Boitnott v. TCF Banking & Savings, F.A.
- David Doty
- 0:18-cv-03062
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Boitnott v. TCF Banking, Judge Doty dismissed the ADA case with prejudice after parking-lot improvements made the dispute moot.
Jerald Boitnott’s ADA claims against TCF Banking & Savings, F.A., and TCF National Bank were dismissed with prejudice; the opinion does not describe any broader group affected.
What happened
In Boitnott v. TCF Banking & Savings, F.A., Jerald Boitnott alleged that problems at a TCF Bank parking lot prevented him from entering the bank. He sought court orders, policy changes, and nominal damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
TCF made improvements after receiving the complaint and submitted evidence from an accessibility specialist that the listed barriers had been removed and the property complied with the Act. Boitnott submitted no evidence disputing those changes, although he argued that a claim for future policy changes remained.
Judge David S. Doty ruled that the complaint was moot because the alleged barriers had been remedied and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court granted TCF’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Boitnott v. TCF Banking & Savings, F.A. · No. 0:18-cv-03062
- David Doty
- Dec. 21, 2018
Background
Jerald Boitnott brought a civil-rights lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act concerning his attempts to enter the TCF Bank at 1503 Robert Street in St. Paul, Minnesota. The opinion states that Boitnott is disabled within the meaning of the Act. He alleged that he could not enter the bank because disabled-parking signs were too low and did not identify van-accessible spaces, the parking surface was broken and deteriorated, the curb ramp and its flared sides projected into parking aisles, and the accessible parking space and access aisle were too steep. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages.
TCF Banking & Savings, F.A., and TCF National Bank removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses subject-matter jurisdiction. After receiving the complaint, TCF made several parking-lot improvements with assistance from certified accessibility specialist Julee Quarve-Peterson. She later concluded that all architectural barriers identified by Boitnott had been removed and that the property complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The opinion states that Boitnott submitted no evidence to the contrary.
Court’s analysis
The court treated TCF’s motion as a factual attack on subject-matter jurisdiction because TCF relied on evidence outside the complaint. TCF argued that the case was moot, meaning there was no longer a live dispute requiring judicial relief, because the alleged parking-lot violations had been corrected.
The court agreed. It held that the complaint was moot as to the architectural barriers identified in the complaint. Although Boitnott argued that he could still seek policy changes to ensure future compliance, the court stated that the absence of an adequate policy, by itself, did not undermine mootness when the challenged conduct had been remedied. The court also found no concern that the alleged violations would recur, based on TCF’s prompt and thorough efforts to address the reported problems.
Disposition
The court granted TCF’s motion to dismiss and ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.