Seifert v. Northern Tier Retail LLC

Background

The opinion arose from a bench trial about whether Northern Tier Retail LLC, doing business as Speedway, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act’s protection against retaliation, intimidation, threats, and interference. Craig Seifert claimed that Speedway banned him from its properties and threatened criminal prosecution because he investigated alleged accessibility violations. The caption also lists Jeffrey Weisen as a plaintiff, but the findings, conclusions, and order address Craig Seifert’s claim and complaint.

Seifert investigated alleged ADA violations at several Speedway properties. After an additional inspection at one Bloomington property on November 21, 2019, Speedway sent Seifert’s law office a letter and accompanying trespass form. The court treated those documents as one communication.

Findings about the notice

The court found that the notice completely barred Seifert and the law office’s agents from entering the three Speedway properties specifically listed in the documents, regardless of the reason for entering. At other Speedway properties, the notice restricted only unconsented investigations, inspections, and other discovery-related activities connected to active litigation.

The court found that Seifert continued to visit Speedway properties after learning about the notice, including a listed Minneapolis property where he used an automated teller machine. He also visited another Speedway and checked his oil or obtained gasoline. During the notice period, he investigated properties in Brooklyn Center and Fridley and was allowed to inspect two listed properties while Speedway’s attorneys and experts were present.

The court found that the notice did not decrease the number of ADA investigations Seifert conducted at properties not expressly listed. It also found that the notice did not deter him from investigating properties involved in ongoing litigation. Although Seifert testified that he believed the notice barred him from every Speedway property and caused him fear and emotional distress, the court found those statements not credible and found no evidence that police pursued or arrested him because of the notice.

Legal analysis

Federal courts may hear only cases in which the plaintiff has standing. Standing requires an injury that is concrete and particularized, caused by the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be addressed by a favorable court decision. The court recognized that losing implied permission to enter a business or suffering emotional distress can sometimes qualify as a concrete injury.

Here, however, the court concluded that Seifert did not prove that the notice prevented even one visit to a Speedway property. His continued visits and investigations undermined that theory. The possible risk of prosecution was hypothetical because there was no evidence that police pursued him. The court also concluded that Seifert did not convincingly prove emotional distress caused by Speedway’s communications.

Disposition

The court concluded that Seifert had not established an injury-in-fact and therefore lacked standing. Because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to hear the claim—it dismissed the case without prejudice. The order specifically states: “Plaintiff Craig Seifert’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”