Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Myers brings this action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act against Don Miller & Sons Plumbing Supply. The Court questions jurisdiction based on insufficient allegations regarding constitutional standing. The plaintiff's claim that they wish to return to the business but are deterred from visiting due to architectural barriers lacks sufficient factual support. The Court finds this allegation threadbare and orders the Plaintiff to show cause why the ADA claim should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, with a 14-day response deadline.
Issues
- The court examines whether the plaintiff has Article III standing to seek injunctive relief under the ADA, requiring a showing of actual or imminent injury in fact that is fairly traceable to defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by judicial decision.
- The court evaluates whether the plaintiff showed a likelihood of future injury related to their disability, which is necessary to establish standing for injunctive relief under the ADA.
- The court analyzes whether the plaintiff's allegations meet the Article III standing requirement of injury in fact, which must be concrete and particularized, not merely legal injury.
Holdings
The court found that Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged an actual or imminent injury sufficient to establish Article III standing for the ADA claim. The court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the ADA claim should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing and why jurisdiction over remaining claims should not be declined. Failure to respond within 14 days will result in dismissal.
Legal Principles
The court applied Article III standing requirements to evaluate the plaintiff's ADA claim, requiring proof of injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, fairly traceable to defendant's conduct, and likely to be redressed by judicial relief. For ADA cases specifically, plaintiffs must demonstrate a sufficient showing of likely future injury related to their disability to ensure injunctive relief vindicates their particular rights rather than third parties. This requires showing either that they are deterred from returning to the facility or that they intend to return and are likely to suffer repeated injury. Mere vague intentions or 'some day' intentions without concrete plans or specific timing are insufficient to establish standing.
Precedent Name
- Gonzalez v. Thaler
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imps. (U.S.) Inc.
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
- Feezor v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
- Chapman v. Pismo Food Store
- Strojnik v. Pasadena Robles Acquisition, LLC
- D'Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
Cited Statute
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) - Supplemental Jurisdiction Act
Judge Name
Judge Mark C. Scarsi
Passage Text
- To satisfy Article III standing requirements, an ADA plaintiff must provide 'a sufficient showing of likely injury in the future related to the plaintiff's disability to ensure that injunctive relief will vindicate the rights of the particular plaintiff rather than the rights of third parties.' An ADA plaintiff must show at each stage of the proceedings either that he is deterred from returning to the facility or that he intends to return to the facility and is therefore likely to suffer repeated injury.
- Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged an actual or imminent injury that would provide standing to seek injunctive relief under the ADA. Plaintiff offers only a threadbare allegation that 'Plaintiff wishes to return and patronize the Business; however, Plaintiff is deterred from visiting the Business because his knowledge of these violations prevents him from returning until the barriers are removed.' This boilerplate allegation does not suffice.
- The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause why the ADA claim should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing and why the Court should not decline jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Plaintiff shall respond in writing within 14 days. Failure to file a timely and satisfactory response will be construed as a concession that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the ADA claim and will result in dismissal without further notice.