Dalton v. Simonson Station Stores, Inc.

Background

Aaron Dalton, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair and a van with a wheelchair lift, visited the Simonson Station in June 2017. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the ADA Accessibility Guidelines involving parking signs, accessible parking spaces, access aisles, entrances, slopes, and the route from the parking area to the store. He sought an order requiring accessibility changes.

Dalton visited the station again in February 2018. He said that the van could not pull fully into an accessible parking space, that he had to use a traffic lane to reach the store, and that he needed help getting his wheelchair onto the ramp and into the store. During a later joint inspection, the parties identified additional slope and entrance issues. Defendants then relocated the accessible parking space, designated the north entrance as the accessible entrance, and repaved or altered the relevant areas. Their expert found the completed work compliant with the ADA and the accessibility guidelines, although Dalton disputed some of those conclusions.

Dalton’s counsel did not timely disclose the opinion of Peter Hansmeier, an employee of the law firm and counsel’s brother-in-law. The court excluded Hansmeier’s opinion because it was disclosed after the deadline and Dalton had not shown a reasonable basis for the late disclosure.

Earlier judgment and post-judgment motions

In an earlier summary-judgment ruling, the court granted defendants’ motion and denied Dalton’s motion because Dalton lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. The court concluded that he had not shown a sufficient likelihood of future injury and dismissed the claim without prejudice.

Dalton then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. He argued that the evidence created a factual dispute about whether he had standing, relying on an Eighth Circuit decision involving a plaintiff’s stated intention to return to a business. Defendants opposed the motion.

Defendants separately requested $48,078.52 in attorneys’ fees and non-taxable expenses under the ADA’s fee provision, a settlement offer under Rule 68, and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. They also sought $145.79 in taxable costs under Rule 54(d). Dalton opposed both requests and objected to the bill of costs.

Standing and mootness

The court declined to change its overall conclusion that judgment should be entered because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. It found that Dalton’s stated plans to return to the station were too general. The court noted that he had not visited the station before the visit that led to the lawsuit, lived approximately 145 miles away, and had no definite plans to return.

The court also held that the claims had become moot. Mootness means that changed circumstances leave the court unable to provide effective relief. Defendants had materially changed the parking area and entrance, and the court found that the uncontroverted evidence showed those areas complied with the ADA and accessibility guidelines. The court concluded that claims concerning the areas that had been remedied were moot.

The court rejected Dalton’s remaining arguments concerning the former east entrance and the need for two accessible parking spaces. The east entrance was no longer the designated accessible entrance, and Dalton had not shown an injury resulting from the use of the north entrance. The court also found that the parking lot had 25 striped spaces and that only one accessible space was required, while Dalton had not shown that he was unable to find an accessible space during either of his visits.

The court therefore granted Dalton’s motion to alter or amend the judgment in part, to add mootness as an additional basis for the jurisdictional ruling, and denied it in part as to the overall basis for judgment. It vacated the earlier judgment and orders and directed an amended ruling that granted defendants’ summary-judgment motion, denied Dalton’s summary-judgment motion, and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Attorneys’ fees and costs

The court denied defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and expenses under the ADA. It applied the standard that a prevailing defendant generally may recover fees only when the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, and found that Dalton’s lawsuit did not meet that standard. The court also concluded that defendants were not a prevailing party because the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and mootness rather than resolved on the merits.

The court likewise denied taxable costs under Rule 54(d), finding that defendants were not a prevailing party. It ruled that Rule 68 did not apply because the case ended without a judgment in Dalton’s favor. Finally, the court found that the standard for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 was not met and denied the fee and cost request under that provision.

Final order

Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that Dalton’s motion to alter or amend judgment was granted in part and denied in part; the specified prior judgment and orders were vacated; defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs was denied; Dalton’s amended objection to the bill of costs was sustained; and defendants’ bill of costs was denied.