Lakhani v. IRIS M. MEDVIN INTER VIVOS DECLARATION OF TRUST dated January 3, 2013
1:24-cv-24992
| S.D. Fla. | Mar 12, 2025Background
- Amin Lakhani, a wheelchair user, filed a lawsuit under Title III of the ADA alleging discrimination at a shopping plaza or its retail store at 20285 Old Cutler Road, Cutler Bay, Florida, citing barriers in the parking area and access routes.
- Defendants include M.&T. Food Stores, Inc. (M&T), alleged operator of a retail store at the site, and several trustees, alleged owners/managers of the plaza.
- The Complaint seeks injunctive relief and attorney’s fees against both Defendants, but lacks clarity on the exact nature of the “subject premises” and defendant roles.
- M&T moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), claiming Plaintiff fails to state a claim, or alternatively for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).
- The Court found the Complaint confusing and internally inconsistent regarding the definition of the subject property and whether M&T controls the areas where ADA violations are alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Complaint defines the subject property adequately | Lakhani argues the Complaint clearly defines the property | M&T asserts the definition is inconsistent and unclear | Court finds the Complaint has internal inconsistencies |
| Whether M&T can be liable for ADA violations in common areas | Lakhani: Tenants can be liable under ADA if they control those areas | M&T: As a tenant, it does not control parking/common areas, not liable | Complaint fails to show M&T owns/controls relevant areas |
| Sufficiency of allegations around M&T's control/liability | Lakhani: Insufficient at motion stage to resolve this as an affirmative defense | M&T: Complaint lacks facts showing it owns/controls areas with violations | Court: No plausible claim M&T controls areas; fails 12(b)(6) test |
| Remedy/Next steps | N/A | N/A | Dismissed w/out prejudice, leave to amend or proceed vs. trustees |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requiring plausibility, not just possibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (mere possibility of unlawful conduct is insufficient at motion to dismiss)
- Rush v. Sport Chalet, Inc., 779 F.3d 973 (landlords and tenants may be jointly liable for ADA violations within tenant’s establishment)
- Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of Cal., LLC, 780 F.3d 1260 (commercial lessee not liable for architectural barriers outside its control)