Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Owen Harty v. Stf Investments

December 13, 2011

OWEN HARTY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STF INVESTMENTS, LLC, DEFENDANT.



ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) filed by the Defendant, STF Investments, LLC ("STF Investments") and the response in opposition (Doc. 39) filed by the Plaintiff, Owen Harty ("Harty").*fn1

STF Investments owns a hotel known as the Tropical Inn Resort. Harty spent the night at the Tropical Inn Resort in April 2010. Approximately a year later, Harty's counsel sent Gene Mattera to the property to inspect it for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). After viewing Mattera's report regarding his inspection, STF made some alterations to the property, such as restriping parking spaces and relocating sinks and soap dispensers, to make the premises more accessible or otherwise comply with the ADA.

STF now seeks summary judgment on the grounds that it has satisfied the ADA by making all possible "readily achievable" alterations. STF also argues that Harty lacks standing to seek injunctive relief in that he is a professional ADA plaintiff who visited the property solely to establish a basis for the suit and has no intention of ever returning. However, a follow-up inspection conducted after the filing of the instant motion provides evidence that barriers to access with readily achievable solutions remain at the property. In addition, although the Court has serious doubts about Harty's standing to pursue these claims, he has filed a sworn statement that he intends to return to the property. Accordingly, as to both issues raised by the Defendant, genuine issues of material fact remain, and summary judgment must be denied.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is DENIED.

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.