Scherr v. Marriott International, Inc., 703 F.3d 1069

Scherr, a 76-year-old Illinois resident with a walker, stayed at the Overland Park Courtyard Marriott in March 2006 and was injured when a spring-hinged bathroom door closer closed on her; the hotel had ADA-compliant rooms with spring hinges after renovations.
The hotel allegedly violated ADA accessibility standards in the Overland Park location by using spring-hinged door closers on ADA rooms’ bathroom doors.
Scherr filed a Title III ADA claim for injunctive relief against the Overland Park hotel and 56 other Courtyard properties; the district court held standing for the Overland Park location only.
The district court also held that the ADA claim was not time-barred and that the spring hinges complied with governing ADA standards.
Marriott moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing spring hinges complied with ADA regulations; the district court granted the motion; this appeal followed.
Scherr seeks injunctive relief and related relief, arguing ongoing ADA violations; Marriott argues no standing beyond the Overland Park location and that the claim is time-barred or meritsless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue all hotels vs. Overland Park location	Scherr intends to return to venues with similar violations.	Scherr lacks intent to return to other hotels.	Scherr has standing against Overland Park, not the other hotels.
Statute of limitations for injunctive relief under ADA Title III	Continued violations accrue as ongoing injury; relief sought is to stop ongoing harm.	ADA lacks a specific statute; limitations should bar claims not timely filed.	No bar; continuing/threatened violations allow injunctive relief.
Compliance of spring hinges with 2010 ADA Standards	Spring hinges must comply with all applicable provisions.	Spring hinges are regulated separately from door closers; comply with 2010 Spring Hinge provision.	Spring hinges comply with 2010 Spring Hinge standard; claim fails on the merits.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements; injury in fact emphasis)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (relevant to standing and injury in fact; some day intentions insufficient)
Camarillo v. Carrolls Corp., 518 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2008) (standing based on past injury and reasonable intent to return)
D’Lil v. Best Western Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (standing when plaintiff intends to return to accessible location)
Pickern v. Holiday Quality Food, Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2002) (continuing/threatened violations support injunctive relief)
Soignier v. American Board of Plastic Surgery, 92 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 1996) (state-law limitations applied to federal ADA claims)
In re Merchants Grain, Inc., 93 F.3d 1347 (7th Cir. 1996) (statutory construction principles applied to regulatory text)
Greenfield Mills, Inc. v. Macklin, 361 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2004) (interpretation of statutes and regulations; avoid redundancy)
In re Willet, 544 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2008) (appellate interpretation of regulatory provisions)
Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 (1965) (deference to agency interpretations when interpreting regulations)