775 F.Supp.3d 1024
N.D. Ind.2025Background
- Plaintiff Derek Mortland, who uses a wheelchair, twice stayed at Defendant IK Onkar Hospitality LLC's Comfort Suites in Auburn, Indiana, alleging ADA violations due to architectural barriers that made the property inaccessible and allegedly caused him physical injury.
- Plaintiff sought injunctive relief to require ADA compliance, damages for physical and emotional injuries, and claimed he would return if the hotel became accessible.
- Defendant moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of Article III standing and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Mortland was acting as an ADA "tester" rather than a bona fide patron.
- The Amended Complaint included more detail: a second hotel stay, 111 encountered violations, his travel habits, and specific planned returns, but Defendant highlighted Mortland's pattern of filing similar lawsuits as evidence of tester status.
- The Court took judicial notice of Mortland’s multiple similar suits and his statements in other cases that he was acting as a tester, raising doubts about the concreteness of his claimed injuries and intent to return.
- The Court ultimately dismissed the case, finding Plaintiff lacked standing and also failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Injury-in-fact) | Suffered physical injury due to barriers; intent to return for business and leisure | Plaintiff is a tester; injuries/concrete plans insufficient; pattern of lawsuits undermines standing | Plaintiff lacks standing—injuries not sufficiently concrete or particularized; intent to return not specific |
| Tester Status | Not a tester; two legitimate stays with intent to return | Is a tester, evidenced by filings and statements in other cases | Tester status does not alone defeat standing, but undermined credibility in this case |
| Sufficiency of Allegations (12(b)(6)) | Barriers caused physical injury and other harm | No specific harm linked to ADA violations; injuries conclusory | Claims fail—no adequate factual connection between violations and injuries |
| Relevance of Other Filings | Other filings irrelevant; case should be judged by complaint alone | Judicial notice of other complaints/statements shows tester conduct | Court may consider other filings relevant to standing issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Carello v. Aurora Policemen Credit Union, 930 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2019) (tester status does not alone preclude standing, but does not automatically confer it, either)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (tester plaintiffs can have standing if Article III requirements are otherwise met)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (sets requirements for standing: injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (articulates standard for injury-in-fact in Article III standing)
- Scherr v. Marriott Int’l Inc., 703 F.3d 1069 (7th Cir. 2013) (standing for ADA plaintiff requires concrete injury and specific intent to return)