Boitnott v. Border Foods, Inc.
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:18-cv-01702
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 17
In Boitnott v. Border Foods, Judge Wright dismissed the ADA case without prejudice as moot, granted defendants’ dismissal motion, and denied amendment.
Jerald Boitnott’s ADA claims against Border Foods, Inc., doing business as Taco Bell, and RALCO, LLC, were dismissed without prejudice; his motion to amend was denied.
What happened
In Boitnott v. Border Foods, Inc., Jerald Boitnott sued Border Foods and RALCO under the Americans with Disabilities Act over alleged barriers at a Taco Bell restaurant. He sought an order requiring the defendants to correct the barriers, along with other relief.
The defendants presented evidence that Border Foods had corrected the alleged problems involving doors, accessible seating, and restroom fixtures. They also argued that the parking-area arrangement did not violate the Act. Boitnott argued that the case was not moot because violations could recur and identified another alleged parking violation.
The court ruled that Boitnott had standing when he filed the original complaint but that his claim later became moot because the alleged violations had been corrected and were unlikely to recur. Judge Wilhelmina Wright granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and denied Boitnott’s motion to amend because the proposed claim would be futile.
The detailed version
- Boitnott v. Border Foods, Inc. · No. 0:18-cv-01702
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Feb. 21, 2019
Background
Jerald Boitnott alleged that architectural barriers at a Taco Bell restaurant violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The alleged barriers included problems with a parking-stall access aisle, an interior vestibule door, accessible seating, a restroom mirror, exposed pipes, a toilet grab bar, and a toilet flush control. Boitnott sought declaratory and injunctive relief, a nominal monetary award, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Border Foods, Inc., doing business as Taco Bell, owns and operates the restaurant. RALCO, LLC, owns and leases the property. After learning of the lawsuit, Border Foods hired an ADA-compliance auditor and made changes to the doors, seating, restroom fixtures, and other features. The auditor’s June 19, 2018 report stated that the corrected features complied with the ADA and concluded that the parking-stall arrangement did not violate the ADA.
Standing
The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that Boitnott lacked standing because the alleged violations had been corrected before he filed and served his amended complaint. The court explained that standing generally depends on the facts when the lawsuit begins.
The court held that the amended complaint related back to the original complaint because it involved materially identical claims, the defendants received timely notice, they would not be prejudiced, and they knew they would have been named but for a mistake about the parties’ identities. The court therefore analyzed standing based on the conditions existing when Boitnott filed the original complaint. Because the alleged barriers existed then, Boitnott had suffered an injury that could be traced to the defendants and remedied by a favorable decision. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Mootness
The defendants also argued that the case was moot, meaning that no effective relief remained for the court to provide, because the alleged ADA violations had been corrected. The court agreed. It found that the defendants’ evidence showed that the door, accessible seating, and restroom violations identified in the complaint had been remedied. The court also found that these conditions were unlikely to recur because the corrections involved permanent fixtures or features, and Boitnott offered no factual or legal basis to question the defendants’ commitment to maintaining compliance.
The court rejected Boitnott’s argument that the parking arrangement violated the ADA. The court determined that the property had an accessible route from the parking area to an accessible entrance and that the ADA standards expressed only a preference, rather than a requirement, that an accessible route not pass behind parked vehicles. The court also declined to consider additional alleged violations raised for the first time in briefing rather than in the complaint.
The court further held that a private Title III ADA plaintiff may obtain only injunctive relief, not nominal monetary damages. Because the barriers identified in the complaint had been corrected, injunctive relief was unavailable. The court also rejected Boitnott’s request for an order requiring changes to the defendants’ policies, practices, and procedures because he did not identify a specific policy, practice, or procedure that required modification.
Motion to Amend and Disposition
Boitnott sought permission to file a second amended complaint alleging that the accessible parking was not on the shortest accessible route to an entrance. The court denied the motion because the proposed amendment would be futile. The record showed that the accessible parking spaces adjoined the shortest existing accessible route, and Boitnott cited no authority requiring the defendants to create an even shorter route when an accessible route already existed.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed Boitnott’s amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and denied Boitnott’s motion to amend. The opinion was signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.