Zach Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 903 F.3d 786

Background

Plaintiff Zach Hillesheim, a wheelchair user, sued Holiday Stationstores after finding the access aisle beside a designated handicap parking space sloped, alleging violations of the ADA and Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
Hillesheim filed in state court seeking injunctive relief under the ADA and both injunctive relief and money damages under the MHRA; Holiday removed the case to federal court.
After suit, Holiday temporarily leveled and then fully renovated the parking lot to create a flat access aisle; Holiday disclosed this and submitted an affidavit and photos with its summary-judgment motion.
The district court granted summary judgment: it dismissed the ADA claim as moot (injunctive relief unnecessary) and applied a Minnesota statutory affirmative defense to dismiss the MHRA claims; it also denied Hillesheim’s motion to strike Holiday’s late-disclosed affidavit.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the discovery ruling as harmless but concluded the federal court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the removed ADA claim and the corresponding MHRA injunction claim and thus vacated and remanded; it held the MHRA damages claim remained justiciable in federal court but left open whether the district court should retain supplemental jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Holiday’s post-suit renovation rendered Hillesheim’s ADA injunctive claim moot	The access aisle might still be noncompliant or the violation could recur; thus the injunction request is live	Holiday permanently fixed the defect (structural renovation), so injunctive relief is unnecessary	The ADA injunctive claim is moot; evidence shows structural remediation that prevents recurrence
Whether the MHRA injunctive claim is moot or should be dismissed in federal court	The MHRA injunction mirrors the ADA injunction and is thus moot	Holiday argues the injunction claim is moot and asserted an MHRA affirmative defense	The MHRA injunction claim is moot and, because it was removed, must be remanded to state court rather than dismissed by the federal court
Whether the district court erred in denying Hillesheim’s motion to strike Holiday’s late-disclosed affidavit and photos	Late disclosure of Baregi’s affidavit/photos prejudiced Hillesheim’s ability to oppose mootness and warranted striking the evidence	The late disclosure was harmless; Hillesheim had or should have had notice of renovations and presented similar photos earlier	Denial of the motion to strike was not an abuse of discretion; the nondisclosure was harmless
Whether the MHRA damages claim remains justiciable in federal court and whether the district court should retain supplemental jurisdiction	Hillesheim seeks money damages for past discrimination; this relief remains live regardless of remediation	Holiday argued various defenses (including lack of pre-suit notice) and that other claims should be dismissed	MHRA damages claim is not moot and the federal court has jurisdiction; but district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction now that federal claims will be remanded, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)

Key Cases Cited

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (voluntary cessation mootness standard)
McCarthy v. Ozark Sch. Dist., 359 F.3d 1029 (changed circumstances that provide requested relief render claim moot)
Hickman v. Missouri, 144 F.3d 1141 (structural remediation can make recurrence unlikely and moot claims)
Wallace v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 747 F.3d 1025 (removed federal claims that become nonjusticiable must be remanded)
Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids, 840 F.3d 987 (remand analysis is claim-by-claim)
Firefighters’ Inst. for Racial Equality v. City of St. Louis, 220 F.3d 898 (abuse-of-discretion standard for discovery sanctions)
Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (money damages for past harm remain live)
Deposit Guaranty Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (party who obtains full relief generally cannot cross-appeal)