Melanie Davis v. Anthony, Inc.
886 F.3d 674
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Melanie Davis, who uses a wheelchair, sued Anthony, Inc. under Title III of the ADA alleging inaccessible features at an Omaha steakhouse and its parking lot (parking access aisles, number of accessible spaces, and missing signage).
- Complaint cited ADAAG provisions 208.2, 216.5, 502.2, and 502.6; did not allege a slope (ADAAG 502.4) violation.
- Anthony moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) as moot, submitting affidavits, photos, and invoices showing remediation of the cited barriers; the district court dismissed the case as moot.
- Davis argued remediation evidence was untimely (first produced in the reply) and sought jurisdictional discovery to inspect for other, unalleged interior violations; she relied on Steger and Ninth Circuit precedent for broader discovery/standing.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed mootness de novo, treated Anthony’s motion as a factual attack on jurisdiction, upheld district court discretion to consider the remediation evidence, and affirmed dismissal as moot for the claims pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness after remediation | Davis: remediation may be incomplete (slope not shown) and complaint still alleges barriers | Anthony: submitted evidence showing remediation of all violations pleaded; mootness follows | Held: Case moot as pleaded—complaint did not allege slope (502.4); remediation demonstrated for pleaded violations |
| Timeliness / Waiver of evidence in reply | Davis: remediation evidence raised first in reply should be waived | Anthony: permitted to submit jurisdictional evidence; district court may consider it | Held: District court did not abuse discretion in considering reply evidence on jurisdictional factual attack |
| Entitlement to jurisdictional discovery / onsite inspection | Davis: Steger and Doran doctrines support discovery to identify other ADA violations affecting her disability | Anthony: plaintiff lacks standing for unencountered interior violations; discovery not warranted | Held: Discovery request denied—Davis lacked standing to expand claims from parking to interior under Eighth Circuit precedent; Johnson standard for Rule 56(d) not satisfied |
| Scope of standing from encountered barrier | Davis: encountering an inaccessible parking space gives standing to seek relief for related interior violations | Anthony: standing limited to the specific encountered violations; parking is not a "building" under Steger | Held: Majority: Steger limited to plaintiffs who entered the building; parking-space encounter did not confer standing to sue for unencountered interior violations (concurrence disagreed on standing but concurred in affirmance on mootness) |
Key Cases Cited
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (defendant’s voluntary cessation must make recurrence "absolutely clear" to moot a case)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (voluntary cessation mootness burden on defendant)
- Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889 (8th Cir.) (standing to seek injunctive relief for unencountered violations when plaintiff encountered a violation inside the building)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (injury-in-fact is required for Article III standing)
- Johnson v. United States, 534 F.3d 958 (8th Cir.) (requirements for Rule 56(d) affidavits and district court discretion on jurisdictional discovery)