1:18-cv-12175
D. Mass.Aug 14, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Michael MacDonald, a long‑time wheelchair user with spina bifida, was unable to board the Cape Cod Coastal Excursion Train on August 8, 2018 due to alleged accessibility barriers in the rail cars.
- Defendants are Cape Cod Central Railroad, Inc., Cape Rail, Inc., and P. Chris Podgurski (president/director/owner of the railroads). Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA to require removal of architectural barriers.
- Complaint alleges ten specific barrier types (e.g., lack of ramps, inaccessible means of egress, inaccessible restrooms) and asserts remediation would be "readily achievable."
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing (Rule 12(b)(1)), failure to join necessary parties (Rule 12(b)(7)), and failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)); they also sought judgment on the pleadings (Rule 12(c)). Plaintiff moved to strike certain exhibits attached to defendants’ filings.
- Court granted plaintiff’s motion to strike in part (struck nonpublic or nonincorporated materials) and denied it in part (accepted certain official corporate records).
- The court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, holding plaintiff has standing, joinder issues do not require dismissal, and the complaint plausibly states a Title III ADA claim against the corporate defendants and Podgurski in his individual capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under ADA Title III | MacDonald alleged he was denied access, encountered barriers, and intends to return, giving injury, causation, redressability | Plaintiff did not actually board; complaint lacks specifics about encountered barriers; unlikely to return due to distance | Denied dismissal: allegations of denial of access and intent to return suffice for standing |
| Failure to join "necessary" parties (Iowa Pacific, Mass. DOT, property owner) | Not disputed that Iowa Pacific may own cars; plaintiff alleges violations by defendants controlling cars | Joinder of owner(s) required; absence is fatal to suit | Denied dismissal: joinder appropriate by motion; lack of joinder does not divest federal jurisdiction so case may proceed |
| Sufficiency of Title III claim (ownership/operation; individual liability) | Alleged defendants own/operate train; barriers are readily achievable to remove; Podgurski is alleged owner/operator involved in operations | Podgurski cannot be sued individually; Cape Rail is mere holding company; complaint fails to identify applicable ADA standards | Denied dismissal: factual allegations plausibly show defendants are public accommodations and Podgurski may be liable individually; factual disputes reserved for later stages |
| Reliance on extra‑pleading materials on motions | Plaintiff moved to strike exhibits not incorporated in complaint | Defendants relied on various documentary exhibits (some public records) to support joinder/ownership arguments | Partially granted: court struck several exhibits but accepted verifiable public corporate records; consideration limited to permissible materials |
Key Cases Cited
- Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.) (restricting consideration of extra‑pleading documents on Rule 12 motions)
- Merlonghi v. United States, 620 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.) (standard for factual crediting on Rule 12(b)(1))
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Sup. Ct.) (standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Disabled Am. for Equal Access v. Ferries del Caribe, Inc., 405 F.3d 60 (1st Cir.) (deterrence/imminent injury confers standing under ADA)
- Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods, Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.) (need not encounter every barrier to seek injunctive relief under ADA)
- Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889 (8th Cir.) (same principle as Pickern)
- Dudley v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 333 F.3d 299 (1st Cir.) (rejecting requirement that disabled plaintiffs endure repeated discrimination to obtain relief)
- Jimenez v. Rodriguez‑Pagan, 597 F.3d 18 (1st Cir.) (Rule 19 joinder framework explanation)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct.) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.) (application of Twombly plausibility standard)
- Guckenberger v. Boston Univ., 957 F. Supp. 306 (D. Mass.) (discussion of individual liability under Title III)