Suárez-Torres v. Panaderia Y Reposteria España, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 February 2021
• Docket Number: 18-1684,Nos. 18-1618,s. 18-1618
• Citation: 988 F.3d 542
• Parties: Maria SUÁREZ-TORRES and Norberto Medina-Rodriguez, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. PANADERIA Y REPOSTERIA ESPAÑA, INC., d/b/a Panaderia España and Inmobiliaria Isla Verde, Inc., Defendants, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

988 F.3d 542

Maria SUÁREZ-TORRES and Norberto Medina-Rodriguez, Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.PANADERIA Y REPOSTERIA ESPAÑA, INC., d/b/a Panaderia España and Inmobiliaria Isla Verde, Inc., Defendants, Appellees.

Nos. 18-1618

18-1684

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

February 17, 2021

Jose Carlos Velez Colon, Bayamon, PR, for appellants, with whom Law Offices of Velez-Colon was on brief.

José Enrico Valenzuela-Alvarado, San Juan, PR, for appellees, with whom Valenzuela-Alvarado, LLC was on brief.

Before Barron, Lipez, and Dyk,^* Circuit Judges.

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.

This appeal arises from a lawsuit brought by appellants Maria Suárez-Torres and Norberto Medina-Rodriguez against appellees Panaderia y Reposteria España, Inc., a bakery in Carolina, Puerto Rico, and Inmobiliaria Isla Verde, Inc. (collectively, "Panaderia España")¹ under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA")² and the Puerto Rico Civil Rights Act.³ Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez appeal the district court's post-judgment denial of their motion for attorney's fees and motion to reopen. After careful review, we affirm.

I.

Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez are described in the complaint as "testers" who visit local places of public accommodation in Puerto Rico primarily to assess and challenge violations of the ADA. Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez allege that they each visited Panaderia España on separate occasions -- Medina-Rodriguez in early 2015 and Suárez-Torres in early 2016 -- and encountered barriers to their equal access and full enjoyment of appellees’ facilities, services, goods, and amenities. In April 2016, Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez filed suit against Panaderia España, alleging that the bakery had violated the ADA by failing to remedy architectural barriers -- specifically, inadequate accessible parking, lack of accessible seating and service counters, and structural deficiencies in the accessible restroom -- and by maintaining a discriminatory policy of keeping the accessible restroom, but not other restrooms, locked, which forced disabled individuals to ask for a key to use the restroom. Shortly thereafter, Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez sent a letter to Panaderia España requesting that all ADA violations be remedied and demanding a settlement of $4,500.

In January 2017, an expert retained by Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez conducted an inspection of the bakery and drafted a report, which was provided to Panaderia España. At a status conference shortly after the inspection, the district court granted Panaderia España's request to retain its own expert to conduct a site inspection within 30 days. The court also set a deadline for the parties to file simultaneous motions for summary judgment.

In April 2017, Panaderia España filed a motion for summary judgment, challenging appellants’ standing as testers and arguing that appellants failed to show an injury-in-fact because they did not prove they actually visited the bakery. It also argued that appellants’ claims were moot because the bakery had renovated its premises to comply with ADA standards. In a sworn statement, the owner of the bakery attested to the renovations, stated that he had hired an expert to inspect whether the renovations brought the property into compliance with the ADA, and explained that the expert found additional "situations" involving ADA noncompliance that would "be fully corrected soon." Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez filed an opposition to Panaderia España's motion for summary judgment, but it was stricken as untimely and noncompliant with the federal rules.

The district court denied Panaderia España's summary judgment motion in an order dated January 23, 2018. The court first rejected Panaderia España's argument that Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez lacked standing because of their status as testers. The court concluded that " ‘tester’ motive does not defeat standing," and may even make it more likely that plaintiffs would return to the bakery, even if only to ensure ADA compliance. The court also declined to afford any weight to Panaderia España's contention that plaintiffs were lying about whether they visited the bakery.

Then, turning to Panaderia España's claim that the business was renovated to comply with ADA standards and that any remaining violations would be "fully corrected soon," the court explained that,

the motion for summary judgment fails to set forth evidence of the completion of these changes or adjustments to the design of the locale, which would thereby make the plaintiffs’ ADA claims moot at this stage. Because defendants do not purport to have addressed the alleged ADA violations, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE . Defendants are hereby ordered to submit evidence of the completion of the changes to the design of the business establishment that would make it fully compliant with all applicable standards and guidelines under [the] ADA.

The district court convened a status conference two days later. The minute entry for that conference reads, in its entirety:

[Counsel for] defendants informed [the court] that completion of the changes to be made at Panaderia y Reposteria España to comply with [the] ADA shall be completed within 90 days. Hence, the defendants were granted the request [for 90 days to make the identified changes] and shall file a motion by not later than April 27, 2018 and shall submit the pertinent documents in compliance as to the changes made at the establishment under [the] ADA. No objection by counsel for plaintiffs.

Less than two weeks after that status conference -- well before the ninety-day deadline for Panaderia España to complete and submit evidence of the outstanding architectural renovations -- Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez filed a motion to dismiss their claims brought under the Puerto Rico Civil Rights Act and for final judgment on their ADA claims "on account that [they] obtained the requested relief under federal law and [we]re fully satisfied with the result of th[e] civil action." Appellants specifically noted that judgment in their favor was appropriate because Panaderia España had agreed to complete the "required changes or adjustments to the design of the locale" within 90 days.

In an electronic docket order, the district court "noted" plaintiffs’ motion for judgment, indicated that it would "dismiss[ ] [the] state law claims with prejudice and ADA claims without prejudice," and stated that the plaintiffs "may file a motion to reopen [the] case if the defendants fail to comply with the deadlines established in the most recent status conference." The court entered a judgment of dismissal in accordance with that docket order the same day.

Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez then moved for attorney's fees. They argued that they were "prevailing parties" under the ADA's fee-shifting provision, 42 U.S.C. § 12205, because Panaderia España admitted noncompliance with the ADA and the district court had ordered it to submit evidence of compliance. Panaderia España opposed, arguing that plaintiffs failed to litigate the case and their attorney's ethically suspect conduct precluded a fee award.

The district court denied the motion, remarking that it "certainly did not address the merits of the plaintiffs’ ADA claim" and "did not place itself in a position to enforce the terms of any settlement agreement or to compel the defendant to make any alterations to its place of business." To the contrary, the court explained, it had merely "noted the plaintiffs’ satisfaction with the defendants’ voluntary modifications to the building," proceeded to enter judgment "as requested," and notified plaintiffs of their ability to request that the case be reopened if the agreed-upon changes were not completed in a timely manner.

Panaderia España secured an extension of time to submit evidence of the completed alterations. Two weeks after the new deadline, it filed a "Motion in Compliance with Order" accompanied by an expert report. The report detailed the many architectural changes that Panaderia España had made and concluded that the premises were,

in compliance with the [ADA] as they relate to persons with disabilities parking at designated accessible spaces, entering the facilities, and being able to reach and make use of the accessible sales and service counter, tables and restroom.

In response, Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez moved to reopen the case. They argued that the expert report showed that Panaderia España was still violating the ADA because: (1) a newly designed accessible parking space encroached on a pedestrian walkway, (2) certain pipes in the accessible restroom were not properly insulated or covered, and (3) Panaderia España continued to maintain its discriminatory policy of locking the accessible restroom.

The district court denied the motion to reopen in a brief electronic docket order:

[The motion to reopen] stems from Panaderia [España's] motion in compliance (Docket No. 93) that it has addressed any and all alleged and supposed structural and design deficiencies raised in the ADA complaint in regards to the establishment's parking, access aisles, tables, service counters and restrooms. Therefore, the court finds that the new and different allegations from those in the claim are not the subject or object of this suit. Accordingly, the court denies the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case.

Suárez-Torres and Medina-Rodriguez timely appealed both the district court's order denying their request for attorney's fees and its order denying their motion to reopen.

II.

A. Standing

Panaderia España argues that appellants are not entitled to collect fees because they lacked standing to pursue their ADA claims in the first instance. Specifically, Panaderia España contends that appellants never visited the bakery themselves and, even if they did, they were not injured because the only purpose of their visit was to test ADA compliance. Panaderia España raised those...