Scott Smith v. Golden China of Red Wing, Inc., 987 F.3d 1205

Plaintiff Scott Smith, who uses a wheelchair due to arthrogryposis, drove with an associate to Red Wing and Winona on May 25, 2017 to "test" businesses for ADA compliance; he observed alleged barriers at Golden China from inside the vehicle and did not patronize the restaurant.
Smith sued Golden China under the ADA and Minnesota Human Rights Act; the district court dismissed the MHRA claim and found most alleged violations moot, leaving a parking-lot ramp issue.
At summary judgment the district court concluded Smith had standing (based on testimony about returning) but applied the ADA’s "readily achievable" standard and ruled in Golden China’s favor, finding remediation would impose severe financial strain.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit sua sponte reviewed Article III standing, sought supplemental briefing in light of a near-identical prior case (Bradley Pizza) involving Smith, and examined Smith’s deposition and later contradictory declaration.
The court held Smith lacked the requisite imminent intent to return (his testimony showed only speculative "some day" intent and a conclusory post-deposition affidavit was insufficient), vacated the district court’s judgment, and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing — injury in fact and imminent intent to return	Smith observed barriers and testified he would return if barriers were removed (or at counsel's direction)	Smith never patronized Golden China, observed barriers from a car, and had no specific plans or imminent intent to return	Smith lacked standing: his intent was speculative "some day," and a self-serving post-deposition declaration could not create standing at summary judgment
Merits standard for relief — "readily achievable" vs "maximum extent feasible"	Smith argued defendant should meet the higher "maximum extent feasible" standard (limiting consideration of costs)	Golden China argued "readily achievable" applied and remediation would impose undue financial burden	Court did not reach merits: because Smith lacks standing, the merits inquiry (and district court's application of the standard) was vacated and dismissal ordered

Pucket v. Hot Springs Sch. Dist. No. 23-2, 526 F.3d 1151 (8th Cir. 2008) (Article III case-or-controversy and standing principles)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (standing is an essential component of the case-or-controversy requirement)
Bernbeck v. Gale, 829 F.3d 643 (8th Cir. 2016) (standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite to be considered sua sponte)
Dalton v. JJSC Props., LLC, 967 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2020) (ADA standing requires knowledge of barriers and imminent intent to visit)
Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 900 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2018) (plaintiff must support standing with proper evidence at summary judgment)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injury or threat must be real and immediate)
Dalton v. NPC Int’l, Inc., 932 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 2019) (no requirement to make a futile gesture, but need imminent intent)
Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2000) ("some day" intent insufficient for standing)
Keiran v. Home Cap., Inc., 858 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 2017) (self-serving affidavits cannot defeat summary judgment on jurisdictional facts)