575 F.Supp.3d 141
D.D.C.2021Background
- Plaintiff Byron Breeze, Jr. is a wheelchair user who attempted to enter Thunder Burger & Bar (operated by Kabila Inc.) in Georgetown but was blocked by a small step at the front entrance. He returned once more and again could not enter.
- Before filing suit, Breeze’s counsel hired an inspector whose report identified numerous interior ADA violations (e.g., inadequate accessible tables, restroom deficiencies) that Breeze had not personally encountered.
- Breeze filed an ADA (Title III) and DCHRA complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages; defendants later stipulated dismissal of a co-defendant.
- Kabila moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (mootness and standing) and for failure to state a claim; in reply Kabila asserted it already had a portable ramp and had installed a doorbell and accessibility sign.
- The district court denied the motion: it held the entrance claims were not moot, Breeze had standing as to both entrance and interior claims (including under the futile-gesture/deterrence theory), and the complaint stated a plausible ADA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of entrance claims | Breeze alleged a continuing barrier (step, no ramp) that prevented entry; Kabila’s later changes (sign, doorbell) do not address the alleged defects. | Kabila contended voluntary remediation (existing ramp, installed buzzer/signage) moots entrance claims. | Not moot: defendant failed to show permanent eradication; added sign/buzzer do not remedy alleged ramp/step defect and evidence of a ramp was uncorroborated. |
| Standing for entrance claims (injury-in-fact & redressability) | Breeze alleged past denial of access and a plausible intent to return if barriers removed. | Kabila argued Breeze’s allegations were conclusory, lacking dates and specific plans to return. | Breeze has standing: past injury alleged plus plausible intent to return (proximity, prior attempts, specific interest). Traceability/redressability satisfied. |
| Standing for interior claims (futile gesture / deterrence) | Breeze knew of interior violations pre-suit (inspection) and is deterred from returning unless they are fixed. | Kabila argued Breeze never encountered interior defects and therefore lacks particularized injury or proof defendant won’t remediate. | Standing found: a plaintiff may sue for known, unencountered violations if actual knowledge and deterrence (intent to return) are plausibly alleged. No need to prove defendant’s subjective intent not to comply. |
| Rule 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim | Complaint plus paragraph-by-paragraph list of specific ADA violations puts defendant on notice of claims. | Kabila said complaint lacked narrative detail (no visit date, sparse facts) and thus fails to plausibly allege denial of access. | Complaint survives: paragraph 22’s detailed catalogue plus allegations of denied access are sufficient at pleading stage to state a plausible ADA claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (describing ADA’s remedial purpose and public-accommodation mandate)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (Article III limits on jurisdiction)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing: injury-in-fact, traceability, redressability; requirements for imminent injury)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (concrete and particularized injury requirement)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary cessation and conditional statements bearing on standing)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (ADA standing: past injury plus intent to return; injunctive relief scope)
- Nanni v. Aberdeen Marketplace, Inc., 878 F.3d 447 (4th Cir. 2017) (wheelchair-user plaintiff’s past encounters with barriers suffice for injury-in-fact)
- Kreisler v. Second Ave. Diner Corp., 731 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2013) (plaintiff may challenge unencountered violations known pre-suit)
- Zukerman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 961 F.3d 431 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (mootness: live controversy requirement)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (limitations on standing for statutory injuries)