Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Kennedy v. SCF RC Funding I LLC

United States District Court, M.D. Florida

November 28, 2017




         This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) filed by the Defendants and the response in opposition (Doc. 22) filed by the Plaintiff, Patricia Kennedy.

         I. Background

         According to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 1) which are accepted in pertinent part as true for purposes of resolving the instant motion, Kennedy has limited use of her hands and is “bound to ambulate in a wheelchair or with a cane or other support”. (Doc. 1 at 1). Defendant SCF RC Funding I LLC (henceforth, “SCF”) is alleged to be the owner, lessor, lessee or operator of a Captain D's restaurant in Seminole County, Florida. (Doc. 1 at 1). Kennedy does not explain the presence of Captain D's LLC as a defendant in this matter.

         Kennedy visited the Captain D's restaurant at issue, which she contends is a “place of public accommodation” as that term is defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12183, 12181-12205a (“ADA”). (Doc. 1 at 1). She encountered architectural barriers that discriminated against her on the basis of her disability, and she plans to return to the restaurant to “avail herself of the goods and services” offered there and to “determine whether the property has been made ADA compliant”. (Doc. 1 at 3). “In the alternative, ” Kennedy asserts, she is a “tester” who monitors whether places of public accommodation are in compliance with the ADA.[1] (Doc. 1 at 3).

         Kennedy filed her single-count ADA complaint against the Defendants on July 26, 2017. (Doc. 1). On September 8, 2017, the Defendants filed the instant motion, arguing that Kennedy lacks standing to pursue her ADA claim. (Doc. 30).

         II. Standards

         A. The Americans with Disabilities Act

         Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189 (“Title III”), which addresses “Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities, ” provides that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in any place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Any person subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title III may bring a private action. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a). Title III defines “discrimination” as, among other things, “a failure to remove architectural barriers … in existing facilities … where such removal is readily achievable.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). To prevail on a Title III ADA claim, a plaintiff generally has the burden of proving (1) that he or she is an individual with a disability; (2) that the defendant is a place of public accommodation; and (3) that defendant denied him or her full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities or privileges offered by the defendant (4) on the basis of his or her disability. Schiavo ex rel Schindler v. Schiavo, 358 F.Supp.2d 1161, 1165 (M.D. Fla. 2005). The only relief available to plaintiffs suing under Title III of the ADA is injunctive relief. Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1329 (11th Cir. 2013).

         B. Standing to pursue an ADA Title III claim

         To have standing under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must satisfy three elements: First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” - an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; that is, the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant rather than the result of independent action of a third party. Id. And it must be likely, rather than merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Id. at 561. The party invoking the jurisdiction of the federal courts has the burden of establishing each element. Id.

         To establish standing when injunctive relief is sought, the “injury in fact” element requires an additional showing: In addition to past injury, the plaintiff must demonstrate a “sufficient likelihood” of being affected by the unlawful conduct in the future. Wooden v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. Of Ga., 247 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Generally speaking, in the context of an ADA Title III claim, this is accomplished by showing that the plaintiff intends to return to the property at issue. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has rejected arguments that a tester's motive for a past (or future) visit to a place of public accommodation precludes him or her from having standing to seek injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA. See Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2013). On a defendant's motion to dismiss, the Court must evaluate standing based on the facts alleged in the complaint. See, e.g., Shotz v. Cates, 256 F.3d 1077, 1081 (11th Cir. 2001).

         C. Stating an ADA claim

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” so as to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), overruled on other grounds, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim merely tests the sufficiency of the complaint; it does not decide the merits of the case. Milbum v. United States, 734 F.2d 762, 765 (11th Cir.1984). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the factual allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. SEC v. ESM Group, Inc., 835 ...

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.