Dalton v. Simonson Station Stores, Inc.

Background

Aaron Dalton, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, visited a Simonson Station in June 2017. He reported problems involving accessible parking, access aisles, signage, slopes, routes to the entrance, and the accessible entrance. He filed an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit seeking injunctive relief. The court treated his operative complaint as asserting an ADA claim, not a claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Simonson Station Stores, Inc. operated and leased the station, while Bemidji Management Company L.L.C. owned and leased it. After Dalton’s lawsuit began, the defendants made several changes. They added or marked accessible parking features, later moved the accessible parking to the west side of the building, designated the north entrance as accessible, and repaved the parking space, access aisle, ramp, and related maneuvering area. The defendants’ accessibility expert inspected the changes and concluded they complied with the ADA and its accessibility standards. The defendants also submitted evidence that they would maintain the accessible features.

Dalton’s proposed expert identified some conditions he believed remained noncompliant. The court excluded that expert’s opinion because Dalton did not timely disclose it under the scheduling order.

Summary-judgment decision

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Dalton’s motion. Summary judgment is entered when the record shows no genuine dispute over an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court concluded that the challenged conditions had become moot—meaning the court could no longer provide effective relief concerning those conditions—because the defendants had voluntarily changed the parking area and accessible entrance. It found that the defendants’ evidence showed the changes were compliant and were not reasonably likely to be undone. The court also rejected Dalton’s argument that he needed two accessible parking spaces, finding that he presented no evidence that he had been unable to find a designated accessible space during either visit and that his concerns about future conditions were speculative.

The court separately concluded that Dalton had not shown a sufficiently real and immediate likelihood of future injury to support standing for injunctive relief. It relied on facts including his residence approximately 145 miles from the station, his lack of prior visits before the visit leading to the lawsuit, the general nature of his plans to return, and the absence of evidence about how often he traveled near the station. Because the court found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction based on mootness and insufficient standing, it expressly did not decide whether the defendants had violated the ADA on the merits.

Objection to amendment ruling and disposition

Dalton objected to part of Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s September 11, 2018 order. That order had granted his request to amend in part and denied it in part, allowing allegations about remediation but refusing allegations concerning observations from his February 2018 visit. The magistrate judge found those proposed allegations futile because Dalton had not shown standing for them.

Judge Nelson overruled Dalton’s objection as moot. The court stated that the proposed allegations had the same jurisdictional problems: the challenged conditions had been remedied, and Dalton had not shown an imminent threat of future harm.

The order therefore states that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, Dalton’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED, and Dalton’s objection was OVERRULED AS MOOT. The matter was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court did not reach the merits of the ADA claim.