Betancourt v. Federated Dept. Stores
Decision Date | 10 August 2010 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. SA-09-CA-856-XR |
Citation | 732 F.Supp.2d 693 |
Parties | Guadalupe BETANCOURT, Plaintiff, v. FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Pete Marlin Monismith, Thomas B. Bacon, P.A., Apollo, PA, for Plaintiff.
Paul E. Hash, Rachel D. Ziolkowski, Jackson Lewis LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendant.
On this date, the Court considered Defendant Macy's West Stores, Inc.'s 1 Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 8), and the Response thereto.
Plaintiff Guadalupe Betancourt, a Kansas resident, filed her original complaint against Defendant Federated Department Stores on October 20, 2009, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiff is mobility impaired and uses a wheelchair. She alleges that she visited the Macy's store ("the property"), located in Ingram Park Mall in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas, and plans to return there in the future. Plaintiff alleges that, when visiting the property, she encountered architectural barriers that discriminate against her on the basis of her disability and have endangered her safety. Plaintiff contends that she has suffered and will continue to suffer injury until Defendant is compelled to make its property ADA compliant.
After Plaintiff filed her Complaint, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Specifically, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff lacks standing because she cannot demonstrate an injury in fact given that Plaintiff has failed to establish "that there is a realistic likelihood she will return to the subject property." Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff's Complaint is mere boilerplate language that lacks sufficient factual detail to state a claim. Defendant complains that paragraph 10 of the Complaint, which identified the alleged ADA violations, is composed of legal conclusions. For example, though it asserts that certain parkingspaces violate the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"), it fails to identify the location of these spaces. Defendant moves the Court to either dismiss the Complaint or require Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint to address the alleged deficiencies.
In response to Defendant's motion, Plaintiff both filed a response (docket no. 11) and an Amended Complaint (docket no. 12).2 In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, again seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and costs pursuant to Title III of the ADA. She alleges that she is mobility impaired and uses a wheelchair. ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges that "Defendant has floor, display, and counter plans, policies and specifications common to all stores nationally which cause each store to violate the requirements of the ADA by narrowing spaces between displays to prevent wheelchair passage and by providing counters with excessive height." ¶ 3g. In paragraph 6, Plaintiff alleges:
¶ 9. In paragraph 10, Plaintiff alleges that a preliminary inspection has revealed violations with regard to parking, entrance access and path of travel, access to good and services (, and restrooms. , dressing rooms, counter height, and lack of signage) ¶ 10. Plaintiff alleges that she "and all other individuals similarly situated, have been denied access to, and havebeen denied the benefits of services, programs and activities of the Defendant's buildings and its facilities, and have otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by the Defendant because of the Defendant's ADA violations." ¶ 11. In paragraph 12, Plaintiff alleges that Macy's has discriminated by failing to correct architectural barriers, failing to reasonably modify policies and procedures, and failing to provide auxiliary aids and services. ¶ 12.
The Amended Complaint did not provide more factual detail than the original Complaint. Rather, it primarily added allegations intended to address Macy's assertion that Plaintiff lacks standing, including that Macy's has a policy or practice of discriminating against disabled persons who must travel long distances to visit a Macy's store. ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleges that "Macy's discriminates against and deprives disabled patrons of their civil rights accorded under the ADA unless such patrons have made a long term plan many months in advance to attend a particular Macy's store on a specified day" and that Macy's requires disabled patrons to visit a Macy's store multiple times "before their rights vest." ¶ 3.
Defendant has filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint (docket no. 13). Therein, Macy's admits that it operates the store in Ingram Park Mall but otherwise denies Plaintiff's allegations. In its first affirmative defense, Macy's continues to assert that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring these claims.
Defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) based on Plaintiff's asserted lack of standing. The Court must dismiss a cause for lack of subject matter jurisdiction "when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." See Home Builders Ass'n of Mississippi, Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir.1998). In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant toRule 12(b)(1), the Court may consider: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts, plus the Court's resolution of disputed facts. Freeman v. United States, 556 F.3d 326, 334 (5th Cir.2009). When a motion to dismiss is based on the lack of jurisdiction on the face of the complaint, the plaintiff is left with safeguards similar to those retained when a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is raised-the court will consider the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true. Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 412 (5th Cir.1981).
"[T]he irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). These elements are "(1) an 'injury in fact' that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) the likelihood...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gilkerson v. Chasewood Bank
... ... Hunter II, 2013 WL 4052411, at *5 n. 8; Betancourt v. Federated Dept. Stores, 732 F.Supp.2d 693, 704, 709 (W.D.Tex.2010) ... ...
-
Anderson v. Macy's, Inc.
... ... is a disabled person under that statute and that Defendants' retail stores are public accommodations under the ADA which fail to comply with ADA ... See Lescoe v. Pa. Dept. of Corrs. SCIFrackville, 464 Fed.Appx. 50, 53 (3d Cir.2012) (this Court ... plaintiffs are hunting for violations just to file lawsuits.); Betancourt v. Federated Dept. Stores, 732 F.Supp.2d 693, 710 (W.D.Tex.2010) (Thus, a ... ...
-
Anderson v. Kohl's Corp., Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00822
... ... is a disabled person under that statute and that Defendant's retail stores are public accommodations under the ADA which fail to comply with ADA ... See Lescoe v. Pa. Dept. of Corrs. SCI-Frackville, 464 F. App'x 50, 53 (3d Cir. 2012) ("this ... are hunting for violations just to file lawsuits."); Betancourt v. Federated Dept. Stores, 732 F. Supp. 2d 693, 710 (W.D. Tex. 2010) ... ...
-
Van Winkle v. Pinecroft Ctr., L.P.
... ... to move around, sues the lessees, owners, or operators of stores, restaurants, and other businesses, including restrooms and the parking ... See , e ... g ., Gilkerson , 1 F. Supp. 3d at 581-82; Betancourt v ... Federated Dept ... Stores , 732 F. Supp. 2d 693, 703-06 (W.D. Tex ... ...
-
Virtually Inaccessible: Resolving Ada Title Iii Standing in Click-and-mortar Cases
...organization . . . does not intend to comply [with Title III of the ADA].'" Id. (first quoting Betancourt v. Federated Dep't Stores, 732 F. Supp. 2d 693, 707 (W.D. Tex. 2010); and then quoting Betancourt, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 701); Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 950 (9t......