Zach Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 953 F.3d 1059

Background

Plaintiff Zach Hillesheim is paralyzed and uses a wheelchair; he alleged he was deterred from visiting a Holiday Stationstores convenience store in 2016–2017 due to inaccessible parking.
The complaint identified three specific ADAAG violations: (1) access aisle slope exceeding 1:48 (ADAAG 502.4); (2) no accessible route between the store exit and accessible parking (ADAAG 206.2.1); and (3) a curb ramp that led directly to a parking space narrowing the accessible route (ADAAG 403.5.1).
Holiday remedied those three listed violations shortly after the suit was filed; Hillesheim then amended and his expert later measured allegedly noncompliant slopes on the flared sides of curb ramps.
Holiday’s expert could not replicate the noncompliant flared-side measurements; the district court granted summary judgment to Holiday as the remediations mooted the claims.
The district court also held nominal damages are not available under Title III of the ADA, so the nominal-damages request did not preserve a live controversy.
Hillesheim appealed; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness from post-suit remediation	Remediation did not moot the case because the flared sides remain noncompliant	Remediation cured the violations pleaded, so the case is moot	Case is moot as to the pleaded violations because Holiday remedied them
Fair‑notice under Rule 8 (flared sides)	The complaint’s demand for an accessible route and a string citation including ADAAG 406 put Holiday on notice of curb ramp/flare defects	Complaint never mentioned "flared sides" specifically, so Holiday lacked fair notice of that issue	Complaint did not fairly notify Holiday of flared‑side claims; flared‑side measurements were outside the pleadings
Genuine issue of material fact based on post‑suit measurements	Expert’s measurements of flared sides create a genuine factual dispute precluding summary judgment	Disputed measurements are irrelevant because the complaint did not plead those defects	No genuine dispute material to the pleaded claims; summary judgment proper
Availability of nominal damages under Title III	Nominal damages can be awarded and therefore preserve a live controversy	Title III grants only injunctive relief to private plaintiffs; nominal damages are not available	Nominal damages are not available under Title III; they do not prevent mootness

Key Cases Cited

Doe v. Nixon, 716 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 2013) (mootness/subject‑matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard)
McCarthy v. Ozark Sch. Dist., 359 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2004) (Article III case-or-controversy principles)
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2013) (cases become moot when issues are no longer live)
Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1982) (case-or-controversy principle)
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must give fair notice of the claim)
Davis v. Anthony, Inc., 886 F.3d 674 (8th Cir. 2018) (pleading specific ADAAG violations limits notice for other unpleaded violations)
Advantage Media, L.L.C. v. City of Eden Prairie, 456 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 2006) (nominal damages can supply standing in some contexts)
Wojewski v. Rapid City Reg’l Hosp., Inc., 450 F.3d 338 (8th Cir. 2006) (Title III provides only injunctive relief)
Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2013) (Title III injunctive‑relief‑only rule)
Powell v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 364 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2004) (private plaintiffs under Title III cannot recover damages)
Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2002) (damages are not recoverable under Title III)
Bayer v. Nieman Marcus Grp., Inc., 861 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2017) (Title I nominal damages discussion cited by plaintiff)
Shaver v. Indep. Stave Co., 350 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2003) (Title I nominal damages discussion cited by plaintiff)