648 F. App'x 807
11th Cir.2016Background
- Gary Gaylor, a person with a disability under the ADA, visited North Springs Associates’ shopping center in Feb. 2013 and identified 74 architectural barriers limiting access.
- Gaylor had a history of filing ADA suits and the center was largely vacant and ~70 miles from his home; North Springs argued he was an ADA “tester.”
- Gaylor submitted an affidavit describing a past visit (purchased an item at Big Lots) and stating he planned to return repeatedly (4–5 times/year) when visiting doctors and family nearby.
- District court denied North Springs’ motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, later granted summary judgment for Gaylor on 29 barriers and entered an injunction; 45 claims remained.
- Gaylor then dismissed the remaining claims; the court entered final judgment and awarded partial attorney’s fees. North Springs appealed.
- While appeal pending, Gaylor died; his widow (executor) substituted. The appeal raised standing and whether Gaylor’s death mooted the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over standing and injunction orders | N/A (appellee) — court may review orders merged in final judgment | North Springs argued appeal of final judgment permits review of earlier orders; Mrs. Gaylor argued notice didn’t identify standing/injunction orders so appeal is jurisdictionally deficient | Court has jurisdiction: notice of appeal from final judgment allows review of interlocutory orders that merged into final judgment |
| Timeliness of appeal of injunction | N/A | Mrs. Gaylor argued 30-day clock for appealing injunction ran from injunction date, not final judgment, making appeal untimely | Appeal timely: appeal from final judgment filed within 30 days suffices; interlocutory orders merge into final judgment for appeal timing |
| Mootness of injunction after plaintiff's death | Gaylor (now estate) continued claim for injunctive relief; argued prevailing party status for fees remains | North Springs argued death mooted injunction and case should be dismissed | Injunctive relief claim became moot upon Gaylor’s death; injunction VACATED as moot; attorney‑fee prevailing‑party status unaffected |
| Article III standing of an ADA tester | Gaylor asserted his affidavit showed concrete, imminent likelihood of future injury (planned returns, proximity to doctors) | North Springs argued Gaylor was only a tester with no real intention to return, so no likelihood of future injury, no standing | Court found Houston v. Marod controlling and held Gaylor had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2013) (ADA‑tester standing analysis controlling)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (elements of Article III injury‑in‑fact)
- Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1988) (injunctive claims of a sole plaintiff moot after death)
- Hunter v. Dep’t of Air Force Agency, 846 F.2d 1314 (11th Cir. 1988) (appeal timing/interlocutory orders merge into final judgment)
- Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2010) (prevailing‑party status for attorney’s fees unaffected by plaintiff’s death)