Smith v. Bradley Pizza, Inc.

Background

Scott Smith alleged that Bradley Pizza, Inc., which owned and operated a Domino’s Pizza franchise, and Pamela M. Dahl, who owned the commercial property, violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Smith uses a wheelchair. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney’s fees under both laws. Under the Minnesota law claim, he also sought damages and an order requiring payment of a civil penalty to Minnesota.

Smith visited the property on May 25, 2017, with Peter Hansmeier, a paralegal and access specialist at Smith’s law firm. The restaurant was closed when they arrived. Smith stayed inside the vehicle, observed what he believed were accessibility violations in the parking lot and at the entrance, and took photographs. He did not enter or try to enter the restaurant. Smith testified about the cost of traveling and his frustration with inaccessible places, but the court found that he did not connect the alleged barriers to a specific injury during this visit.

Defendants moved for summary judgment and to exclude expert testimony. Smith moved for summary judgment and to exclude evidence. Smith also objected to two nondispositive discovery orders issued by Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez.

Standing and Summary Judgment

The court treated Article III standing as a subject-matter-jurisdiction issue. Standing requires a plaintiff to show a concrete and particularized injury, a connection between that injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury. A plaintiff seeking an injunction must also show a real and immediate threat of future injury.

The court explained that a person asserting disability-access claims generally must show how the alleged barrier personally injured that person. Merely observing an alleged violation, or being deterred from visiting a business in the future, is not enough without specific evidence explaining the injury. The court also noted that a plaintiff seeking future relief must provide more than an indefinite intention to return someday.

The court concluded that Smith had not shown an injury from his May 25 visit. The undisputed evidence showed that he stopped near a closed business briefly, remained in the vehicle, photographed the property, and drove away. He did not show that a barrier caused him to leave, prevented him from entering, or otherwise injured him. The court also found no evidence of a concrete, imminent plan to return to the restaurant or the surrounding area. Smith’s testimony that he might travel through the area in the future amounted only to an indefinite intention.

Discovery-Order Review

The court reviewed Magistrate Judge Menendez’s nondispositive orders under the standard requiring modification or reversal only if an order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

The court affirmed the November 13, 2018 order and overruled Smith’s objections. It upheld decisions denying motions to compel Pamela Dahl to sign superseded interrogatory responses and to produce financial information that had already been produced or was not yet due. It also upheld the rulings concerning the relevance of Bradley Pizza’s financial information, discovery of prior settlement agreements and compensation, and payment of expert-deposition fees and expenses.

The court also affirmed the February 4, 2019 order and overruled Smith’s objection. That order required defense counsel to pay a $500 sanction to the United States District Court for violating a protective order. The court found that Magistrate Judge Menendez’s factual determinations and sanction decision were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

The court denied defendants’ request to include fees incurred in defending against Smith’s objection in a fee petition, stating that defendants had not identified controlling or in-district authority approving that request.

Disposition

The court ordered that defendants’ motion for summary judgment and to exclude expert testimony was granted in part for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, in all other respects, denied as moot. Smith’s motion for summary judgment and to exclude evidence was denied as moot. Smith’s objections to both discovery orders were overruled, and both orders were affirmed. The action was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.