06- 4909- cv

C am ar i l l o v. C ar r ol s C or p. 1 UNITED STA TES COU RT OF AP PEALS 2 F OR THE S EC OND C IR C U IT 3

_______________ 4 5 August Term, 2007 6 7 (Argued: Januar y 10, 2008 Decided: Februar y 8, 2008 ) 8 9 Do ck et N o. 06 -49 09 -cv 10 11

_______________ 12 13 A LI CE C AM ARI LLO , 14 15 Plain tif f-A pp ellan t, 16 17 —v.— 18 19 C A RR O LS C ORP ORAT I ON , M AGL I OCC A S TORES , I NC ., REEHER M A JIK , I NC ., E L R ANCH O F OODS , 20 I NC . AND W E N D O N IE , LLC, 21 22 De fen da nts -A

pp ellees . 23 24 25

_______________ 26 27 B e f o r e : 28 29 S TR AUB , W ES LEY , and L I VI NGS TO N , Ci rcu it J ud ges . 30 31 32

_______________ 33 34 Pl aintif

f, wh o is leg all y b lin d, bro ug ht t his act ion ag ain st s ev era l f

ast fo od res taurants 35 un de r th e A m eri can s w ithDi sab ili tie s A ct f or f ail ing to e ff

ect ive ly c om

m un icate t o h er the ir 36 m enu s ele cti on s. Th e U nit ed St ate s D istric t C ourt f

or t he No rth ern

Di str ict of Ne w Y ork

(G ary 37 L. Sharpe, Judge ) di sm iss ed the co m pla int fo r la ck of stand ing on

the ba sis that pl aintif

f w as s til l 38 able to eatat the re staurant s. We vacate and remand. 39

_______________ 40 41 M I CHAEL G. O’ N EI LL , New York, New York, for Plainti ff-Appell ant . 42 43 J EF F RE Y J. M AYER (Helen N. Baker, on thebr ief ), F ree bo rn & Pe ter s L LP , C hic ag o, Ill ino is, 44 for Defendant-

Appellee Carrols Corporation

.2 1 2 J OS EP H G UARI NO , Ep ste in B eck er & Gr een , P .C ., Ne wark, Ne w J ers ey(A les ia J . K an tor , 3 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York, New Y ork, on thebr ief ), for De fen da nt- Ap pe lle e 4 El Rancho Foods, Inc

. 5 6 Gr eg A. Ri olo (Michel le McKee Cubbon, on thebr ief ), J ack so n L ew is, LL P, Whit e P lai ns , 7 New York, for Defendants- Appellees M

agliocca Stor es, Inc. and Reeher M ajik, Inc

. 8 9 Michael R. Wright, Levene Gouldin & Thom pson, LLP, Vestal, New York, for De fen da nt10 Appellee We ndonie, LLC

. 11 12 13

_______________ 14 15 Per Curiam: 16 17 Ac co rdi ng to h er c om pla int , A lic e C am ari llo , who is l eg all y b lin d b ut i s ab le t o re ad 18 en lar ge d writ ing at a ve ry c los e d ist an ce, fr eq

ue ntl y p atr on ize s th e f

ast fo od res taurants n ear

he r ho m e 19 that are owned and operated by defendant s. Defendants’ rest aurants do nothave large 20 print menus that Camarillo can r ead, and when she has aske d for employees to read her the menu 21 ite m s, sh e h as b een m ad e f un of , s tar ed at, an d f orc ed to w ait until oth er c us tom ers be hin d h er i n 22 lin e w ere ser

ve d, an d th e em

plo ye es h av e o ft enrea d h er o nly part o f t he m enus . B ase d o n th ese 23 all eg ed

act ion s, Cam ari llo fi led

cla im s ag ain st d ef

en dants un de r th e A m eri can s w ithDi sab ili tie s 24 Ac t of

19 90 , 4 2 U .S .C . § 12 18 2 (“ AD A” ), and Ne w Y ork

Ex ecutiv e L aw§ 2 96 .2 (a) . T he Un ite d 25 States Dist rict Courtfor the Northern Dist rict of New York (Gary L. Sharpe, Judge ) di sm iss ed Cam ari llo ’s 26 co m pla int fo r la ck of stand ing on

the gro un d th at s he wa s al ways pe rm itt ed to e at at 27 de fen da nt s’ es tabl is hmen ts an d t hu s s uff er edno ha rm t ha t i s c og ni zabl e u nd erth e A DA. We 28 va cat e an d re m an d b eca us e C am ari llo ’s c om

pla int su ff ici en tlyall eg es t

hat de fe nd an ts’ 29 restaur ants did not e nsure “effective communication” of their menu items. 28 C.F.R . § 30 36.303(c).3 1 I. Background 2 Because this i s an appeal of a Distr ict Court’ s dismissal pursuantto Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 12 (b) (6) , w e ac cep t al l of the fa ctu al a lle gatio ns in C am ari llo ’s c om pla int as t rue an d d rawall 4 reasonable inferences in he r favor. Woj ch ow ski v. Da ine s , 498 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2007). Cam arill o, who resides in Cat skill, New York, is abl e to read menu items only 5 if the y are p rinted 6 in a

lar ge typ ef

ace an d s he ho lds the m enu d ire ctl y in fr ont of he r ey es. Co m

pl. ¶ 15 . C am ari llo 7 fr eq

ue ntl y p atr on ize s th e f

ast fo od res taurants o wn ed

an d o pe rat ed

byde fe nd an ts: the Burge r 8 King restaur ants in Catski ll and Hudson, New York, operated by de fendant Carrols Corp.; the 9 McD on ald ’s r est aurants i n C ats kil l an d C air o, Ne w Y ork , o pe rat ed byde fe nd an t Ma gli oc ca 10 St ore s, Inc .; t

he McD on ald ’s r est aurant in Hu ds on , N ewYo rk, op erated byde fe nd an t R eeh er 11 Majik, Inc .; the Taco Bell restaur ant in Kingston, New York, opera ted by defendant El Rancho 12 Foods, Inc.; and the W endy’s rest aurant in Hudson, New York, operat ed by defendant 13 W endonie, LLC. 14 Cam ari llo all eg es t hat sh e re cei ve d large ly s im ilar tr eatm en t at all of de fe nd an ts’ 15 res tau

rants. Be cau se n on e o f t

he res taurants h as l arg e-p rint m enus , C am ari llo is una ble , o n h er own, to read the menu items and prices. Id. ¶ 14. 16 On at l eas t tw o o cca sio ns at e ach res taurant, Cam arill o, after advisi ng 17 the employees that she c ould not read t he posted menu items, was not 18 offered any substitut e means for learning the menu options. Id. ¶¶ 2 7, 40 , 5 2, 64 , 7 6. On su ch 19 oc cas ion s, Cam ari llo ask ed fo r th e em

plo ye es t o re ad

the m enu to he r, b ut at ea chres taurant, 20 “often” only “part ” of the menu was read to her. Id. ¶¶ 2 9, 42 , 5 4, 66 , 7 8. Cam ari llo all eg es t hat 21 on some visits to the Carr ols’ Burger King r estaurant s, employees “laughed and sta red at her ,” 22 an d o nc e, wh ensh e as ke d to be dir ect ed to t he wo m en ’s r est

roo m , e m plo ye es “ dir ect ed

he r to4 1 the m en ’s r oo m

an d la ug he d at he r hum ili ati on .” Id. ¶ 30. The complaint also al leges thatat El Ranc ho Fo od s’ 2 Ta co Be ll, the cas hie r re fu sed to r ead the m enu to Cam ari llo until the cas hie r 3 “h ad

fi lle d th e f

oo d o rde rs o f p atr on s who we re i n li ne be hin d p lai nti ff ,” an d at W en do nie ’s 4 W en dy ’s, “p atr on s b eh ind pla int if f w ere tak enout of

ord er b ef ore pla int if

f. ” Id. ¶¶ 66, 78. 5 Cam ari llo , c lai m ing that de fe nd an ts’ act ion s co ns tit ute d v iol ati on s o f t

he AD A and

Ne w 6 York Executive Law, filed heroriginal complaint in New York State Supreme Court, Greene 7 County, in August 2005. Defendants removed the acti on to the Norther n Districtof New York, 8 and after Camarillo filed an amended complaint, defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. 9 R. Ci v. P. 12 (b) (6) . In granti ng de fe nd an ts’ m oti on s to dis m iss , th e D ist ric t C ourt r eas on ed

that 10 “[ d] esp ite Cam ari llo ’s c on clu so ry a lle gatio ns to t he co ntr ary , s he ha s n ot a lle ge d th at s he wa s 11 de nie d u se and

en joym en t of

the ser vic es p rov ide d at de fe nd an ts’ res taurants. ” Ca ma ril lo v

. 12 Carrols Corp. , No. 1:05-CV-1365, 2006 W L 2795238, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2006). Ac co rdi ng to t

he 13 Di str ict Co urt , C am ari llo ’s c om

pla int co nc ed es t

hat em plo ye es at de fe nd an ts’ 14 res tau

rants “ we re w ill ing an d a ble to r ead

he r th e m enus ,” an d th at o n e ve ry o cca sio n s he “w as permitted to eat.” Id. The DistrictCourt found that as a r esult, 15 Cam arill o “has not all eged a 16 sin gle ins tan ce whe n s he wa s d ep riv ed of the ser vic es e njo ye d b y o the r patro ns .” Id. 17 Ac co rdi ng ly, Cam ari llo did no t al leg e f

act s to sh owinj ury

un de r th e A DAan d th

us lac ke d 18 standing to pur sue her cla ims. Id. at *4. 19 II. Discussion 20 “We review de novo the dis tri ct c ourt’ s g rant of a m oti on to d ism iss .” Kassner v. 2nd 21 Av en ue De lic ate

sse n In c. , 496 F.3d 229, 237 (2d Cir. 2007). “To survi ve dismissal, the pla intiff 22 m

us t pr ov ide the gro un ds up on wh ich [h er] cla im

res ts thro ug h f

act ua l al leg ati on s su ff

ici en t ‘t o5 1 rai se a

rig ht t o re lie f a

bo ve the sp ecu lat ive lev el. ’” ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd. , 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007) (quot ing 2 Be ll A tl. Co rp . v . T wo mb ly , --- U.S. --- -, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 3 19 65 (20 07 )); seeals o P or t D oc k & S ton e C or p. v. Ol dc as tleNe ., Inc

. , 507 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Ci r. 2 00 7) ( “ 4 Th e p lai nti ff ’s f act ua l al leg ati on s m

us t be en ou gh

to g ive the de fe nd an t f

air no tic e 5 of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it res ts.”). 6 Title II I of the ADA provides that “[n]o individua l shall be discriminated agai nst on the 7 ba sis of

dis ab ili ty i n th e f

ull an d e qu al e njo ym en t of the go od s, ser

vic es, fa cil iti es, pri vil eg es, 8 advantages, oraccomm odations of any place of public accomm odation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). 9 Di scr im inatio n is de fi ne d b y th e A ct t o in clu de “a f ail ure to t ak e su chste ps as m aybe ne ces sar y 10 to ensure t hat no indivi dual with a dis abilit y is excluded, de nied servi ces, segrega ted or 11 otherwise t reated di fferently than otherindividual s because of the abse nce of auxiliary aids and 12 services , unless the e ntity can de monstrate that ta king such steps would fundam entally a lter t he 13 nature of the good, ser vice, facili ty, privil ege, advantage, oraccomm odation being offered or 14 wo uld

res ult in an und ue burde n. ” Id. § 1 21 82 (b) (2) (A )(i ii) . R eg ulatio ns pro m ulg ate d und er the se p rov isi on s b y th e U nit ed St ate s D ep artm en t of

Ju sti ce 15 pro vid e th at “ pu bli c 16 acc om

m od ati on [s ] s ha ll f

urn ish ap pro pri ate au xil iar

y a ids an d s erv ice s whe re n ece ssary t o 17 ensure effective communication with individua ls with disabiliti es.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c). 18 To state a cl aim under Title III , Cam arill o must allege (1) tha t she is di sabled withi n the 19 m ean ing of

the AD A; (2) that de fe nd an ts o wn , le ase , o r op erate a pla ce o f p ub lic 20 accomm odation; and ( 3) that defendant s discri minated against her by de nying her a full and equal opportuni ty to enjoy t he service s defendants provide

. Se e 42 U. S. C. § 1 21 82 (a) 21 ; Mol ski v. M.J . C ab le, Inc

. , 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007) 22 ; Po we ll v . N at’ l B d. of M

ed . E xa m’ rs. , 3646 1 F. 3d

79 , 8 5 (2 d C ir. 20 04 ); Sta n v . Wa l-M ar t Stor es, Inc

. , 111 F. Supp. 2d 119, 124 (N.D.N.Y. 2 20 00 ). 3 On ly t

he las t el em en t is dis puted he re. Cam ari llo arg ue s th at h er c om pla int su ff ici en tly 4 all eg es t

hat sh e w as n ot a ff

ord ed a “f ull an d e qu al” op po rtunit y to en joy the ser vic es at 5 de fe nd an ts’ res taurants b eca us e th e re sta

urants pro vid ed

ne ith er a lar ge pri nt m enu th at s he co uld 6 read, nor any ot her means to ensure “effective c omm unication” of their menu options. 7 Defendants contend thatall thatis requir ed under the ADA is for theiremployees to be 8 “av ail ab le” to r ead the m enus to C am ari llo . Th eyargue that C am ari llo ’s a lle gatio ns at m os t 9 am ount t o a

co m pla int ab out po or o r im

po lit e se rvi ce, an d th at the AD A d oe s n ot p rov ide a 10 remedy for occasional servi ce failures. 11 As sum ing the all eg ati on s in the co m pla int are tru e an d d

raw ing all rea so na

ble inf ere nc es 12 in p lai nti ff

’s f av or, we fi nd

that C am ari llo ha s ad eq

uatel y p lea de d th at s he ha s st an din g and that 13 defendants violat ed the ADA. The com plaint al leges thaton multiple visits to each of 14 de fe nd an ts’ res taurants, Cam ari llo inf orm ed em plo ye es t hat be cau se o f h er d isa

bil itysh e co uld 15 not read the menu herself, and that the employees “often” re sponded with annoyance or 16 im

patie nc e, at b est

rea din g h er o nly

a “p art ” o f t

he m enu. Cam ari llo all eg es t hat at a 17 McD on ald ’s r est aurant op erated byMag lio cca

St ore s, Inc ., fo r in stanc e, a ca sh ier po int ed to promotional liter ature and i nsisted t hat it cons titute d the menu. Com pl. ¶ 42. 18 As ev en 19 de fe nd an ts a ck

no wl ed ge , th e A DAan d th e re gu lat ion s p rom ulg ate d th ere un de r re qu ire owne rs 20 of

pu bli c ac co mm od ati on s to “en sure e ff ect ive co mm

un icatio n w ithind ivi du als wi th disabili ties.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c). 21 While res taurants are not nece ssaril y required t o have on 22 hand

lar ge pri nt m enus that C am ari llo wo uld be ab le t o re ad , th eyare req uir ed to e ns ure that7 1 the ir m enu o pti on s ar e ef fe cti ve ly c om

m un icated to i nd ivi du als wh o, lik e C am ari llo , are l eg all y 2 blind. Se e U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Americans with Disabil ities Act – Guide for Places of

Lodging: 3 Serving Guests W

ho Are Blind or Who Have Low Vision 9 (2001), available at http:// www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/ lodblind.pdf. 4 Put simply, Cam arill o cannot experi ence “full and eq ua l en joym en t” o f d ef

en dants ’ se rvi ces 5 if sh e is un ab le t o a cce ss t

he lis t of the ser vic es 6 availabl e to her. 7 The DistrictCourt interpreted Camarillo’s complaint as conceding t hat “rest aurant

em plo ye es at al l of

de fe nd an ts’ est ab lis hm en ts w ere wi lli ng an d a ble to r ead

he r th e m enus .” 8 9 Ca ma ril lo , 2 00 6 W L 2 79 52 38 , at *3 . B ut o n a m oti on to d ism iss , th e o nly

fa ir i nf ere nc e to draw 10 fr om

Cam ari llo ’s c om

pla int is that on num ero us oc cas ion s, em plo ye es at de fe nd an ts’ res taurants 11 we re at be st w ill ing to r ead he r part o f t

he m enu, an d th at the y w ere unwi lli ng to c om m un icate 12 effectively the r ange of options avail able to her . This is sufficient t o state a c laim under the ADA. 13 14 W e do not disagr ee with the Dist rict Courtthat “le gislati on such as the ADA cannot 15 reg ulate i nd ivi du als ’ co nd uc t so as t o e ns ure that th eywi ll n ev er b e ru de or i ns en sit ive to 16 pe rso ns wi th d isa bil iti es. ” Id. (quoting Stan , 1 11 F. Su pp . 2 d at 12 6-2 7). Ho we ve r, C am ari llo 17 alleges more than mere rudeness orinsensit ivity, and more than one or t wo isolated mistakes. 18 Rather, a rea sonable inferenc e to be drawn from her complaint is that defendant s failed to adopt 19 policies or procedure s to effectively t rain thei r employees how to deal with dis abled indivi duals. 20 Su cha f

ail ure to t rai n c anco ns tit

ute a v iol ati on

of the AD A, wh ich

req uir es o wn ers of

pu bli c 21 accomm odations, with l imited exceptions notapplicabl e here, “to t ake such steps as may be 22 necessary t o en su re that no ind ivi du al w itha d isa bil ityis e xc lud ed , d en ied ser vic es, seg reg ate d8 1 or oth erw isetre ate d d iff ere ntl y than other i ndividuals be cause of the absence of auxiliary ai ds 2 an d s erv ice s. ” 4 2 U .S .C . § 12 18 2(b )(2 )(A )(i ii) (em ph ase s ad de d); see also Stan , 111 F. Supp. 2d at 127 ( 3 “[ U] nd er the AD A, [d ]e fe nd an ts c anan d m us t en sure that th eyad op t th e p rop er p oli cie s 4 and procedures to trai n their employees on deal ing with disabl ed individual s and make 5 reasonable efforts to ensure t hat those pol icies and pr ocedures ar e properly c arried outand

en fo rce d. ”). 6 7 Defendants argue thatJudge McAvoy’s deci sion in Sta n v . Wa l-M ar t Stor es supports the propositi on that Camarillo cannothave suffered cognizable injury underthe ADA 8 because she 9 was never denied s ervice atdefendants’ res taurants . This is a misreading of Stan . In that ca se, 10 the pla int if

f, wh o w as l eg all y b lin d and us ed a se rvi ce d og to a ssi st h er, wa s to ld o nc e b y a W al11 Mart employee, and on a separ ate occasi on by a Sam’s Club em ployee, thatshe could not br ing 12 he r se rvi ce d og int o th e st ore s. 11 1 F . S up p. 2d at 1 21 -22 . O n b oth

oc cas ion s, ho we ve r, 13 managers at the stor es apologize d to the plai ntiff, told her thatshe was permitted to bri ng her dog 14 in to th e s to re s, an d a ss ur edhe r t ha t t he y wo ul d t ra in th ei r e mpl oy ee s t o e ns ur e t ha t t he sa me 15 mistake would not be made again. Id. In a dd iti on , e vid en ce e sta bli sh ed that th e d ef

en dants ha d 16 official polici es permitting ser vice animals in thei r stores , that both st ores had signs out front 17 welcoming service animals, that a ll employees recei ved at leas t some training on all owing 18 ind ivi du als wi th s erv ice an im als to e nte r th e st ore s, an d th at, in r esp on se t o th e in cid en ts 19 involving the plainti ff, the defendants conducted furthertraini ng on the issue t o avoid any 20 similar problems in the future. Id. at 1 25 . B ase d o n th is e vid en ce, the Di str ict Co urt grante d 21 summ ary

jud gm en t in

favo r of de fe nd an ts b eca

us e th ere wa s “n o in dic ati on in t he rec ord ” th at 22 the pla int if

f w ou ld l ike ly s uf

fe r di scr im inatio n o n a cco unt of he r di sab ili ty at th e d ef

en dants ’9 1 stores i n the future and the plainti ff thus lacked standing t o obtain inj unctive re lief. Id. at 126. 2 Stan , th ere fo re, do es n ot s tan d f or t he pro po sit ion

that so lon g a s a d isa

ble d in div idu al i s 3 permitted to shop (oreat), she c annot have suffered injur y under the ADA. Rather, Stan holds 4 sim

ply that summ ary

jud gm en t is warrante d whe re a ll the ev ide nc e in the rec ord

de m on str ate s 5 that th e d ef

en dants have tak enall ne ces sar y s tep s “t o e ns ure that no ind ivi du al w itha d isa bil ity 6 is e xc lud ed , d en ied ser vic es, seg reg ate d o r ot

he rw ise tre ate d d if

fe rentlythan o the r in div idu als .” 7 42 U. S. C. § 1 21 82 (b) (2) (A )(i ii) . H ere , th ere is n o s uc h e vid en ce – as t his wa s a m oti on

to 8 dis m iss – and

it i s re aso na

ble to i nf er f rom the all eg ati on s o f t

he co m pla int that de fe nd an ts d id 9 no t ad op t th e k ind of po lic ies or p rov ide the typ e o f e m plo ye e tr ain ing that w ou ld e ns ure that Cam arill o would not suffer discrimination upon r eturning t o their es tablishments. 10 Of course, our 11 analysis a t this poi nt is confined to r eviewing the Dist rict Court ’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 12 (b) (6) ; w e h av e n o o pin ion as t o whe the r C am ari llo ’s c lai m s w ill survi ve af ter ev ide nc e is 13 taken. 14 W e th ere fo re f ind that C am ari llo ha s st ate d a cla im un de r th e A DA . W e al so fi nd that 15 Cam arill o has standing t o pursue this claim, at least a t this st age in the l itigat ion, because: (1) she 16 ha s al leg ed

pa st i nju ry u nd er the AD A ( nam ely , d ef en dants ’ di scr im inator

y f ail ure to e ns ure 17 effective comm

unication of thei r menu items); (2) it is r easonable t o infer from her com plaint 18 that thi s discri minatory treatment will cont inue; and (3) it is al so reasonabl e to infer, based on 19 the pa st f

req ue nc y o f h er v isi ts a

nd the pro xim ityof

de fe nd an ts’ res taurants t o h er h om e, that 20 Cam arill o intends to r eturn to t hese rest aurants i n the future. Se e P ick ern v. Ho lid

ayQu ali ty 21 Fo od

s In c. , 2 93 F. 3d

11 33 , 1 13 7-3 8 (9 th C ir. 20 02 ) (h old ing that a p lai nti ff po sse sse s st an din g to 22 ob tai n in

jun cti ve rel ief

un de r T itl e II I of

the AD A i f s he is aware o f t he de fe nd an t’s10 1 dis cri m inator

y c on dit ion s; tho se c on dit ion s, an d th e p lai nti ff ’s awaren ess of

the m , are 2 continuing; and the plai ntiff plausibly int ends to return to the pl ace of discrimination)

. 3 W e therefore vac ate the Dist rict Court ’s dismissal of Camarillo’s cla ims under the ADA. 4 W e al so va cat e th e d ism iss al o f C am ari llo ’s s tat e law c lai m s b eca us e “t he sco pe of

the dis ab ili ty discrimination pr ovisions of [New York Executive Law § 296.2(a)] 5 are similar to t hose of the 6 Am eri can s w ithDi sab ili tie s A ct and § 5 04 of the Re ha bil itatio n A ct, a p rec urs or t o th e A DA .” 7 Do e v. Be ll , 754 N.Y.S.2d 846, 852 n.7 (N.Y. Sup. C t. 2003) (ci ting Re eve s v. Jo hn so n C

on tro ls 8 Wor ld S

erv s. , In c. , 1 40 F. 3d

14 4, 15 4-5 6 (2 d C ir. 19 98 )); see also Rodal v. Anes thesia Group of Onondaga, P.C. , 3 69 F. 3d 11 3, 11 7 n .1 (2d

Ci r. 2 00 4) ( “ 9 Ne w Y ork St ate dis ab ili ty 10 dis cri m inatio n c lai m s ar e g ov ern ed bythe sam e le ga l st an dards as f ed era l A DAcla im s. ”). 11 III. Conclusion 12 Fo r th e re aso ns set fo rthab ov e, the jud gm en t of the Di str ict

Co urt is v acated

an d th e ca se is remanded for further proceedi ngs consiste nt with this opinion. 13