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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 31 43

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Zach Hil le sh ei m

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Hol id ay Sta ti on st or es , Inc

.

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: Ju ne 12 , 20 18 Fi le d: Aug us t 1 7, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, ARNOLD, and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Zach Hil le sh ei m al le ge s th at Hol id ay St at io ns to res di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t hi m by fai li ng to ha ve an acce ss ib le pa rk in g lo t at on e of it s st or e s

. H i l le sh ei m ’s

co m pl ai nt id en ti fie s th ree al le ge d pro bl em s with th e pa rk in g lo t, each gi vi ng ris e to

a se pa rat e cl ai m

. Fo r two of t h e t h r e e cl ai m s, Hil le sh ei m su ffer ed no in jury, so we

va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on an d in st ru ct th e co ur t on rem an d to ret ur n th em tost at e co ur t. W e rem an d th e th ird cl ai m , ev en th ou gh Hil le sh ei m ha s st an di ng to as se rt

it
, to al lo w th e di st ric t co ur t to co ns id er whe th er to se nd it ba ck to st at e co ur t wit h th e
ot he rs

.

I.

Hil le sh ei m is pa ral y zed fro m th e wais t do wn an d us es a whe e l ch ai r fo r

mo b i li ty. W he n Hil le sh ei m vi si te d a Hol id ay st or e in Man ka to , Mi nn es ot a, h e ob se rv ed th at th e st or e’s two ha nd ic ap

- a c c e s s i bl e pa rk in g sp aces were no t m ark ed wit h ve rti cal si gn po st s. One of th e sp aces al so la ck ed an ad jacen t acce ss ai sl e, whi ch

pr ov id es ex tra ro om fo r i n d i vi du al s wit h di sa bi li ti es to m ov e in an d ou t of th ei r

ve hi cl es

. Als o pre se nt was a ga rb ag e can ne ar th e to p of th e cu rb ram p le ad in g in to th e st or e. Hil le sh ei m cl ai m s th at he co ul d no t ha ve sa fel y na vi ga te d th e ram p in hi s whe el ch ai r, so in st ead of ris ki ng in jury, he de ci de d no t to en te r th e st or e. The se th ree al le ge d d efec ts are at th e h eart of t hi s l aws ui t.

Hol id ay in sp ect ed th e pa rk in g lo t an d fix ed th e al le ge d de fect s. It rem ov ed th e ha nd ic ap -acc es si bl e sp ace la ck in g an acce ss ai sl e be cau se i t d e t erm in ed th at th e Am eri can s wit h Dis ab il it ie s Act (“ ADA”) on ly req ui red it to ha ve on e sp ace, no t two , gi ve n th e si ze of th e pa rk in g lo t. It al so pl aced an ADA-co m pl ia nt ve rti cal si gn ab ov e th e rem ai ni ng sp ac e a n d r e mov ed th e ga rb ag e can fro m th e cu rb ram p ou t of an

“ ab un da nc e o f car e.”

Befo re Hol id ay m ad e th es e ch an ge s, ho wev er, Hil le sh ei m fil ed a l aws ui t in

st at e co ur t, al le gi ng vi ol at io ns o f t h e A DA an d th e Mi nn es ot a Hum an Ri gh ts Act (“ MHRA”)

. Hol id ay rem ov ed th e cas e to fe d e r a l c o u rt. Se e 28 U.S.C. §§ 13 31
, 1 3 6 7
, 1 44 1( a). Afte r th e cl os e of di sc ov ery, Hol id ay fil ed a m ot io n fo r su mm a r y ju d g men t i n whi ch it as ke d th e di st ric t co ur t to di sm is s th e cas e fo r la ck o f

su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on

. Hil le sh ei m co nc ed ed th at Hol id ay ’s rem ed ia l m eas ur es ,
co m pl et ed aft er Hol id ay rem ov ed t h e c a s e to fed eral co ur t, ha d m oo te d hi s ADA

-2

-cl ai m s. He di d no t bu dg e on hi s MHRA cl ai m s, ho wev e r , a rg ui ng th at he ha d

st an di ng to as se rt th em be cau se th e la ck of acce ss to th e st or e ha d in jure d hi m

. Bu t he no ne th el es s ur ge d th e di st ric t co ur t to ret ur n th e MHRA cl ai m s to st at e co ur t be cau se no fed eral cla im s re m ai ne d.

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Hol id ay ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary judgm en t. In ad di ti on
to di sm is si ng Hil le sh ei m ’s ADA cl ai m s, th e co ur t di sm is se d Hil le sh ei m ’s MHRA

c l a i ms wit h pr ejud ic e rat he r th an rem an di ng th em to st at e co ur t. On ap pe al
, Hil le sh ei m

ch al le ng es th e co ur t’s t reat m en t o f hi s M HRA cla im s.

II.

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at Hil l e s h e im la ck ed Arti cl e III sta nd in g. Par k v. For es t Ser v. of th e U.S.
, 20 5 F .3d 10 34
, 10 36 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). To pu rs ue st at e-l aw cl ai m s in fed eral co ur t, a p a r ty m us t pr ov e th at it ha s
st an di ng un de r Arti cl e III’s cas e-o r-co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t. U.S. Co ns t. art

. III, § 2, cl . 1; Hug he s v. C it

y o f Ce da r Ra

pi ds , 84 0 F .3d 98 7, 9 93 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6)

.

To m eet th e “ irr ed uc ib le co ns ti tu ti on al m in im um ” fo r Arti cl e III st an di ng : (1 ) a
p l a i n t i f f m us t ha ve su ffer ed an “ in

jury in fact ,” (2 ) th at is “ fai rly tra ceab le to th e ch al le ng ed co nd uc t,” an d (3 ) is “ li ke ly to be red res se d by a fav or ab l e ju d i c i al de ci si on .” Sp ok

eo , I nc . v . R o b i n s , 1 36 S. Ct . 1 54 0, 15 47 (2 01 6) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The pa rti e s d i s p u te on ly th e ex is te nc e of th e fir st req ui rem en t: whe th er Hil le sh ei m

su ffer ed an in

jury-in -fac t th at is su ffi ci e n t l y c o nc ret e an d pa rti cu la riz ed
, no t

co njec tu ral or h y

po th et ic al

. Se e id

. at 1 54 7– 48

.

At su m m ary jud gm en t, Hil le sh ei m ha d to do m o r e t h a n jus t rel y on th e al le ga ti on s fro m hi s co m

pl ai nt , be cau se “ [a] pa rty in vo ki ng fed eral juri sd ic ti on m us t

su pp or t each of th e st an di ng req ui rem en ts wit h th e sa m e ki nd an d de gr ee of ev id en ce
at th e su cces si ve st ag es of li ti ga ti on as an y ot he r m at te r.” Co ns ti tu ti on Par ty of S.D.

-3

-v

. N

e l s o n , 63 9 F.3 d 41 7, 42 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Hil le sh ei m acco rd in gl y ha d to of f e r

ev id en ce in res po ns e to Hol id ay ’s su m m ary-j ud gm en t m ot io n es ta bl is hi ng th at each of th e al le ge d p ark in g lo t de fect s ha d i nju red hi m

. Id

. at 4 21 . The ce nt ral qu es ti on in th is cas e is whet he r he di d s o.

Hil le sh ei m ’s ev id en ce was th in

. On th e acce ss -a i sl e an d ve rti cal -s ig na ge cl ai m s, hi s de cl arat io n di d li tt le m or e th an de sc rib e th e al le ge d vi ol at io ns , ot he r th an
st at in g th at he was de te rred fro m vi si ti ng th e st or e in th e fu tu re. It di d no t ex pl ai n 1
ho w th e la ck of an acce ss ai sl e or in su ffi ci en t ve rti cal si gn ag e in jure d hi m

. It m ad e

no m en ti on , for ex am

pl e, of whe th er he had di ffi cu lt y id en ti fy in g whi ch sp ot s were ha nd ic ap acce ss ib le or ev en whe th er th e al le ge d de fect s cau se d hi m to le av e wit ho ut

en te rin g th e st or e. All eg in g ba re vi ol at io ns of th e ADA wit ho ut ev id en ce of an act ua l in jury is in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h Arti cl e III st an di ng

. Se e Bra it be rg v. Ch ar te r Co mmc’n s, In c. , 83 6 F .3d 92 5, 9 29 –3 0 (8 th Cir . 20 16 ).

The di st ric t co ur t dr ew th e wro ng co nc lu si on , ho wev er, whe n it di sm is se d bo th cl ai m s wit h pr ejud ic e. If it tu rn s ou t aft er re m ov al th at a pl ai nt iff la ck s st an di ng to br in g a cl ai m in fed eral co ur t, as ha pp en ed he re, th en a di st ric t co ur t m us t rem an d th e cl ai m to st at e co ur t

. 2 8 U

. S .C. § 14 47 (c) (“ If at an y ti m e be fo re fin al jud gm en t it

ap pe ars th at th e di st ri c t co ur t la ck s su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on , th e cas e sh al l be

rem an de d.” ); Hug he s , 84 0 F.3 d at 99 3; W al la ce v. C o nAg ra Foo ds

, In c. , 74 7 F.3 d
10 25
, 10 33 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 14 ). W e acco rd in gl y va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t di sm is si ng th es e two cl ai m s an d in st ru ct th e co ur t on rem an d to ret ur n th em to st at e

co ur t.

U n de r Dav is v. Ant ho ny , In c. , 88 6 F.3 d 67 4, 67 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ), we do no t

1

reco gn iz e th e th eo ry th at be in g de te rred fro m vi si ti ng a pl ace of pu bl ic

acco m m od at io n i n t he fut ur e ri se s t o t he lev el of a n i nju ry -in -fac t.

-4

-Hil le sh ei m ’s ga rb ag e-ca n cl ai m is a di ffer en t st or y

. In co nt r as t to th e ot he r

cl ai ms , H i ll es he im ’s d ecl arat io n co nn ect ed th e pl acement of th e ga rb ag e can to hi s de ci si on to le av e. It st at ed th at he co ul d no t sa fel y na vi ga te th e ram p wit ho ut ris ki ng in jury be cau se th e ga rb ag e can bl oc ke d hi s pa th of tra ve l an d t r yi n g to m an eu ve r

aro un d it co ul d ha ve cau se d hi s whe el ch ai r to ti p ov er. By of feri ng sp eci fic ev id en ce th at th e a l l eg ed ly da ng ero us ci rcu m st an ces cau se d hi m no t to en te r th e st or e, Hil le sh ei m di d en ou gh to es ta bl is h an in jury-in -fac t. He was no t req ui red
, as Hol id ay

su gg es ts , to ha ve a go of it to es ta bl is h Arti cl e III s ta nd in g. Se e Dis ab il it y S up po rt All

. v. Hea rt wo od Ent er

s., LLC
, 88 5 F.3 d 54 3, 54 6– 47 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ); S t e g e r v. Fra nc o, In c. , 22 8 F .3d 88 9, 8 93 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0)

.

In reac hi ng a co nt rary co nc lu si on , th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e two erro rs

. Fi rs t, by fau lt in g Hil le sh ei m fo r fai li ng to pr ov id e su ffi ci en t de ta il ab ou t th e wid th an d sl op e of th e ram

p, th e co ur t co nf

us ed th e st an di ng in q u iry wit h th e m eri ts

. To es ta bl is h Arti cl e III st an di ng , al l th at Hil le sh ei m was req ui red to sh ow was th at he su ffer ed an in jury, no t th at th e pl acement of th e ga rb ag e can vi ol at ed th e MHRA. Se e Red Rive r Fr e e t h i n ker

s v. Ci ty of Far

go , 6 79 F.3 d 10 15 , 1 02 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ The st an d i n g in qu iry is n ot

. . . an ass es sm en t o f th e m eri ts of a pl ai nt iff ’s cla im .”).

Seco nd
, th e di st ric t co ur t erre d i n t r e a ti ng a ph ot og rap h th at Hil le sh ei m

s ub m it te d al on g wit h hi s de cl arat io n as de fin it iv e pr oo f th at he ha d pl en ty of ro o m
to m an eu ve r aro un d th e ga rb ag e can

. To be su re, th ere are rare i n s t a n c e s in whi ch

ov erwh el m in g ph ot og rap hi c or vi de o ev id en ce m ay po in t to th e ab se nc e of a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact at su mm a r y jud gm en t. Se e Sc ot t v. Har ri s , 55 0 U.S. 37 2,
37 9– 80 (2 00 7)

. Bu t th is is no t on e of th em

. Hil le sh ei m m ad e cl ear in hi s de cl arat io n th at th e pl acement of th e ga rb ag e can le ft on ly a na rro w an d da ng ero us ly sl op ed pa th

up th e ram

p, an d t h e p h ot og rap h do es no t di sp ro ve hi s cl ai m

. In fact
, it do es no t sh ow h ow m

uc h s pa ce re m ai ne d o n e ach si de of th e g arb ag e can or t he sl op e o f th e in cl in e th at a pe rs on in a whe el ch ai r wou ld ha ve face d to reac h th e to p. Pu t sim pl y ,

-5

-th e co ur t’s ev al ua ti on of th e ph ot og rap h fai ls to dr aw al l in fere nc es fro m th e ev id en ce

in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Hil le sh ei m

.

One lo os e en d rem ai ns

. Now th at we ha ve co nc lu d e d t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d whe n it di sm is se d th e ga rb ag e-ca n cl ai m fo r la ck of su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on , th e qu es ti on is wha t to do wit h it

. Und er 28 U.S.C. § 13 67 (c), whe n a “ di st ric t co ur t ha s di sm is se d al l cl ai m s ov er whi ch it ha s or ig in al juri sd ic ti on ,” i t m ay de cl in e to

ex erci se su pp le m en ta l ju ris di ct io n o ve r an y rem ai ni ng cla im s.

The la nd sc ap e ha s ch an ge d si nc e th e di st ric t co ur t fir st ex erci se d it s di sc ret io n

un de r th e su pp le m en ta l-ju ris di ct io n s ta tu te . Now on ly one cl ai m rem ai ns

. W he n it

gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t, th e co ur t di sm is se d Hil le sh ei m ’s ADA cl ai m s. W e ha ve

no w in st ru ct ed th e di st ric t co ur t to ret ur n two of Hil le sh ei m ’s st at e-l aw cl ai m s to st at e

co ur t. The di st ric t co ur t is en ti tl ed to de te rm in e on rem an d whe th er it st il l wis he s to

ex erci se i ts di sc ret io n in th e sa m e way

. Se e ge ne ra ll y Bro wn v. Mor tg

. Elec

. Reg is tr at io n S

ys ., Inc

. , 73 8 F .3d 92 6, 9 33 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

III.

W e v a c at e th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t wit h in st ru ct io ns to rem an d Hil le sh ei m ’s a cces s- ai sl e a n d v e r t ic al -s ig na ge cl ai m s to st at e co ur t an d to co ns id er whe th er t o e xe rci se su pp le m en ta l ju ris di ct io n o ve r th e rem ai ni ng cla im

.

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

-6

-