside a building and held that Smith’s encounter with barriers in Golden China’s parking facility gave him standing to challenge other alleged barriers in that same facility.

The court further held that Smith did not have to plead around Golden China’s affirmative defense that removing the remaining barriers was not readily achievable. The complaint’s allegations, including specific measurements and descriptions of how the barriers created a risk of injury, were sufficient to make the ADA claim plausible.

Order and effect

Judge John R. Tunheim overruled the defendants’ objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to the extent it was consistent with the opinion. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ second motion to dismiss: it granted the motion with respect to Smith’s MHRA claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice, and it denied the motion with respect to Smith’s ADA claim.