Midwest Disability Initiative v. JANS Enterprises, Inc., 929 F.3d 603

Background

MDI, a Minnesota disability-rights nonprofit, and member Paul Testa sued Nico’s Taco & Tequila Bar (Nico’s) under ADA Title III in March 2017 alleging multiple structural access barriers; that case (MDI–Testa) was dismissed with prejudice on the merits by stipulation in August 2017.
Ten days after dismissal, MDI and another member, Gerald Doyen, filed a new ADA Title III suit against the same defendants alleging largely the same nine barrier violations; seven allegations were functionally identical to those in MDI–Testa and two were described as additional barriers.
Defendants moved to dismiss the MDI–Doyen complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) on res judicata grounds, submitting public judicial records from MDI–Testa and a summary of prior MDI/Doyen filings.
The district court considered only the complaint and defendants’ public records and granted the motion, concluding the MDI–Doyen claims were precluded by the final judgment in MDI–Testa because MDI had acted in a representative capacity and the claims arose from the same operative facts.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed: (1) MDI had represented its members’ interests in MDI–Testa and thus Doyen was bound by that judgment (adequate representation/privity), and (2) the second suit arose from the same nucleus of operative facts as the first (same-claim res judicata).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a later ADA Title III suit by an association member is precluded by a prior dismissal with prejudice of an associational suit	Doyen: not precluded because he was not a party, visited after the first suit, and identified additional barriers	Nico’s: precluded because MDI represented its members in the first suit and sought relief for all barriers, so the judgment binds members	Held: Precluded; MDI adequately represented members and the judgment barred successive claims
Whether MDI acted in a representative capacity such that nonparty members are in privity	Doyen: MDI did not represent him specifically; Testa did not pursue the same structural claims	Nico’s: MDI’s complaint alleged representational standing and remedies for "others," aligning MDI’s interests with members	Held: MDI acted as a representative; interests aligned and members had constructive notice
Whether the claims in MDI–Doyen arise from the same claims/operative facts as MDI–Testa	Doyen: his encounter occurred after the first suit and included two additional barriers, so different claims	Nico’s: the Testa complaint sought remedy of all barriers (not just listed ones), covering the same series of connected transactions	Held: Same-claim; the complaints sought broadly the same injunctive relief for the same access problems
Whether the district court erred by considering judicial records outside the complaint without converting to summary judgment	Plaintiffs: district court should have treated the motion as summary judgment if considering outside materials (and could have submitted declarations)	Nico’s: public judicial records are appropriate to consider on a Rule 12(b)(6) res judicata defense	Held: No error; court properly relied on public judicial records and did not need to convert to summary judgment

Key Cases Cited

Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 533 F.3d 634 (8th Cir. 2008) (defining elements for claim preclusion and addressing representation/privity)
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Lobrano, 695 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2012) (affirmative defense of res judicata may justify Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal when apparent from the complaint)
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (limits on nonparty preclusion and adequate-representation exception)
Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793 (1996) (discussing circumstances where representation can bind nonparties)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 F.3d 167 (Note: Opinion cited Friends of the Earth for associational standing principles) (U.S. Supreme Court decision on standing for associations)
Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2000) (standing standard for ADA Title III injunctive relief)
Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 1999) (public judicial records may be considered on Rule 12(b)(6) res judicata motions)
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2003) (associational preclusion and the problem of successive suits by an association)