Lugo v. 141 NW 20th Street Holdings, LLC, Plum Park, II, LLC

Citations: 878 F. Supp. 2d 1291; 2012 WL 2524288; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90524Docket: Case No. 12-80440-CIV

Court: District Court, S.D. Florida; June 29, 2012; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Plum Park II, LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Daniel Lugo's Complaint seeking injunctive relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, owners/operators of a shopping center in Boca Raton, Florida, have created physical barriers preventing his access due to his disabilities, which include significant mobility limitations requiring a wheelchair. Plaintiff has identified specific ADA violations, including issues with curb ramps, accessible routes, disabled parking spaces, restrooms, signage, and counters. He asserts that these barriers are 'readily achievable' to remove and that he is suffering irreparable harm, necessitating immediate action to prevent further harm as he plans to return to the property.

Defendant contends that the Complaint fails to adequately plead Plaintiff's disability, the denial of full and equal enjoyment, and the feasibility of removing the barriers. Additionally, Defendant argues that the Complaint lacks sufficient demonstration of Plaintiff's standing for injunctive relief. The legal standard under Rule 8(a) requires a clear statement of claims to provide fair notice to the defendant, while the Supreme Court emphasizes that factual allegations must exceed mere labels and conclusions to establish a right to relief.

A complaint must present sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to establish a plausible claim for relief to survive a motion to dismiss, as articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal. A claim is plausible if it allows the court to reasonably infer the defendant's liability for the alleged misconduct. When evaluating a motion to dismiss, all allegations made by the plaintiff are accepted as true.

For a Title III ADA discrimination claim, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the individual is disabled, (2) the defendant owns or operates a public accommodation, and (3) discrimination occurred under the ADA. In cases involving existing buildings, evidence of barriers that are 'readily achievable' to remove must be presented. 'Readily achievable' refers to actions that can be easily accomplished without significant difficulty or expense. 

The Court found that the plaintiff sufficiently pled a Title III ADA discrimination claim by alleging a disability due to spinal cord damage and a broken neck, limiting his ability to walk. The plaintiff also adequately identified the defendants as owners/operators of a public accommodation—a shopping and office center. Additionally, the plaintiff cited various physical barriers that restrict access and claimed their removal is readily achievable. The Court rejected the defendant's argument that the complaint lacked specificity, determining that it provided adequate notice of the claims and the basis for them, as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).

The Complaint asserts that barriers at the Defendant's property restrict the Plaintiff's enjoyment and access (Compl. 20, 9). The Plaintiff plans to revisit the property (Compl. 3, 10) and has sufficiently informed the Defendant of the case's nature, meeting the pleading standards set by Twombly and Iqbal. Discovery will clarify any specific allegations related to ADA violations and the costs associated with necessary remedies, which the Plaintiff cannot ascertain pre-suit without professional inspection. 

Regarding standing, the Court references Article III's requirement for actual cases and controversies, outlining three criteria: the Plaintiff must show a concrete injury, a causal link to the Defendant's actions, and that the injury is likely redressable by a favorable ruling (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555). The Plaintiff has alleged a concrete injury as a disabled individual facing discrimination due to accessibility barriers, establishing a causal relationship between the injury and the Defendant's actions (Compl. 3, 9-11, 20). The Plaintiff's injury is deemed redressable, as he claims ongoing irreparable harm without legal remedy unless the barriers are eliminated (Compl. 11, 23).

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff lacks specificity regarding the visit's date, the nature of the barriers, and the conditions violating the ADA. However, the Court finds the date of visit (Compl. 9) sufficient, as the barriers' nature is consistent regardless of visitation time. The Court concludes that the Complaint provides adequate specificity concerning ADA violations and infers that the identified physical barriers hinder access for wheelchair users (Compl. 3, 20).

The Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint, rejecting the claim that the allegations do not support injunctive relief due to insufficient assertions of future harm. The Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s intent to return to the property soon was inadequate, citing Stevens v. Premier Cruises, Inc. to support its position. However, the Court distinguishes this case, noting that if the Stevens plaintiff's vague intention sufficed for standing, so too does the Plaintiff's assertion here. The Court also dismisses the Defendant's reliance on Duldulao v. La Creperia Caf., Inc., noting that unlike the plaintiff in Duldulao, who failed to adequately plead a disability, the current Plaintiff has alleged permanent spinal cord damage. Furthermore, the Defendant's claim that the Plaintiff's allegations are merely a 'cut-and-paste list' from other complaints is disregarded since it lies outside the Complaint's scope. The Court emphasizes that standing is not diminished by the number of similar lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff, nor is it necessary for the Plaintiff to meet traditional standards for equitable relief when seeking to prevent violations of federal law, as established in Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill. The Court ultimately finds that Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim under the ADA and denies the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Plum Park II, LLC, and The End, LLC, while noting that The End, LLC was previously dropped from the case with prejudice.