Aaron Dalton v. JJSC Properties, LLC, 967 F.3d 909

Plaintiff Aaron Dalton, who uses a wheelchair, stopped in a van at Grand Wheeler Sinclair to check Google Maps and did not exit the vehicle.
Dalton observed no signage marking an accessible parking space and alleged the parking area lacked an accessible/van space, access aisle, signage, and failed to comply with ADAAG §502 (slopes and accessible routes).
Dalton sued JJSC Properties in state court under the ADA seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; JJSC removed the case to federal court.
After removal JJSC hired an accessibility expert and painted an accessible parking space, striped an access aisle, and posted ‘‘van accessible’’ signage; JJSC submitted photographs, schematics, and affidavits documenting changes.
The district court dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: (1) Dalton lacked standing as to Slopes and Routes because he never left his vehicle or intended to patronize the station, and (2) the Accessible Parking claim was moot due to JJSC’s remedial measures.
The Eighth Circuit agreed the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction but vacated the dismissal and instructed remand to state court.

Issue	Dalton's Argument	JJSC's Argument	Held
Standing for Slopes and Accessible Routes	Dalton argued lack of marked parking and observed slope gave him an injury in fact and he intends to visit the station in the future	Dalton never left the van, did not patronize or attempt to patronize the station, and lacked intent to use routes or slopes	No standing — Dalton did not encounter or intend to use slopes/routes and alleged future visits lack sufficient intent
Mootness of Accessible Parking claim	Remedial measures occurred after the dismissal motion; court should not consider post-motion evidence to find mootness	JJSC submitted factual evidence showing it fully remedied the parking, aisle, and signage defects	Claim is moot — defendant’s factual showing demonstrated changed circumstances providing the requested relief

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (standing is a threshold jurisdictional question)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standards for injury in fact, causation, redressability)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (injury must be actual or imminent)
Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889 (must intend to patronize to establish standing for ADA barriers)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (defendant asserting voluntary cessation bears heavy burden to show behavior won’t recur)
Davis v. Anthony, Inc., 886 F.3d 674 (district courts may consider facts outside the pleadings when defendant mounts a factual challenge to jurisdiction)
Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 903 F.3d 786 (removal does not allow federal courts to retain jurisdiction when it is lacking; remand required)
Dalton v. NPC Int’l, Inc., 932 F.3d 693 (knowledge of barriers alone does not confer standing)