1 F. Supp. 3d 570
S.D. Tex.2014Background
- Gilkerson, legally blind, sues Chasewood Bank under Title III of the ADA, THRC, TABA, and TAS over a Cypresswood Dr ATM lacking voice guidance and tactile controls.
- BAG (Blind Ambitions Group) joins as plaintiff; they seek injunctive relief and, under THRC, may seek damages, while ADA relief is injunctive only.
- Chasewood moves to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state claims across multiple complaints; BAG’s standing and its representational authority are contested.
- Court treats three Rule 12 motions together and focuses on standing, live controversy, and whether the ATM complies with ADA/THRC/TAS; it later orders BAG to prove corporate charter, discusses proximity/intent to return, and considers whether a live controversy exists.
- Court ultimately denies the three motions to dismiss, finds Gilkerson has standing via deterrent-effect theory for injunctive relief, grants representational standing to Blind Ambitions but finds BAG lacks organizational standing, and refers the case to Magistrate Judge for scheduling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing: Gilkerson’s ADA claim | Gilkerson has injury-in-fact and ongoing deterrence via noncompliance. | Gilkerson is a tester with no concrete plan to return; no ongoing injury. | Gilkerson has standing under deterrent-effect theory. |
| Representational standing of Blind Ambitions | BAG represents its members and its purpose aligns with accessibility rights. | BAG lacks identifiable harmed members and independent standing. | Blind Ambitions has representational standing. |
| Organizational standing of BAG | BAG’s resources redirected to enforcement reflect injury in fact. | Redirected resources alone do not show injury-in-fact or causation. | BAG lacks organizational standing. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | State claims arise from the same case/controversy under §1367. | If federal questions lack standing, decline supplemental jurisdiction. | Court retains and later weighs factors; at this stage, standing issues predominate but orders handling consistent with jurisdictional rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1982) (established standing via organizational/representational theory in housing context)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (injury-in-fact may be based on threatened future harm from pollution; standing principles carry to ADA context)
- Ass’n of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Fowler (ACORN), 178 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1999) (tested representational standing requirements for organizations)
- Betancourt v. Federated Department Stores, 732 F. Supp. 2d 693 (W.D. Tex. 2010) (deterred access as injury-in-fact; tester standing viable for Title III)