# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 21 23

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Aaro n Dal to n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

NPC In te rn at io na l, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 14, 2 01 9 Fi le d: Ju ly 31, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re BENTON, W OLLMAN, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Aaro n Dalt on su ed NPC In te rn at io na l, In c., se ek in g de cl arat or y an d in jun ct iv e rel ie f fo r al le ge d vi ol at io ns of th e Am eri can s wit h Dis ab il it ie s Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12 18 1 et

seq

. , an d c or res po nd in g ADA Acce ss ib il it y Gui de li ne s (ADAAG). The
di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d wit h pr ejud ic e. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, th is co ur t af

fir m s i n p art , rev ers es in pa rt, a nd rem an ds

.D a l t o n h a s cere br al pa ls y an d req ui res a whe el ch ai r fo r m ob il it y

. He tra ve ls

in a va n wit h a whe el ch ai r li ft. Dalt on vi si te d th e Pi zza H u t i n F e r g u s Fal ls
, Mi nn es ot a, in Ju ne 20 17

. The cu st om er pa rk in g lo t ha d two pa rk in g sp aces res erv ed
fo r pe rs on s wit h di sa bi li ti es , bu t bo th la ck ed ad jacen t acce ss ai sl es ex te nd in g th e fu ll
le ng th of th e sp aces , as req ui red by ADAAG 50 2.3 .2. Two m on th s la te r, Dalt on su ed NPC, Pi zza Hut ’s own er, al le gi ng it fai le d to m ak e it s pl ace of pu bl ic acco m m od at io n fu ll y acce ss ib le to pe rs on wit h di sa bi li ti es

. NPC co rrec te d th e acce ss ai sl es th e ne xt

m on th , and m ov ed to di sm is s t he co m pl ai nt as m oo t.

Dalt on am en de d th e co m

pl ai nt to al le ge th ree ad di ti on al ADA vi ol at io ns : th e Pi zza Hut la ck ed two fu ll y acce ss ib le en tra nc es an d ex it s ( A D A A G 20 6.4 .1 an d
20 7.1 ); no si gn s id en ti fie d an acce ss ib le en tra nc e an d ex it (ADAAG 21 6.6 ); an d th e

se rv ic e co un te r was to o ta ll (ADAAG 22 7.3 an d 90 4.4 ). The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d
th e am en de d c om

pl ai nt wit h p reju di ce. It con cl ud ed th at Dalt on ’s cl ai m s ab ou t t he

pa rk i n g lo t, si gn ag e, an d se rv ic e-co un te r vi ol at io ns were m oo t be cau se NPC

rem ed ie d th e al le ge d vi ol at io ns

. It reject ed Dalt on ’s arg um en t th at —b ecau se Dalt on ha d no t i nd ep en de nt ly veri fie d t he all eg ed rem ed ia ti on —t he m ot io n to di sm is s was
pr em at ur e. It di sm is se d th e in acce ss ib le en tra nc e an d ex it cl ai m s be cau se th e rel ev an t
A D A req ui rem en ts ap pl y on ly to m or e ne wly-con st ru ct ed bu il di ng s, an d Dalt on ’s
al le ga ti on was “v a g u e an d co nc lu so ry ” fo r fai li ng to sp eci fy whi ch do or

“ co ns ti tu te [d ] th is al le ge dl y in a c ces si bl e en tra nc e.” Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo di sm is sa ls un de r Fed eral Ru le s of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(1 ) an d 12 (b )(6 ). Se e Doe v. Nix on , 7 16 F.3 d 10 41 , 1 05 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (la ck of su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on fo r

m oo te d cl ai m s) ; Wo ng v. Mi nnes ot a Dep ’t of

Hum an Ser vs . , 82 0 F.3 d 92 2, 92 7 (8 th
Ci r. 20 16 ) (fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m ).

Thi s co ur t affi rm s th e co nc lu si on th at th e pa rk in g lo t vi ol at io ns are m oo t. “ A

cas e be co m es m oo t— an d th eref or e no lo ng er a ‘Case’ or ‘Con tro ve rs y ’ fo r pu rp os es of Arti cl e III— ‘w he n th e is su es pr es en te d are no lo ng e r “l i v e ” or th e pa rti es la ck a le ga ll y co gn iz ab le in te res t in th e ou tc om e.’” Al r e a d y, LLC v . Ni ke , I nc. , 5 68 U.S.

-2

-85
, 91 (2 01 3)
, qu ot in g Mur ph y v. Hunt
, 45 5 U.S. 47 8, 48 1 (1 98 2) (p er cu ria m ). “ A
de fen da nt ’s vo lu nt ary co m pl ia nc e wit h a pl ai nt iff ’s de m an ds wil l m oo t a cas e if th e de fen da nt sh ows th at ‘it is ab so lu te ly cl ear th e al le ge dl y wro ng fu l be ha vi or co ul d no t

reas on ab ly be ex pe ct ed to recu r.’” Dav is v. Mo rr is -Wa lk er , LTD
, 92 2 F.3 d 86 8, 87 0 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 19 ), qu ot in g Al re ad y, LLC
, 56 8 U.S. at 91

. Pi zza Hut vo lu nt a r i l y

rem ed ie d t he all eg ed pa rk in g l ot vi ol at io ns . The d is tri ct co ur t con cl ud ed th at th es e

rem ed ia ti on s are “ pe rm an en t” su ch th at “ th e vi ol at io ns are no t reas on ab ly li ke ly to

recu r.” Dalt on do es no t ch al le ng e th es e co nc lu si on s ab ou t th e pa rk in g lo t on ap pe al

. His pa rk in g l ot cla im

is m oo t.

Be ca use D al ton la ck s sta

ndi ng to chal le ng e th e rem ai ni ng arch it ec tur al ba rr ie rs , th is co ur t affi rm s th e di sm is sa l of th e ot he r th ree cl ai m s. Se e Tony Al am o Chr is ti an Mi ni st ri es v. Sel ig , 66 4 F .3d 12 45 , 12 48 (8t h C ir. 20 12 ) (“ W e m ay affi rm ba se d on

an y gr ou nd s su pp or te d by th e reco rd .”). The di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y co nc lu de d th at Dalt on ha s st an di ng to ch al le ng e al l of th e al le ge d ba rri ers

. Thi s c ou rt rev ie ws
st an di ng de no vo

. Heg lu nd v. Ait ki n Ct y. , 87 1 F .3d 57 2, 5 77 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7)

.

R e l y in g on St eg er v. Fra nc o, In c. , 22 8 F.3 d 88 9, 89 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 0 )
, t h e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at ADA pl ai nt iff s “ ne ed no t ha ve en co un te red th e al le ge d
ob st acl e,” so lo ng as th ey “ ha ve a c t u a l kn owl ed ge of th e ba rri ers .” In St eg er , th is

co ur t affi rm ed th e di sm is sa l of an ADA cl ai m fo r la ck of st an di ng be cau se —wh en th e

su it was fil ed

—t he pl ai nt iff “ ha d ne ve r b e e n in th e [ch al le ng ed pu bl ic faci li ty] an d
ha d no pe rs on al kn owl ed ge whe th er it was acce ss ib le to hi m .” Id

. at 89 1. “ Alt ho ug h pl ai nt iff s ne ed no t en ga ge in th e ‘futi le ge s t ur e’ of vi si ti ng a bu il di ng co nt ai ni ng kn own ba rri ers th at th e own er ha s no in te nt io n of rem ed y in g, th ey m us t at le as t pr ov e k n o w le dg e of th e ba rri ers an d th at th ey wou ld vi si t th e bu il di ng in th e im mi n e n t fu tu re b ut for th os e b arri ers .” Id

. at 8 92
, qu ot in g 42 U.S.C. § 12 18 8( a) (1 )

.

Tho ug h l a c k of kn owl ed ge pr ecl ud es st an di ng , m ere kn owl ed ge of ba rri ers do es no t crea te st an di ng

. In Dav is v. Ant ho ny , In c

. , 8 8 6 F.3 d 67 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 )

-3

-(

Dav is I ), Mel an ie Dav is
, a whe el ch ai r us er wit h cere br al pa ls y , su ed a res ta ur a n t al le gi ng ADA vi ol at io ns in th e pa rk in g lo t. Id

. at 67 6. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d
th e cas e as m o o t a f

t e r t he res ta ur an t rem ed ie d th e al le ge d vi ol at io ns

. Id

. Dav is

arg ue d th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr em at ur el y di sm is se d be fo re al lo win g di sc ov ery ab ou t

ot he r po ss ib le ADA vi ol at io ns at th e res ta ur an t. Se e id

. at 67 7– 78

. Thi s co ur t h el d
th at Dav is la ck ed st an di ng to ch al le ng e ot he r po ss ib le ADA vi ol at io ns : “ Dav is

can no t us e th e vi ol at io n en co un te red in th e pa rk in g sp ace to ex pa nd he r st an di ng to

su e fo r un en co un te red vi ol at io ns in si de th e [res ta ur an t] th at ne ve r in jure d h er.” Id

. at 67 8.

Late r, th e sa m e pl ai nt iff su ed a di ffer en t res ta ur an t al le gi ng ADA vi ol at io ns in
it s pa rk in g lo t. Dav is
, 92 2 F.3 d at 86 9 ( Dav is II ). Sh e pa rk ed in th e res ta ur an t’s m ai n
pa rk in g lo t an d al le ge d vi ol at io ns in th e ov erfl ow lo t. Id

. Sh e arg ue d th at Dav is I di d

no t co nt ro l be cau se he re, sh e ha d det ai le d kn owl ed ge of th e ADA vi ol at io ns

. Id

. at 87 1. Thi s co ur t r e

je c t e d t ha t arg um en t, ex pl ai ni ng th at th e pr io r de ci si on “ was no t

pr em is ed on th e pl ai nt iff ’s le ve l of kn owl ed ge ab ou t al le ge d vi o l at io ns or he r in te res ts in m ak in g a fu tu re en try; it tu rn ed on whe th er th e pl ai nt iff h a d s u f f e red
in jury by en co un te rin g a vi ol at io n in si de th e res ta ur an t.” Id

. at 87 2. “ A pl ai nt iff who

en co un te rs an al le ge d vi ol a t i o n in a pa rk in g lo t ou ts id e a bu il di ng do es no t ha ve
st an di ng to s u e o v e r v io la ti on s in si de th e bu il di ng .” Id

. at 87 1. Dav is la ck ed

st an di ng “ to su e ov er vi ol at io ns in si de a bu il di ng th at sh e ne ve r en te red .” Id

. at 87 2.

Lik ewis e, Dalt on la ck s st an di ng to su e ov er bu il di ng vi ol at io ns whe n he ne ve r

en te red it

. He ha s no st an di ng to ch al le ng e th e acce ss ib il it y of Pi zza Hut ’s en tra nc es

an d ex it s, th e si gn ag e, an d th e se rv ic e co un te r he ig ht be cau se he di d no t su ffer in jury by enco un te rin g t he se vi ol at io ns

.

The di st ric t co ur t erre d by di sm is si ng wit h pre jud ic e. A di sm is sa l for lack of

st an di ng is a di sm is sa l fo r la ck of su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on

. Ca rl se n v. Gam eSt

op , In c. , 83 3 F.3 d 90 3, 90 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). “ A di st ric t co ur t is ge ne ral l y b a r r e d fro m

-4

-di sm is si ng a cas e wit h pr ejud ic e if it co nc lu de s su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on is ab se nt .”

Co unt y of Mi ll e Lac s v. Benj am in
, 36 1 F.3 d 46 0, 46 4– 65 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (rev ers in g
po rti on of jud gm en t di sm is si ng wit h prej udi ce on juri sd ic ti on al gr ou nd s an d di rect in g di st ric t co ur t t o e nt er jud gm en t wit ho ut pr ejud ic e). Se e al so Ha rt v. Unit ed Sta te s , 63 0 F.3 d 10 85
, 10 91 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (m od ifyin g juri sd ic ti on al di sm is sa l to be wit ho ut

pr ejud ic e). The di sm is sa l wi th pre jud ic e is rev ers ed

. 1

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed in pa rt, re ve rs ed in pa rt, a nd th e cas e rem an de d
fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Dalt on req ue st s th is co ur t to as si gn a ne w jud ge fo r re man d. To pr ev ai l, 1 Dalt on “ was req ui red to sh ow th at [th e jud ge ’s] be ha vi or in th e co nt ex t of th e who le

cas e, was ‘so ex tre m e as to di sp la y cl ear in ab il it y to ren de r fai r jud gm en t.’” Perk in s

v. As tr ue , 64 8 F.3 d 89 2, 90 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), qu ot in g Ro ll in s v. Ma ss an ar i
, 26 1 F.3 d 85 3, 85 8 (9 th Ci r. 20 01 ), qu ot in g Lit ek y v. Unit ed St at es , 51 0 U.S. 54 0, 55 1 (1 99 4)

. Dalt on ha s no t m ad e th is sh owi ng

. Se e Lit ek y , 51 0 U.S. at 55 5– 56 (“ [E]xpr es si on s of im pa ti en ce, di ss at is fact io n, an no y an ce, an d ev en an ge r, th at are wit hi n th e bo un ds of wha t im

pe rfec t m en an d wom en , ev en aft er h a v i n g be en co nf irmed as fed eral jud ge s, s om et im es di sp la y ” d o n ot est ab li sh bi as or p art ia li ty.).

-5

-