323 F. Supp. 3d 216
D.D.C.2018Background
- Plaintiff Raoul Marradi, a wheelchair user who alleges ADA-defined disabilities, visited a 7-Eleven at 29 Bridge Street, Dedham and identified at least ten architectural barriers preventing access.
- Marradi sues under Title III of the ADA against Karoska Landing, Inc. (operator) and 27 Bridge Street, LLC (owner).
- He alleges both personal and "tester" visits and pleads an intent to return to verify compliance, claiming continuing deterrence and imminent harm.
- Defendant 27 Bridge Street, LLC moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (no standing) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The complaint alleges each barrier’s removal is "readily achievable," and lists barriers including inaccessible parking, no ramp, lack of accessible route, and obstructed restrooms.
- The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for the motion-to-dismiss posture and denied the defendant’s motion in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Article III injury) | Marradi alleges actual deterrence and a concrete intent to return (personal and tester visits), so he faces imminent harm. | Marradi lacks a plausible threat of future harm; factors like proximity, past patronage, specificity of plans, and serial litigation undermine standing. | Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient intent to return and deterrence; standing exists; 12(b)(1) denied. |
| Ability to plead Title III claim (readily achievable) | Complaint alleges removal of each listed barrier is readily achievable without much difficulty or expense. | Alleged barriers may not plausibly be removable; complaint fails to show removal is readily achievable. | At pleading stage, allegations that removal is readily achievable are plausible; 12(b)(6) denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Disabled Americans for Equal Access, Inc. v. Ferries del Caribe, Inc., 405 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2005) (ADA testers and imminent-harm standing)
- Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp., 823 F.3d 724 (1st Cir. 2016) (pleading standard for standing aligns with claim-pleading standard)