Melanie Davis v. Morris-Walker, LTD, 922 F.3d 868

Plaintiff Melanie Davis, a wheelchair user, sued the restaurant owner and property owner under the ADA alleging inaccessible parking at Emma Krumbee’s in Belle Plaine, MN.
Complaint alleged the customer parking lot had ~130 spaces but only 3 accessible spaces (allegedly required 5), signage defects, a missing access aisle, and an inaccessible route to the restaurant.
Defendants changed the parking lot; district court found two separate facilities existed (restaurant lot with 88 spaces; overflow lot with 43) and that the restaurant lot now had four accessible spaces required for 76–100 spaces.
District court treated defendants’ factual jurisdictional challenge as permitting resolution of disputed facts, dismissed the ADA claim as moot, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
Davis moved to amend to add interior building ADA claims; district court denied leave to amend as futile because Davis never entered the restaurant and lacked standing to sue for interior violations.
Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction but modified the judgment to dismiss ADA claims without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of ADA claim after physical remediation	Repairs did not fully cure violations; still only four accessible spaces in restaurant lot and overflow lot needed two accessible spaces	Permanent physical changes remedied plaintiff’s requested relief for the restaurant lot, mooting that claim	Dismissed as moot for restaurant lot; no live claim there because required spaces provided
Standing to challenge overflow lot	Plaintiff contends ADA requires accessible spaces in overflow lot too	Plaintiff never visited overflow lot; complaint alleges injuries only in restaurant lot so no injury in fact as to overflow lot	No standing for overflow lot; claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether district court could resolve factual attack on jurisdiction	Plaintiff argued court improperly resolved merits when deciding number of spaces/facilities	Defendants raised a factual jurisdictional attack permitting the court to resolve contested facts	Court properly resolved factual disputes under Carlsen and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Leave to amend to add interior building violations	Plaintiff sought to add interior violations based on knowledge and intent to return	Plaintiff never encountered alleged interior violations; cannot expand standing from lot violations to unencountered interior violations	Denial of leave to amend not an abuse of discretion; amendment would be futile

Carlsen v. GameStop, Inc., 833 F.3d 903 (8th Cir.) (district court may resolve factual attacks on subject-matter jurisdiction)
Branson Label, Inc. v. City of Branson, 793 F.3d 910 (8th Cir.) (standards of review for legal/factual findings on appeal)
Enervations, Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 380 F.3d 1066 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing denial of leave to amend)
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (U.S.) (voluntary cessation mootness: defendant must show wrongful behavior cannot reasonably be expected to recur)
Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 903 F.3d 786 (8th Cir.) (permanent physical improvements can moot ADA claims)
Davis v. Anthony, Inc., 886 F.3d 674 (8th Cir.) (standing for ADA claims limited to violations the plaintiff actually encountered)
Hickman v. Missouri, 144 F.3d 1141 (8th Cir.) (physical remediation can eliminate case or controversy)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S.) (Article III standing requirements)
Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889 (8th Cir.) (limitations on extending standing from encountered violations to other violations in same facility)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S.) (standards for granting leave to amend)
County of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460 (8th Cir.) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice)