Sawczyn v. BMO Harris Bank National Ass'n, 8 F. Supp. 3d 1108

Plaintiff Steve Sawczyn, a legally blind individual, alleges BMO Harris Bank ATMs violated Title III of the ADA and the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design by lacking voice guidance, proper tactile symbols, Braille, and functioning headphone jacks.
Alleged encounters occurred after the March 15, 2012 compliance deadline at two Twin Cities ATMs ~3.8 and ~11.5 miles from his home; he claims these are within his regular travel zone.
Sawczyn sued seeking injunctive relief to make the ATMs independently usable and alleges he will return to test compliance and to promote accessibility.
BMO moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing Sawczyn lacks standing (no real intent to return) and the case is moot because BMO corrected the ATMs.
The court considered limited extrinsic evidence (declarations) but treated Sawczyn’s allegations as true where not contradicted and denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to seek injunctive relief	Sawczyn visited the ATMs, they are near his regular travel area, and he intends to return to identify accessible options and advance accessibility	No concrete intent to return; isolated past visits insufficient	Court: standing satisfied—proximity and travel patterns make future visits plausible; need not revisit to create standing
Mootness (voluntary cessation)	Relief still needed because violations persist and systemic compliance is not assured	BMO corrected headphone jacks and allegedly fixed issues; case therefore moot	Court: denial — BMO failed its heavy burden to show it is "absolutely clear" violations could not recur; record ambiguous on full compliance and maintenance procedures

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (plaintiff must show concrete, particularized, and imminent injury for standing)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (injunctive relief requires real and immediate threat of future injury)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (defendant’s voluntary cessation does not automatically moot case; heavy burden to show it cannot recur)
Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724 (on Rule 12(b)(1) courts may consider matters outside pleadings)
Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods, Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (plaintiff need not make futile attempts to use noncompliant accommodation for standing)
Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889 (standing assessed at time of filing)
U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (standing must persist throughout litigation; mootness doctrine explained)
Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173 (defendant’s admission of liability relevant to mootness)