Bailey v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the La. Stadium & Exposition Dist.

• Decision Date: 04 September 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action Case No. 18-5888
• Citation: 484 F.Supp.3d 346
• Parties: Shelby BAILEY v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

484 F.Supp.3d 346

Shelby BAILEY

v.BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT, et al.

Civil Action Case No. 18-5888

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed September 4, 2020

Andrew David Bizer, Emily A. Westermeier, Garret S. DeReus, Bizer & DeReus, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Shelby Bailey.

H. Michael Bush, Edward Nicholas George, Chaffe McCall LLP, Erin Bridget Wheeler, Louisiana Department of Justice, New Orleans, LA, for Board of Commissioners of the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District, Kyle France.

Loretta G. Mince, Michael Ryan Dodson, Fishman Haygood, LLP, Erin Bridget Wheeler, Louisiana Department of Justice, New Orleans, LA, Christopher Neal Walters, Louisiana Department of Justice, Baton Rouge, LA, for SMG.

SECTION: "G"(2)

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, CHIEF JUDGE

This matter came before this Court for trial without a jury on March 2, 2020 through March 3, 2020. The Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which confers on the federal district courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the Superdome is located in this district. The substantive law applicable to this case is the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. , and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.

The Court has carefully considered the testimony of all of the witnesses and the exhibits entered into evidence during the trial, as well as the record. After reviewing all of the evidence and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 52(a), the Court issues the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. To the extent that any finding of fact may be construed as a conclusion of law, the Court hereby adopts it as such and to the extent that any conclusion of law constitutes a finding of fact, the Court hereby adopts it as such.

For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Plaintiff Shelby Bailey has failed to carry his burden of proving that Defendants SMG and Kyle France, in his official capacity, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or the Rehabilitation Act. The Court is mindful that this result leaves Plaintiff with "limited seating choices ... in less than ideal locations."¹ However, the dictates of the ADA do not require otherwise. Thus, the Court's decision is compelled by the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, in particular, the structural limitations of the stadium's design, existing ADA regulations and guidelines, and case law.²

I. Background

A. Factual Background

On June 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court naming as defendants SMG as the operator of the Superdome, the Board of Commissioners of the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District (the "Board") as the owner of the Superdome, and Kyle France ("France") in his official capacity as chairman of the Board.³ Plaintiff brings claims against the Board and France for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. , and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.⁴ Plaintiff brings claims against SMG for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the ADA.⁵ Plaintiff also seeks recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs.⁶

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff has a disability and relies on an electric wheelchair for mobility.⁷ Plaintiff alleges that he has been a Saints season ticket holder for over 30 years.⁸ Plaintiff alleges that prior to 2011, his seat was located on a wheelchair accessible raised platform in the 100 Level section of the Superdome.⁹ Plaintiff alleges that in 2011, Defendants began extensive renovations on the Superdome and reconfigured the accessible seating section for patrons with disabilities.¹⁰ Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the renovations, the wheelchair accessible seating at the Superdome was moved to other positions where the views are obstructed by barriers and other patrons or players standing during the game, or the seating is not fully accessible by wheelchair.¹¹

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have been on notice of ongoing accessibility issues for many years.¹² According to the Complaint, in 2008 the United States Department of Justice conducted an inspection of the Superdome and issued a report detailing violations of ADA regulations.¹³ Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were sued by private litigants in 2018 regarding ongoing accessibility violations.¹⁴

As a result, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to comply with various parts of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.¹⁵ Plaintiff seeks compensatory and nominal damages along with declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.¹⁶

B. Procedural Background

On December 13, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant SMG's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.¹⁷ Accepting as true the allegations in the Complaint, the Court found that SMG could be held liable as an operator of the Superdome because SMG controls modification of the Superdome and could cause the Superdome to comply with the ADA.¹⁸ Additionally, viewing the allegations in the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court found that Plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were timely because the Complaint was filed within one year of SMG allegedly denying Plaintiff "the full and equal enjoyment" of a place of public accommodation.¹⁹ However, the Court found that Plaintiff's claim regarding future renovations was not ripe for judicial review.²⁰ Accordingly, the Court granted the motion to the extent it sought dismissal of Plaintiff's claim regarding future renovations but denied the motion in all other respects.²¹

On February 19, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants the Board, France, and SMG's "Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiff's Remaining Claims."²² The Court found that under the alteration standard, Plaintiff does not have to show that a proposed modification is "readily achievable" and even under the Second Circuit's burden-shifting framework, Plaintiff identified some manner in which the alteration could be, or could have been, made readily accessible.²³ Furthermore, the Court found that five of Plaintiff's alteration claims relate to accessibility at the 100 and 200 Levels.²⁴ However, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claim that the entire facility must comply with the alteration standard by providing accessible seating stadium-wide.²⁵

On February 21, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part SMG's "Motion for Summary Judgment on Modifications."²⁶ The Court found that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding SMG's level of control over the Superdome such that SMG could be considered the operator of the Superdome.²⁷ Additionally, the Court found summary judgment inappropriate as to Plaintiff's claims regarding the physical size and location of the video monitors; however, the Court granted summary judgment dismissing any claim as to the content on the video monitors.²⁸ Lastly, the Court found that National Football League regulations do not alter Defendant's obligation to comply fully with applicable accessibility standards and the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities ("ADAAG") unless it is virtually impossible to do so.²⁹

On February 21, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Board and France's "Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiff's Remaining Claims."³⁰ Plaintiff did not oppose dismissal of his claims against the Board and his request for monetary damages against France; accordingly, the Court dismissed those claims.³¹ However, the Court determined that Plaintiff's claim against France for injunctive relief under Title II of the ADA would proceed under the doctrine of Ex parte Young .³² Lastly, the Court found that Plaintiff's claims were not time barred.³³

On February 21, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff's "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment."³⁴ The Court first addressed the preliminary issue of timeliness and standing before turning to whether Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the alteration claims.³⁵ First, because there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding whether SMG is an operator under Title III, the Court determined that Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment against SMG.³⁶ Second, the Court determined that Congress's use of the present tense suggests that a new claim accrued each time that SMG allegedly denied Plaintiff "the full and equal enjoyment" of a place of public accommodation; therefore, the Court found Plaintiff's claims are timely.³⁷ Additionally, the Court found that SMG had not shown that Plaintiff's claims should be barred under the doctrine of laches.³⁸ Third, the Court determined that Plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief because: he has suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent; the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of Defendants; and it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.³⁹ Lastly, the Court found that genuine issues of fact exist as to each of Plaintiff's alteration arguments.⁴⁰

A trial without a jury was held from March 2, 2020 through March 3, 2020.⁴¹ On May 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed post-trial briefing and Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.⁴² On June 3, 2020, SMG and France filed post-trial briefing and Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.⁴³ On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants’ post-trial briefing and Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.⁴⁴

II. Findings of Fact

The parties agreed to many of the facts relevant to the Court's...