mark handler
SAWHORSE
NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR ACCESSIBILITY, INC., and DENISE PAYNE, Plaintiffs,v.WAFFLE HOUSE, INC., Defendant.
No. 5:10-Cv-385-D.
United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division.
September 29, 2011.
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, District Judge.
On September 18, 2010, National Alliance for Accessibility, Inc. ("National Alliance") and Denise Payne ("Payne") (collectively, "plaintiffs"), filed suit under Title illofthe Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189. Plaintiffs name Waffle House, Inc. ("Waffle House" or "defendant") as defendant and seek injunctive relief [D.E. 5]. On May 9, 2011, Waffle House filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that plaintiffs lack standing [D.E. 20]. On June 2, 2011, plaintiffs responded in opposition [D.E. 25]. On June 16,2011, Waffle House replied [D.E. 39]. For the reasons explained below, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
I.
Payne is a resident of Florida. Payne Aff. [D.E. 27] ¶ 2. Payne has cerebral palsy, which renders her paralyzed from the waist down and unable to use her arms and hands to grasp objects. Id. ¶ 1. National Alliance is a Florida non-profit corporation, based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which works to ensure that places of public accommodation are accessible to its disabled members. Id. ¶ 4; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 9. Payne is a co-founder of National Alliance and occasionally travels to North Carolina for business relating to National Alliance. Payne Aff. ¶¶ 3-4. During one such trip in 2010, Payne visited defendant's Waffle House restaurant located at 3909 Hillsborough Street in Raleigh, North Carolina ("the restaurant"). Id. ¶ 12; Am. Compl. ¶ 8. At the restaurant, Payne alleges that she discovered various violations of the ADA, including improperly designated handicapped parking spaces, inaccessible routes from the parking areato the restaurant, and interior spaces (such as restrooms and counters) that do not meet ADA requirements. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 17. Payne alleges that she was unable to enjoy the restaurant because of these violations, but asserts that she would like to return in the future if the barriers to access are removed. Id. ¶ 8; Payne Aff. ¶ 13. Insupport of her intent to return, Payne notes that she will be in Asheville, North Carolina for three days in October 2011. Payne Aff. ¶ 11. The court takes judicial notice that Asheville, North Carolina is approximately 250 miles from Raleigh, North Carolina.1
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests subject-matterjurisdiction, which is the court's "statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (emphasis omitted). A federal court "must determine that it has subject-matterjurisdiction over [a claim] before it can pass on the merits of that [claim]." Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 479-80 (4th Cir. 2005). In considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs, as the party asserting that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction, must prove that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. See, e.g., Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 104; Evans, 166 F.3d at 647; Richmond. Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991).
Individual and organizational plaintiffs must establish Article ill standing. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 458 (4th Cir. 2005). To establishArticle ill standing, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff has "`suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;'" (2) "`a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court;'" and (3) that it is "`likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision'" from the court. Chambers Med. Techs. of S.C., Inc. v. Btyant, 52 F.3d 1252, 1265 (4th Cir. 1995) (alterations omitted) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). These requirements are "the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing." Lujim, 504 U.S. at 560. Unless a plaintiff has standing, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdictionto hear the case. See, e.g., id. at 560-61; White Tail, 413 F.3d at 459.
Follow link for Balance of ORDER
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020110929E81.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 5:10-Cv-385-D.
United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division.
September 29, 2011.
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, District Judge.
On September 18, 2010, National Alliance for Accessibility, Inc. ("National Alliance") and Denise Payne ("Payne") (collectively, "plaintiffs"), filed suit under Title illofthe Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189. Plaintiffs name Waffle House, Inc. ("Waffle House" or "defendant") as defendant and seek injunctive relief [D.E. 5]. On May 9, 2011, Waffle House filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that plaintiffs lack standing [D.E. 20]. On June 2, 2011, plaintiffs responded in opposition [D.E. 25]. On June 16,2011, Waffle House replied [D.E. 39]. For the reasons explained below, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
I.
Payne is a resident of Florida. Payne Aff. [D.E. 27] ¶ 2. Payne has cerebral palsy, which renders her paralyzed from the waist down and unable to use her arms and hands to grasp objects. Id. ¶ 1. National Alliance is a Florida non-profit corporation, based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which works to ensure that places of public accommodation are accessible to its disabled members. Id. ¶ 4; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 9. Payne is a co-founder of National Alliance and occasionally travels to North Carolina for business relating to National Alliance. Payne Aff. ¶¶ 3-4. During one such trip in 2010, Payne visited defendant's Waffle House restaurant located at 3909 Hillsborough Street in Raleigh, North Carolina ("the restaurant"). Id. ¶ 12; Am. Compl. ¶ 8. At the restaurant, Payne alleges that she discovered various violations of the ADA, including improperly designated handicapped parking spaces, inaccessible routes from the parking areato the restaurant, and interior spaces (such as restrooms and counters) that do not meet ADA requirements. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 17. Payne alleges that she was unable to enjoy the restaurant because of these violations, but asserts that she would like to return in the future if the barriers to access are removed. Id. ¶ 8; Payne Aff. ¶ 13. Insupport of her intent to return, Payne notes that she will be in Asheville, North Carolina for three days in October 2011. Payne Aff. ¶ 11. The court takes judicial notice that Asheville, North Carolina is approximately 250 miles from Raleigh, North Carolina.1
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests subject-matterjurisdiction, which is the court's "statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (emphasis omitted). A federal court "must determine that it has subject-matterjurisdiction over [a claim] before it can pass on the merits of that [claim]." Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 479-80 (4th Cir. 2005). In considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs, as the party asserting that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction, must prove that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. See, e.g., Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 104; Evans, 166 F.3d at 647; Richmond. Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991).
Individual and organizational plaintiffs must establish Article ill standing. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 458 (4th Cir. 2005). To establishArticle ill standing, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff has "`suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;'" (2) "`a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court;'" and (3) that it is "`likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision'" from the court. Chambers Med. Techs. of S.C., Inc. v. Btyant, 52 F.3d 1252, 1265 (4th Cir. 1995) (alterations omitted) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). These requirements are "the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing." Lujim, 504 U.S. at 560. Unless a plaintiff has standing, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdictionto hear the case. See, e.g., id. at 560-61; White Tail, 413 F.3d at 459.
Follow link for Balance of ORDER
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020110929E81.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
