NDN Collective v. Retsel Corporation, 784 F.Supp.3d 1221

Plaintiffs, all Native American individuals and some employees of NDN Collective (a nonprofit), attempted to rent hotel rooms at the Grand Gateway Hotel in Rapid City, SD in March 2022, following public social media posts by owner Connie Uhre stating a policy to deny service to Native Americans.
Plaintiffs were either denied rooms (with the cited pretext of a local ID policy) or forcibly ejected from the hotel's lobby after requesting rooms, with the stated refusal and ejection alleged to be based on racial discrimination.
Plaintiffs alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (right to contract free from racial discrimination), seeking damages for humiliation, emotional distress, and loss of rights. They also sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
Defendants challenged standing, arguing (1) no concrete injury; (2) plaintiffs were mere "testers" seeking only to generate litigation; (3) some plaintiffs acted solely as NDN's representatives; and (4) claims for equitable relief were moot due to a DOJ consent decree in a related case.
The Court considered detailed deposition and interrogatory evidence about each plaintiff’s motivation, intended use of the rooms, and the context of the encounters.
This memorandum resolves summary judgment motions on standing and the availability of injunctive and declaratory relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III Standing—Concrete Injury	Direct, face-to-face discrimination & emotional harm (public encounter); § 1981 infringement.	No injury in fact; only mild/hypothetical emotional harm; analogous to insufficient FDCPA claims.	Sufficient injury in fact for all but Eagle; not abstract; includes humiliation, distress.
Standing as "Testers"	Plaintiffs genuinely attempted to contract and intended to use rooms; responded to explicit discriminatory announcement, not random lawsuit generation.	Plaintiffs acted as testers (lacked standing); not truly seeking to contract, just to generate lawsuits.	Plaintiffs are not testers in the sense that would defeat standing; attempt was real and motivated by announced exclusion.
Standing as Individual vs. Organizational Agents	Plaintiffs acted on individual initiative, motivated by personal harm as Native Americans, not solely on behalf of NDN.	Plaintiffs acted only as NDN representatives, so only NDN has standing.	All but Eagle primarily acted as individuals; Eagle's claim dismissed for lack of individual standing.
Declaratory & Injunctive Relief	Relief still necessary due to ongoing harm, exclusion, and lack of assurance of nondiscrimination.	Claims moot because of DOJ consent decree and no ongoing/future harm shown.	Claims for declaratory and injunctive relief dismissed as moot, given the consent decree and lack of imminent future harm.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (basic test for Article III standing: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (clarifies required "concrete" harm for Article III standing; discriminatory treatment recognized as concrete)
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (testers can have standing if specific injury/false information given)
Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (only parties to a contract may maintain § 1981 claims; clarifies organizational standing)
Heckler v. Matthews, 465 U.S. 728 (recognizes stigmatic injury from discriminatory treatment)
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (limits on stigmatic injury and standing)